• 53 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Edamame (28282 posts) 1 year, 6 months ago

Poll: Which economic system is better: Capitalism or Social Democracy? (33 votes)

Capitalism 39%
Social Democracy 61%
#1 Posted by Edamame (28282 posts) - - Show Bio

I have been thinking about this because I am still analyzing the current economic situations in the United States and the European Union. It seems that both have its pros and cons.

#2 Posted by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

Social Democracy. Underlined and in bold for profound emphasis.

#3 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3561 posts) - - Show Bio

I've always viewed pure capitalism as the most evil sort of economy. It's employs selfishness as it's only control, and expects the world to just...even out.

#5 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3561 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame said:

@kal_smahboi said:

I've always viewed pure capitalism as the most evil sort of economy. It's employs selfishness as it's only control, and expects the world to just...even out.

Interesting. The bad thing about Capitalism is that greed isn't punished. I don't know if that is what you were getting at, but this is a good point.

That's actually my point. Greed isn't punished, it's encouraged. The idea is that if everyone just looks out for themselves, a middle ground will be reached for everyone. Not only does that simply not work out, it's altruistically unethical.

#6 Posted by Lvenger (20723 posts) - - Show Bio

Capitalism doesn't look out for others and after reading some info on social democracy, it sounds like a much fairer way to live.

@lykopis said:

Social Democracy. Underlined and in bold for profound emphasis.

Canada's a Social Democracy isn't it? Lucky you for living in a fairer economic system.

Online
#7 Edited by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio

This isn't what economic situation is fairer it is which economic situation is BETTER.

Capitalism gives more power to the consumer, and the producer relies on the consumer.

Even saying Capitalism is subjective as there are MANY types of capitalism. I say that the best form is Laissez-faire. You may say that capitalism is unfair and promotes corporations I however view it as the opposite. The absolute power rests in the hands of you the consumer. If you do not like what a company is making or how they make it simply don't buy their product.

Government control has never and will never be a good thing for an economy as they use it to their own ends and never for the people.

The sole role of the government should be to protect its citizens not interfere with their lives (even if it be for their benefit).

#8 Edited by deadpoolrules (4683 posts) - - Show Bio

Anarchy!Anarchy!Anarchy!

Actually,social democracy,its something fair and square.

#9 Posted by Bruxae (14004 posts) - - Show Bio

Communism.

#12 Edited by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame: Make America Laissez-faire? I would say it is as impossible as making America into a pure communist society. Nothing short of a revolution could even come close and even then it is highly unlikely that the new government would institute something so beneficial to the people. I would argue that now America is a mixed economy (but again true capitalism and true communism are impossible to achieve and have never been implemented)

And your right Facism is closer to Communism then Capitalism (actually a lot closer). I mean the Nazis were called the National Socialist for a reason.

@edamame: Sweden is closer to socialism than say America but it is still far from it (most of the economy is controlled by private business). Sweden is very different from America population wise and to implement the social policies from Sweden in America would absolutely wreck our economy (simply put there are to many people here in America for something like that to work) I hear that tax evasion is a huge problem over there and though there healthcare quality is quite good many people have to wait a long time just to get treated. I have relatives who work in healthcare and you should hear some of the asinine things that people will try and get treated for. Sweden is a good country no doubt about it I don't think any sane individual will say it isn't but it is facing problems just like the rest of the world and shouldn't be made out to be a paradise like some people do.

I also agree that to many taxes on citizens is detrimental to the economic situation of any country. I believe that taxes stifle economic growth and discourage spending.

On to inflation, I don't think any government has successfully controlled inflation (if you can give me an example it would greatly help) just look at countries where the government "controls" inflation (North Korea/Cuba). The economy like any other thing has its ups and its downs to pretend you can control it and maintain it perfectly is pure fantasy. Supply and demand is what determines the cost of things and both are effected by a consumer who isn't being interfered with by the government. Even our governments institution (which isn't even owned by the government) the Federal Reserve can't control the economy any more than a rider can control a raging bull.

@bruxae: O look we got a dreamer :P suggest you pick up a book called Animal Farm.

#13 Posted by Edamame (28282 posts) - - Show Bio

@bruxae: O look we got a dreamer :P suggest you pick up a book called Animal Farm.

That's a critique on Stalinism, isn't it?

I'll get back to your other reply post later.

#14 Posted by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame: Yes it is, it does not attack communism but what can come out of it and its good intentions.

#15 Posted by Aiden Cross (15575 posts) - - Show Bio

Unfortunately my country has been growing towards capitalism more and more. Which actually does nothing but increase the economic unrest among the citizens. Even well respected economics say that the way things are currently going is only bringing the country into a negative spiral. Social democratic is the way to go, without a doubt.

#16 Edited by laflux (16806 posts) - - Show Bio

Being a left of center liberal- if something like that exists :P, I think it would be obvious that I would choose social democracy. This is not to say that significant elements of capitalism are bad however.

@lykopis said:

Social Democracy. Underlined and in bold for profound emphasis.

Social Democracy

Also with a limited edition header function. I take payment via card, cheque and cash by post.

Edit, and it would be nice if some fat cats capitalists came to defend there cause. Who ever would have guessed that a comicbook forum would be tend more towards the left. Oh my D:

#17 Posted by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio
#19 Posted by laflux (16806 posts) - - Show Bio
#20 Posted by Rogan2112 (600 posts) - - Show Bio

Simple question. How many countries that have the Social Democracy economic system have remained successful and prosperous, and stable enough to survive downturns (btw...how're things goin' Greece?) for any serious length of time? Now, ask the same about countries with Capitalist economic systems.have had these problems. In FACT the two MAJOR and one minor signigicant economic crisis we've had were under Presidents with like minded Congresses who were trying to reform us into Social Democracy. Proof is pretty much in the pudding. Just sayin...

#21 Posted by joshmightbe (24937 posts) - - Show Bio

Social Democracy isn't an economic system I believe you're talking about socialism which is actually far better in theory but completely opposed to human nature.

#22 Edited by consolemaster001 (5818 posts) - - Show Bio

Social Democracy seems to be more universally helpful.

#23 Edited by 0007supermanDC (13 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame: This is not hard, at all if you work hard you can do well in either system. The media blows up the states finical crisis, sure its bad but its not like we are hopelessly doomed that's just what people with little economic understanding try to say.

I have a P.H.D. i went to school a long time i know this sort of thing.

#25 Posted by joshmightbe (24937 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame: Social Democracy is a whole political system that Socialism is part of calling it an economic system would be like calling an entire car a wheel.

#26 Edited by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio

SD

The only way someone like me has a chance to get more good stuff!

#27 Edited by thespideyguy (2642 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame said:
@lykopis said:

Social Democracy. Underlined and in bold for profound emphasis.

Thank you for the post. :)

Canada is considered to be Social Democratic, right? Also, I'd love to hear your thoughts on why you think it is the better system or your thoughts on the cons of Capitalism and such.

@kal_smahboi said:

I've always viewed pure capitalism as the most evil sort of economy. It's employs selfishness as it's only control, and expects the world to just...even out.

Interesting. The bad thing about Capitalism is that greed isn't punished. I don't know if that is what you were getting at, but this is a good point.

Greed makes innovation.

#28 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (18396 posts) - - Show Bio

Social Democracy.

#29 Edited by guttridgeb (4832 posts) - - Show Bio

Capitalism overall but with some socialist elements sprinkled about.

#30 Posted by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame said:
@lykopis said:

Social Democracy. Underlined and in bold for profound emphasis.

Thank you for the post. :)

Canada is considered to be Social Democratic, right? Also, I'd love to hear your thoughts on why you think it is the better system or your thoughts on the cons of Capitalism and such.

@lvenger said:

Capitalism doesn't look out for others and after reading some info on social democracy, it sounds like a much fairer way to live.

@lykopis said:

Social Democracy. Underlined and in bold for profound emphasis.

Canada's a Social Democracy isn't it? Lucky you for living in a fairer economic system.

I can only wish Canada enjoyed a total Social Democracy. We have some of the tenets in place (Universal Healthcare -- Education - Welfare - Employment and Pension Programs and subsidies for tertiary education). I think once we get Universal Daycare, we will be on our way to being a true social democracy. Presently, the political party in parliament is Conservative although it would be considered more central in its thinking as compared to say the Republican Party in the United States.

There are so many levels of what people would consider socialist and capitalist but for the purpose of this thread, I would say capitalism in its purest form will never be fair. Arguments put forth about consumer driving price, has too many fallacies, in that government has many policies in place to protect its domestic product. Let's say any company in the entire world was able to sell its wares to any country in the entire world. It would be chaos, economically. There are slogans like "Buy Domestic" for a reason and while it certainly helps the economy of your home country -- it goes to the pickets of the big wigs before trickling down to the lowly worker in the lowest paying position of the company. It's complicated and exhausitive but I think it's fair for people on both sides to be critical of the other. What I do claim -- quite strongly - is that out of the two -- Social Democracy is heads above in terms of equal human progress when placed side by side with Capitalism.

Money begets money. Money from the pockets of the less wealthy make their way to the most wealthy and this has been left unfettered and arguably encouraged by tax breaks to corporations. The numbers do not lie -- more and more the disparity between the haves and have nots is growing -- the middle class is disappearing and it's not in an upward direction.

Any political ideal should be an evolving one -- Capitalism gives no quarter whereas Social Democracy does. Simple arguments like "work hard and you will succeed" are no longer viable in the economic climate today.

#31 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3561 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame said:
@lykopis said:

Social Democracy. Underlined and in bold for profound emphasis.

Thank you for the post. :)

Canada is considered to be Social Democratic, right? Also, I'd love to hear your thoughts on why you think it is the better system or your thoughts on the cons of Capitalism and such.

@kal_smahboi said:

I've always viewed pure capitalism as the most evil sort of economy. It's employs selfishness as it's only control, and expects the world to just...even out.

Interesting. The bad thing about Capitalism is that greed isn't punished. I don't know if that is what you were getting at, but this is a good point.

Greed makes innovation.

Greed makes rich. Need makes innovation.

#33 Posted by Aiden Cross (15575 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame: there is a bigger divide between rich & poor. And we have to reach a quotum of 3% for our country. Which means making heavy cutbacks according to our political leaders. But the cutbacks come at the cost of the poor/middle class because we're the biggest group. The problem is, what they're doing isn't making cutbacks but increasing the financial loads on people. And many people are now in debt simply because they can't make ends meet.. Everything is going up, cost of food, taxes, health insurance, rent etc and the pay you're recieving (if you're lucky enough to have a job) is only going down or stagnating.

I don't think it'll be long before you start seeing an uproar in my country. And that's a pretty big deal because my country hardly ever does that. We complain, but muscle through and do as we're told. But we only go so far..

#35 Edited by INFINITE_DOOM (273 posts) - - Show Bio

Social democracy not saying capitalism is bad but unchecked and unregulated makes a system beneficial to the producers not the consumer.

#36 Edited by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame: Corporations do get greedy but that is easily combated with strikes and unions. Now though unions have become bloated and just as corrupt as the corporations, they are unnecessary and kill economic growth... The most obvious example of this is Detroit.

I believe colleges should focus exclusively on academics when giving scholarships. It is ridiculous that an athletic meat head with a GPA of 2.5 gets in and someone with a 4.0 gets shafted. But one problem with what you said, who would pay for all those scholarships to go to college?

I don't have a favorable view of the Federal Reserve (not even owned by the government) but if they really want to help they should stop printing as much money so that the value of the dollar can increase.

Also I am half Canadian and I can tell from family experiences that the healthcare system there is flawed. My grandfather died of a heart attack because an ambulance took 30 minutes to get to his house (by the way the hospital was within a few miles of the house). My uncle complained of head aches and got put on a waiting list for months and ended up dying of brain cancer.

@infinite_doom: The consumer always can control the producers. They can boycott goods and buy other products to influence the producers.

#37 Edited by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame said:

@lykopis: Interesting post. Those are excellent ideas, and I agree with you. I only have some points:

1. How can low-wage workers afford the high taxes that exist in Social Democratic nations? More specifically, how does this play out in Canada? Do the living wages (higher minimum wages) create more unemployment?

2. I have heard some Canadians complaining about their health care system. You have probably heard this before, but they say that there are long waiting lists, you don't always get helped when you need immediate assistance and the health care service is of better quality in private health care systems. Now, I will admit that I know nothing about the private health care system in Canada.

3. I completely agree. The notion that "hard work always leads to success" is silly. Nothing is a guarantee in life. It is a very subjective idea as well.

4. Also, is there an issue in Canada regarding the decrease in value/worth of a college/university degree? I think it should be done in moderation (just like everything else, of course).

1) I am extremely over simplifying things here for the sake of time, but the short answer is that low-wage workers can afford the high taxes which exist in Social Democratic nations because many things are paid for by these taxes which they would be responsible without (such as daycare, education, health services, pensions, etc). Here in Canada, a family will not lose their home or have to declare bankruptcy because someone has cancer and needs surgery to which they would be unable to afford unless it was Universal.

2) Of course there are complaints -- and there is always room for improvement. However, it is nowhere as near terrible as some claim it to be. You are sick? You can see a doctor. Do you live in an area that is under serviced? Then you might have a hard time finding one but then again, you can still go to the nearest clinic. We are a large country, but we are sparsely populated and most of us live near the U.S border so those who live more north do not have access to the same amount of health care. To combat this, the government is giving out incentives to new doctors to do their placements in under serviced areas in hopes they will remain in those communities when they embark on their careers. The supposed long waiting lists are always being tackled -- our healthcare is provincially run so the governments are expected to provide information in regards to short-comings and in turn, provide action plans to combat them. The population itself is constantly changing -- the needs reflected with cause some shortcomings and overinflated areas in our health systems but they are tackled and they are addressed. It's not an instant thing -- but it's what is in place now until something better comes up to be more efficient in servicing Canadians.

You always get help when you need immediate assistance. Even foreigners. No one is left to die on the streets. As for private health care being better -- it depends on the criteria set out to make it so. Will you have a more comfier hospital room? Better food while in the hospital? Awesome waiting rooms? Will you get your twisted ankle x-rayed in one hour instead of waiting for two or three? Probably. But you will be taken care of and you will not be placed in any waiting list where you are forced to cross your fingers and hope you don't die before it's "your turn". You are still being seen by your family doctor in the interim and should your health issue be one of which immediate attention is needed, you will get your life-saving surgery.

There will be stories like an ambulance showing up too late -- or someone's cancer killing them before the surgery could be performed, but those are unfortunate situations. Ambulances are not expected to arrive so late (in fact -- it is not uncommon to see Ambulance Vehicles at the sides of road - like police cars - to make sure they respond well within the guidelines set out) and in terms of dying before surgery -- some cancers and other illnesses are unfortunately extremely aggressive. I am not excusing anything, but before taking up the idea things are not working, look a bit more deeply into the examples put forth as to why and the answers are usually easy to locate.

3) Yeah. It drives me nuts, to be honest.

4) It's not so much a decrease in value/worth in a college/university degree as to the expectation most students think it guarantees them jobs -- and well paying ones at that. Graduate schools, yes, you usually go straight into the field you have studied for but in terms of bachelor degrees, etc -- all it does is meet the criteria of companies who state they require tertiary education. It is not uncommon to have someone obtain a four year degree in say -- media -- then go off to a community college to do a two year certification course to start working behind the camera in a studio -- that type thing. To me -- the education gained in university should be a right given to everyone -- not just for the knowledge but to level the playing field. The more expensive the degree the more the divide in terms of who will get that entry level job and that's not fair to the people who have been working since it was legal to just to afford cost of living. Scholarships -- subsidies and even things like Student Loans don't fix this disparity and even worse, fosters a huge debt-load on people who after graduation can't do anything to contribute to the economy when they are paying off these loans.

lol -- sorry -- a bit long there. It's complicated but simple at the same time. The ideology, anyway. Society is what's complicated. :)

#38 Edited by JokerTheShining (178 posts) - - Show Bio

Whatever system Norway and Sweden has, I want that. They have a system that's less likely to drive people suicidal.

#39 Posted by Rogan2112 (600 posts) - - Show Bio

@jokertheshining: Ummmmm, you used a really bad example here. I get your point, but Norway actually has one of the highest suicide rates in the world...

#40 Posted by Rogan2112 (600 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis said:

@edamame said:

@lykopis: Interesting post. Those are excellent ideas, and I agree with you. I only have some points:

1. How can low-wage workers afford the high taxes that exist in Social Democratic nations? More specifically, how does this play out in Canada? Do the living wages (higher minimum wages) create more unemployment?

2. I have heard some Canadians complaining about their health care system. You have probably heard this before, but they say that there are long waiting lists, you don't always get helped when you need immediate assistance and the health care service is of better quality in private health care systems. Now, I will admit that I know nothing about the private health care system in Canada.

3. I completely agree. The notion that "hard work always leads to success" is silly. Nothing is a guarantee in life. It is a very subjective idea as well.

4. Also, is there an issue in Canada regarding the decrease in value/worth of a college/university degree? I think it should be done in moderation (just like everything else, of course).

1) I am extremely over simplifying things here for the sake of time, but the short answer is that low-wage workers can afford the high taxes which exist in Social Democratic nations because many things are paid for by these taxes which they would be responsible without (such as daycare, education, health services, pensions, etc). Here in Canada, a family will not lose their home or have to declare bankruptcy because someone has cancer and needs surgery to which they would be unable to afford unless it was Universal.

There are two major problems with this idea. The BIG one is: Why in the HELL would I trust ANY government with the authority to spend the majority of my money on anything? This depends way too much on A. Having an honest and competent government. B. Trusting that the NEXT set of government officials will A. Do as good a job. B.Take hold of what they've already got, and taking steps in insure they have more.

The second problem is it makes lazy people lazier and offers little incentive for extra achievement. "Why the heck should I break my back harder every day to feed, clothe, medicate, and house some deadbeat?" is not an unusual or unreasonable complaint I have often heard.

2) Of course there are complaints -- and there is always room for improvement. However, it is nowhere as near terrible as some claim it to be. You are sick? You can see a doctor. Do you live in an area that is under serviced? Then you might have a hard time finding one but then again, you can still go to the nearest clinic. We are a large country, but we are sparsely populated and most of us live near the U.S border so those who live more north do not have access to the same amount of health care. To combat this, the government is giving out incentives to new doctors to do their placements in under serviced areas in hopes they will remain in those communities when they embark on their careers. The supposed long waiting lists are always being tackled -- our healthcare is provincially run so the governments are expected to provide information in regards to short-comings and in turn, provide action plans to combat them. The population itself is constantly changing -- the needs reflected with cause some shortcomings and overinflated areas in our health systems but they are tackled and they are addressed. It's not an instant thing -- but it's what is in place now until something better comes up to be more efficient in servicing Canadians

You always get help when you need immediate assistance. Even foreigners. No one is left to die on the streets. As for private health care being better -- it depends on the criteria set out to make it so. Will you have a more comfier hospital room? Better food while in the hospital? Awesome waiting rooms? Will you get your twisted ankle x-rayed in one hour instead of waiting for two or three? Probably. But you will be taken care of and you will not be placed in any waiting list where you are forced to cross your fingers and hope you don't die before it's "your turn". You are still being seen by your family doctor in the interim and should your health issue be one of which immediate attention is needed, you will get your life-saving surgery.

There will be stories like an ambulance showing up too late -- or someone's cancer killing them before the surgery could be performed, but those are unfortunate situations. Ambulances are not expected to arrive so late (in fact -- it is not uncommon to see Ambulance Vehicles at the sides of road - like police cars - to make sure they respond well within the guidelines set out) and in terms of dying before surgery -- some cancers and other illnesses are unfortunately extremely aggressive. I am not excusing anything, but before taking up the idea things are not working, look a bit more deeply into the examples put forth as to why and the answers are usually easy to locate.

This one sort of covers the last two statements. From all I've read, the reality of the situation is somewhere more towards the middle. I've heard and read of MANY cases of Canadian.patients having to wait for months for simple procedures like MRIs. Worse, there are some procedures that patients have had to travel to the US to have done (NOT making this up) because either the procedure or the equipment is so new (within a year or so) that it doesn't yet exist outside the US. HOWEVER, no I've never believed (except in certain crazy cercumstances) that anyone who needs emergent care had to wait an overly long time for an Ambulance or urgent ER care.

3) Yeah. It drives me nuts, to be honest.

4) It's not so much a decrease in value/worth in a college/university degree as to the expectation most students think it guarantees them jobs -- and well paying ones at that. Graduate schools, yes, you usually go straight into the field you have studied for but in terms of bachelor degrees, etc -- all it does is meet the criteria of companies who state they require tertiary education. It is not uncommon to have someone obtain a four year degree in say -- media -- then go off to a community college to do a two year certification course to start working behind the camera in a studio -- that type thing. To me -- the education gained in university should be a right given to everyone -- not just for the knowledge but to level the playing field. The more expensive the degree the more the divide in terms of who will get that entry level job and that's not fair to the people who have been working since it was legal to just to afford cost of living. Scholarships -- subsidies and even things like Student Loans don't fix this disparity and even worse, fosters a huge debt-load on people who after graduation can't do anything to contribute to the economy when they are paying off these loans.

To be very honest....this is happening in the US as well.

lol -- sorry -- a bit long there. It's complicated but simple at the same time. The ideology, anyway. Society is what's complicated. :)

Dang I dig stimulating debate and conversation.

#42 Edited by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

@rogan2112 said:

There are two major problems with this idea. The BIG one is: Why in the HELL would I trust ANY government with the authority to spend the majority of my money on anything? This depends way too much on A. Having an honest and competent government. B. Trusting that the NEXT set of government officials will A. Do as good a job. B.Take hold of what they've already got, and taking steps in insure they have more.

This is too cynical a view. Perhaps the biggest issue is that the government has elected representatives that are rich enough to run for office. I can give you statistics of just how rich most of your Senators and Congressmen are -- so the idea they would be thinking about the little guy is not exactly possible. They have given bailout after bailout to corporations, have lowered taxes to the rich and raised them on the middle class. So if your argument is against giving that kind of power (higher taxes for social programs) to these people, then I am right there with you. Make it illegal to have anyone sponsor or donate to any campaign -- make it a low set amount -- no commercials, no gimmicks and then you will see who truly wants to make a difference and do something for their country. People will then vote for who they want, not a lesser of two evils which is what it seems to be right now. Tell me, do the American people REALLY believe they are being fairly represented in their government? I don't think so. So make changes there first and then aim for a socially responsible government.

@rogan2112 said:


The second problem is it makes lazy people lazier and offers little incentive for extra achievement. "Why the heck should I break my back harder every day to feed, clothe, medicate, and house some deadbeat?" is not an unusual or unreasonable complaint I have often heard.

Come on now. Yes, there might be people out there with nothing on their minds than taking advantage of social programs but since I know you are a father, do you really believe a young woman, alone with her newly born child in the middle of the night is thinking she wants her life repeated by the little human gripping her pinkie with its little hand? Welfare is not fun. No one wants that. Not really.

This way of thinking is unfortunate. That deserves it's own thread -- social responsibility shouldn't be discarded out of hand because it's easier to consider people in need as deadbeats and lazy free-loafers. I can run so many analogies and also, this is a matter of opinion. I do however feel very strongly that whoever has the attitude the poor are littered with manipulators of social program - it should be an opinion reached after having experienced some time with those economically challenged. I can assure you -- with high confidence -- that the attitude they are lazy and free-loading will be shaken.

@rogan2112 said:

This one sort of covers the last two statements. From all I've read, the reality of the situation is somewhere more towards the middle. I've heard and read of MANY cases of Canadian.patients having to wait for months for simple procedures like MRIs. Worse, there are some procedures that patients have had to travel to the US to have done (NOT making this up) because either the procedure or the equipment is so new (within a year or so) that it doesn't yet exist outside the US. HOWEVER, no I've never believed (except in certain crazy cercumstances) that anyone who needs emergent care had to wait an overly long time for an Ambulance or urgent ER care.

I am a Canadian. I have lived in Vancouver and I am presently in my country's largest city so I have been in many communities where doctors have been in abundance and in communities where you needed to drive out of your community to visit one. I am very knowledgeable when it comes to medicare in rural areas -- especially with our First Nations and Inuit peoples and can be very specific in terms of what is lacking and not lacking. It's access to the care, not the availability of care that is an issue.

Waiting lists for MRIs were one of the problems we had -- absolutely -- and the stories about people having to be sent to the States to have MRIs done is true. Not at the cost of the patient -- all paid for by our government. This is no longer an occurrence as like I mentioned in my earlier post -- a lack of machinery was identified and so became a focus to combat this. We have more MRI machines, I assure you.

As for any procedures unavailable in Canada -- there are specialists in the States which in country of 300 million, would be more likely than in our country of 30 million. If there is a procedure that has been approved by our government's standards, then yes, we will send that patient to another country to have the procedure done. This actually supports what I am describing. How is it a bad thing that my government is willing to pay a doctor or medical institution entirely in another country to save the life or treat a condition of one of its citizens? Furthermore -- this creates a stronger incentive to bring such specialists or training for such procedures into our country as it would be more cost effective do do so.

It's not perfect -- true -- but in the end -- it is not out of pocket for the patient - for a citizen of Canada. This is universal medical care. If you visit my country, get hit by a car, have life saving surgery and then recuperate in one of our hospitals, you will not be charged. It's basic human decency.

Here's a story for you. I got an ear infection while in Florida visiting and was charged $300 dollars to get the diagnosis in an ER department (you don't have 24 hour clinics which some areas in Canada do have) and also paid $300 dollars for the medication. When I returned to Canada, I had the cost of visiting the doctor reimbursed by my government -- which I have since learned is a common occurrence in the particular hospital I visited to charge as much as they can when treating visiting Canadians.

Looks like some of my medicare dollars make their way into American pockets. Those freeloaders! (seriously -- extreme facetiousness there ;P)

Cool discussion -- I love it too!

@edamame said:

lol No worries. I appreciate this informative post. I am sorry that you had to type so much. 0.0

3. Indeed. As a matter of fact, the hard workers are often the ones who earn low wages.

4. I see. Well, I was simply looking at it from a Supply and Demand view. The higher the supply of something, the lower the value/worth. So, the more college degrees, the more a college degree becomes like a high school diploma. That's how it is in most of America. However, having a college degree in the Midwest or the South will put you at an advantage because the two aformentioned regions are the least "well-educated" (in terms of people who have or don't have a Bachelor's, Master's or Doctoral degree) regions of the United States. Of coursing, having a college degree is also not an absolute necessity. Some people think otherwise.

Education isn't a product to me -- it should be universally accessible without restraint to whomever wants it. What is taught at a college level should be the very least given to every human being -- the more educated the population, the more successful the society in terms of economic strength.

#43 Edited by Violens (543 posts) - - Show Bio

Anarchy

#45 Edited by Illuminatus (9510 posts) - - Show Bio

If social democracies produced such wealth, power, and respect, why is the world's most notorious "capitalist" country protecting the ever so vulnerable and cushy Europe, Canada, and other industrialized states who adopt these systems? Capitalism and the freedom to innovate on an industrial scale is what saved the Western world (specifically Europe) from becoming a cadre of Soviet Socialist Republics, comrade.

On that note, anyone who proffers the idea that the current United States is a "capitalist" system has no understanding of capitalism or the United States, and I might go so far as to say a complete and utter lack of knowledge on the subject of macroeconomics. Keynesianism (which is what we are currently attempting to practice, but mixed with a nice side dish of corporatism) is voodoo-capitalism, which is only possible after immense periods of unfettered markets which constantly innovate and create wealth. 'Social democracies' work in nations with natural cohesion between language and cultural identity, not in monolithic nations with a wide range of people such as the United States.

Move to the Nordic nations or the European Union Fourth Reich if you want social democracy. Hell, move to Canada. Just don't be surprised when your leaders go to the big, mean, uncaring, unsympathetic "capitalist" nation when they realize they can't wage a full-scale war without going into abysmal amounts of debt.

#46 Posted by Illuminatus (9510 posts) - - Show Bio

@laflux said:

Being a left of center liberal- if something like that exists :P, I think it would be obvious that I would choose social democracy. This is not to say that significant elements of capitalism are bad however.

They're typically called socialists.

#47 Posted by JokerTheShining (178 posts) - - Show Bio

@jokertheshining: Ummmmm, you used a really bad example here. I get your point, but Norway actually has one of the highest suicide rates in the world...

I really don't say this often though, but here it goes---I don't believe you.

3rd world area has tons of developing countries that is known for dominating the world on the equation of suicide rates, just until the data updates became false in recent years, or stopped completely. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China, these are suppose to be leading the list on suicide rate.

Talk about narrow job options for a citizen, these people live it like a real zombie drone in the developing, restless economy they're in. They're trapped in some kind of system you only see in sci-fi horror movies. The only reason why Norway's suicide rate seems like it's climbing is because developing countries has either stopped updating the info, or decided to give false data instead.

Why would places like Norway, which lives their economy on having bred with an environment for a constant flow of visiting tourist, give out false data, when places like Japan, Korea really need to keep it a secret just so their unforgiving culture won't lose its grip on their citizens, entirely.

Even if the data is correct (which it isn't), Norway is rated 35 on the list. 35 is too weak to be called having a high suicide rate.

#48 Edited by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

@edamame:

I am a big believer in self-directed learning. If anything, I think a great idea is to make libraries/internet available to everyone and push the attitude of "question everything".

Also, a well-educated population can certainly help spur economic growth, but there are some examples that do not exactly fit that formula. For instance, Germany, China, France, Brazil, India and Russia all rank in the top ten in terms of the size of their gross domestic product (GDP), but these countries do not rank in the top ten most well-educated nations on the planet

Very true. However, most of the countries mentioned have a) the strength of population and b) horrible social and human rights infractions. It comes down to what is considered valuable. The only country I see on that list that is doing well across the spectrum is Germany and France and where they fail is in their immigrant populations. Both countries need to work on that, socially.

@illuminatus said:

If social democracies produced such wealth, power, and respect, why is the world's most notorious "capitalist" country protecting the ever so vulnerable and cushy Europe, Canada, and other industrialized states who adopt these systems? Capitalism and the freedom to innovate on an industrial scale is what saved the Western world (specifically Europe) from becoming a cadre of Soviet Socialist Republics, comrade.

On that note, anyone who proffers the idea that the current United States is a "capitalist" system has no understanding of capitalism or the United States, and I might go so far as to say a complete and utter lack of knowledge on the subject of macroeconomics. Keynesianism (which is what we are currently attempting to practice, but mixed with a nice side dish of corporatism) is voodoo-capitalism, which is only possible after immense periods of unfettered markets which constantly innovate and create wealth. 'Social democracies' work in nations with natural cohesion between language and cultural identity, not in monolithic nations with a wide range of people such as the United States.

Move to the Nordic nations or the European Union Fourth Reich if you want social democracy. Hell, move to Canada. Just don't be surprised when your leaders go to the big, mean, uncaring, unsympathetic "capitalist" nation when they realize they can't wage a full-scale war without going into abysmal amounts of debt.

You are being facetious. You have to be. Peppering your argument about cushy Europeans and Canadians turning to the States for protection means what? Your country's economy is being crushed by its expenditure on its military, true. Based on what you've shared, economically speaking, being powerful in terms of military might perpetuates economic strength? Or do you mean that because other countries supposedly rely on the States for protection, they are free to spend money on social programs, leaving the States to foot the bill to keep world wide peace?

Social democracies (I am ignoring your rabbit ears, lol) do not only work in nations with "natural cohesion" (I am placing rabbit ears on that) between language and cultural identity. That's an unfortunate opinion as I understand you to mean it places naturalized citizens as secondary citizens.

As for Canada, while monolithic in geographic size and not in population, we legally and in our constitution regard all citizens equal (although I would say we are terrible still with our First Nations people) and so all our social programs are available for all. The United States and Canada have the same identity in terms of politics. We are not a social democracy, we are very much capitalist but its lessening. We have economic strength (arguably) and so are lucky enough to turn our eyes to social issues. To me its an evolution, and as more countries who enjoy a true democratic system gain economic strength - they will also be in a position to be like the Nordic countries.

The United States are not forced to do anything in terms of going to war for other countries. How about the populace vote in people who believe money spent on military is better spent on social programs (like education, etc) and let the world stand on its own two feet. It would be interesting to see how things would turn out.

@illuminatus

As for respect and power - those are subjective terms. What I respect and find powerful when I think of certain societies I think differs very much from yours.

#49 Posted by Illuminatus (9510 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis: So much verbosity and semantical rhetoric, so little substance. Typical Cannuck. At least you're not some lazy Quebecer who moans about zee evilz of capitalizm and American irrationality. Hmph! :P

Dude, if I wanted to seriously debate a social democrat or a leftist (which I have done in the past for my Econ./PolySci courses and on other forums) I would cite actual research and statistics which shatters the notion that social democracies are capable of beating out free market capitalist systems. If my dubbing of the European Union as the 'Fourth Reich' (although this is easily applicable to the prevalent economic circumstances in Europe, given that Germany remains the world's most pernicious currency manipulator in our day and age) was not indicative of my lackadaisical mentality towards this thread, then maybe next time I'll plaster the post with "Hello, I'm a realistic American who isn't going to truly take seriously a discussion railing against capitalism and circlejerking social democracies while forgetting the fact that the best social democracies employ far more free market oriented capitalism than the US does."

TL;DR I was being facetious the entire time. The minute someone puts together a sardonic and ostensibly meaningful argument against social democracies and for free market capitalism, the lefties start coming out guns blazing (or perhaps we should go with mouths blazing, given that I know y'all can't stand the thought of shooting guns), and I wanted to see who would be first. Thanks for playing.

#50 Edited by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio