| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Socialist countries; based on % social expenditures to GDP | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 15 2013, 02:23 AM (653 Views) | |
| tomdrobin | Dec 15 2013, 11:37 PM Post #21 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We do spend a lot of money on food assistance, unemployment and welfare much of which would be totally unnecessary if we dealt with the income inequality problem. We should be taxing wealth a whole lot more and putting that money to work upgrading infrastructure etc. creating jobs. We should also discourage the offshoring of jobs. Doing so just makes big money for investors, but isn't sustainable. Even Henry Ford new that paying his workers a decent wage was good for business, as they would be customers. |
![]() |
|
| Banandangees | Dec 16 2013, 12:08 AM Post #22 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Still resorting to BS instead of the thread and link content I see. Well, is Canada considered a "socialist country" or not?.... and if so, by whom? Or if not, by whom? |
![]() |
|
| colo_crawdad | Dec 16 2013, 12:24 AM Post #23 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Canada is probably not socialist if one consults any normal economic definition o socialism. |
![]() |
|
| Banandangees | Dec 16 2013, 12:34 AM Post #24 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Would you site some of those "normal economic" definition sources of socialist countries? Then maybe we could get back to get back to how "social expenditures" related to GDP suggest just how "socialistic" countries are and how the US stacks up to Canada in that regard... which is what this thread originally was about. |
![]() |
|
| colo_crawdad | Dec 16 2013, 02:38 AM Post #25 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sure. "Definition of 'Socialism' An economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production. Socialism emphasizes equality rather than achievement, and values workers by the amount of time they put in rather than by the amount of value they produce. It also makes individuals dependent on the state for everything from food to health care. China, Vietnam and Cuba are examples of modern-day socialist societies. Twentieth-century socialist governments were overthrown in Czechoslovakia, East Germany and the U.S.S.R." LINK Or: "A society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialized or cooperative enterprises. The practical issues of socialism comprise the relationships between management and workforce within the enterprise, the interrelationships between production units (plan versus markets), and, if the state owns and operates any part of the economy, who controls it and how. ‘Feasible socialism’ would take the form of a mixed economy, with enterprises large and small, many if not most self-managed or cooperative, and some privately owned." LINK Edited by colo_crawdad, Dec 16 2013, 02:44 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 16 2013, 02:51 AM Post #26 |
|
Deleted User
|
I would define Canada as social democratic. |
|
|
| Banandangees | Dec 16 2013, 03:00 AM Post #27 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, I would do the same. It was one of the left minded here who mentioned that the right wing nuts don't know the difference between a social democracy and socialism. And by that definition, and after reading the study by the OECD, I would define the US as social democratic. |
![]() |
|
| Banandangees | Dec 16 2013, 03:10 AM Post #28 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Although this link is a comparison of Communism to Socialism, I think this is a more pure definition of Socialism Communism vs Socialism And, I don't see Canada coming even close to that..... So, we are really talking about a definition more close to what Telco (and I) call a "Social Democracy"..... with the US, according to the OCED, being somewhat more excessive with it "social expenditures." Edited by Banandangees, Dec 16 2013, 03:10 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Dec 16 2013, 03:47 AM Post #29 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I would agree, Telco. That description also applies to every country in the EU. Sweden was for may years about the closest thing to pure Socialism we've ever had on the planet. It worked for a while, but eventually centralized planning and citizen demands did it in, and it's pretty much middle of the road Social Democratic now. No pure "ism", be it Socialism, Capitalism, Communism or Feudalism, can ever work over a long period. |
![]() |
|
| colo_crawdad | Dec 16 2013, 03:51 AM Post #30 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If one is looking strictly at the economic system in Canada, I would say it is the same as the United States, a mixed economy. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




10:13 PM Jul 11
