rberq wrote:On Norway: You asked me to name a country where liberalism worked. I did. Now you are arguing why it SHOULDN'T work. But it does. So forget about your shoulds and should nots. .
Sorry to have been so long to have gotten back with you. I hate it when real live gets in the way of what I really want to do. I went back and looked at what I had written and I never said Norway's socialism works. I said it can’t work over the long haul. It may appear that it’s working at this time, just as our Social Security and Medicare appears to work but it is unsustainable just like Social Security and Medicare. I found it very interesting that I couldn't find one negative report on the government, medical system or educational system on the internet. They may be there but I couldn't find them and since I don't really care, I didn't press the issue. My first thought as to why negative stories don't exist is because the government controls the media. Nay, that couldn't happen, right. I do know that socialism takes the desire to strive and succeed out of any population it's been tired with. Look at France or Great Britain. Individual in those countries strive for mediocrity. I don't know about you but I am not raising my children to be drones. I'm raising them to be CEOs.
rberq wrote:On slavery: It was just a snide remark on my part -- an example of what can happen with unfettered capitalism.
It's unfortunate that the victors, i.e. the north get to write the history from their point of view. If the history of slavery in the United States had been written by impartial historians, they would have reported that by the start of the Civil War, slavery was being phased out as unsustainable. It just didn't make sense economically - it's cheaper to pay someone to do the work then to have to house and feed them. Slavery could not compete with the Industrial Revolution.
rberq wrote:On capitalism: You say the benefits are split among those that produced the product, based on their efforts. That is the theory, but... When Chinese labor built the railroads in this country, were the profits split equitably among those who did the work? No, the profits went largely to those who owned the assets, and many of those assets were outright grants from the government, which wanted railroads to be built. When there is a glut of labor, those who own the capital take advantage of the situation by driving down wages -- look at the situation in this country right now! When there is a dearth of labor, the unions stick it to the corporations. Benefits are split on the basis of who has the power, not who did the work.
Why do you have to dredge up the most horrible instances in an effort to support your point? I think we can all admit that what the Chinese Laborers went through to build the railroads was terrible. We’re they inadequately compensated? No, does that make capitalism wrong. No, it makes those individual who implemented it to be wrong. Modern day capitalists are taking high risks to bring their products to market. Look at the people at Apple. To me that is a shining example of the best of capitalism. Would you even consider paying the fork lift driver the same as the CEO or CFO? No, the CEO took personal risks on future benefits when deciding to further his education and experiences in order to benefit him down the road. Don’t bother telling me that the fork lift driver didn’t have the same availability of schooling to him. In this country, everyone is required to be educated and with a little work you can become a Justice of the Supreme Court or CEO of a Fortune 500 business. Again, I say that isn’t available in any other country.
So… I’m long winded with my feedback but I hope this answers your posting. I would hate to think you thought I was ducking the question. My life got really busy at this point in time so I won’t be continuing on with the conversation. If I didn’t cover something send a PM. Lisa