Post: #26

It's not socialism to begin with.

Post: #27

(04-10-2013 08:24 PM)Vicious Wrote:  It's not socialism to begin with.

When people say socialism in the USA, they really mean social democracy.

Post: #28

(04-10-2013 08:26 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(04-10-2013 08:24 PM)Vicious Wrote:  It's not socialism to begin with.

When people say socialism in the USA, they really mean social democracy.

Hah. But any sensible person knows we are a socialist corpocracy.

[email protected] people hating Germans for losing the war.

Germans had the best military in the world at the time, the best tactics, the best disciplined soldiers, etc.
Germans are really extraordinary people.

Hitler just wanted too much. (holocaust, Fighting Russia, Fighting Britain, and eventually being worn out by the time the fresh American soldiers came by it was a cakewalk)

I can't see how you're saying socialism works. The most extreme form of socialism, (communism), ruined the Eastern bloc countries. Eastern Germany was shit compared to Western. FSU is still recovering, China's growth, although rapid, it's per capita is still rather low. North Korea.. fucked up..

taking something dumb(communism) and making it less extreme(socialism) is just making a shitty problem slightly less shitty.

Post: #29

(04-10-2013 05:49 PM)Greek kamaki Wrote:  German system can work only in Germany because people are very smart there and their high IQs allow for a very high level of organization which is impossible in other countries.All parts of the machine work coordinated and harmonically bringing maximum result and effectivity impression.There are one million things which make Germany.
American system is one of indigenous optimism that everything is possible after education regardless of the people involved in it.Americans are not equal in any sense.There are huge differences in race,culture,education,income,personal abilities.Germans balance around a high average much more than Americans and this allows socialistic distribution of income without it looking unnatural.(so what if sb works 20% more and gets 20% less? if it is good for the balance of the system?).

Managers in Germany are usually former workers who know the practical aspects of the job very well,have respect from the other workers and get paid just 1.5 or double more than them while in USA they do not come from workers stock and get paid 100 times more.The difference in view of who actually gets the job done and needs to rewarded is clear.Germans take pride in their achievements as workers they do not regard them as obligatory,despised labor and do not react as herd but with personal individuality and responsibility.It is taken for granted there that you think and take intitiatives for quality improvement instead of applying strict fool proof guidelines.
This again is possible cause of the high intelligence and diligence of the German population.They are generally very accurate both in speech and hand movements.They act and think insanely fast.They are also natuarl managers and leaders.(no relation to passive Slavs or lazy Mediteraneans).Generally the Germans are hektisch they always want to do sth they never relax.

You hit the nail on the head.

Germans are on average [I’m generalizing here] very industrious, diligent, efficient, pragmatic, organizational etc. All of these stereotypical German attributes.

They might not be the most creative people in the world, to say the least, but they can efficiently execute complicated tasks and direct and organize themselves that puts other nations to shame. Those are their strengths.

Hence the history of precision tool making, precision machinery, high-end manufacturing. And also, organizational skills, used for both good and evil, I might add.

Post: #30

(04-10-2013 06:50 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  It is a damn shame they aren't procreating.

Don't go there it’s an invite to the race supremacists who will start railing over muslims and blacks taking over Europe. Besides, nativity rates being low currently is something that can be offset in a generation or two of growth such as after WWII.

Post: #31

Yes, true, to call Germany "socialist" would be a misnomer. It's a mixed economy, with a lot of capitalism.

Any country that is purely socialist devolves into a giant shit hole rather quickly.

Post: #32

I wasn't trolling this thread. When Germany falls. God help the rest of us.


*can someone STILL come up with a working worm gear? No. Chinas shit will wobble. But Tim Ferris said outsource. True. Indian worm gears only wobble 1:1.0000000. So they say. Indians can't produce fuck.

The last stand is Americans,Brits, Germans, S. Korens.

This isn't a troll post. Whose producing who? Oil. Gas. Manu. Military. Ect.

Post: #33

It's because Germans take pride in their work. Americans just show up and expect to be paid. It's a different mentality.

Post: #34

(04-10-2013 11:41 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  It's because Germans take pride in their work. Americans just show up and expect to be paid. It's a different mentality.

They lay bitch from 2 beatings. I love them but.....

Post: #35

(04-10-2013 08:22 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  America has Bill Gates. Germany doesn't.

American had Steve Jobs. Germany didn't...and never will.

America innovates amazing advances -- Germany advances the design and technology of things already created.

America pushes the envelope and its entrepreneurs take risks -- Germany stay inside the envelope.

Karl Benz, Werner von Braun, Albert Einstein say hello.

Post: #36

If you guys want to see innovation? Dig fucking deep, and research Panzer batteries. They came in wooden boxes and are still used to to this day. Sometimes tenderman is blinded by cataracts. Forgive him.

Ignore what whinerman100 said. When he actually quits his job with Best Buy, he'll appreciate German engineering. Feel free free to PM me as to my experience with those men who think above us. I talk shit but revere to a true German Engineer. So does companies in the U.S. that think outside the box. True story.

Post: #37

Kamaki's answer is the closest. Firstly Germany actually rewards work, it sees those that sell their labour and endear to put product to market as important. You see in wages and wage share of Gross national Income (GNI) Some people may not be more enterprising than selling their labour, but will still see reasonable fruits from engaging in this.

American's, much like much of the anglosphere, see thesmelves as exceptional little snowflakes who are all budding genius' and billionaires if only the welfare recipient on $30 a day would stop sucking their blood, so we dedicate so much angst about kicking the ribs of those already at the bottom of the pile.... whilst crony bankers walk away with billions, and now we see the 'too big to fail' now become 'too big to jail'.

We do this because we think with one little break, with one ounce of luck combined with our unique awesomeness, we can easily achieve those riches... we don't impose any morals or barriers to them...because we believe we are them, and soon we will engage is as equally a lavish lifestyle...

It is imposssible for everyone to be rich, it is one of the simplest understanding of economics, it is production even before the concept of money is applied.

The anglospehere cannibalises itself, and ensures a majority endear hardship, to benefit those that end up in the minority. We even have symbols to guide the way to 'success'.

Someone as completely devoid of any talent whatsoever, like Britney Spears, projects her success due to drinking Pepsi, due to the makeup she puts on, the clothes she wears... so just we do. Someone has to be made a symbol of success, otherwise we wouldn't chase.

Germany understand they are all in it together.. thus even those that do nothing but sell their labour are playing ball, because they are amply rewarded and continue to work hard.

Germans work hard, because work will get them somewhere.

Americans look for the next (and bigger) hustle, because work will get them nowhere.

Post: #38

(04-10-2013 09:16 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  I can't see how you're saying socialism works. The most extreme form of socialism, (communism), ruined the Eastern bloc countries. Eastern Germany was shit compared to Western. FSU is still recovering, China's growth, although rapid, it's per capita is still rather low. North Korea.. fucked up..

taking something dumb(communism) and making it less extreme(socialism) is just making a shitty problem slightly less shitty.

Because he is observing a country that has socialised medicine, and tertiary socialised education, and a generous wlefare system... the 3 major cornerstones of socialism, and is wondering why isn't the country in a state comparable to Somalia... because that's what the propoganda about socialism tells us.

One would argue why does a socialised country such as Germany actually acheive better societal outcomes than even the U.S., the bastion of anti-socialism.

If socialism had no merits, it couldn't acheive any better outcomes.

Post: #39

Germany isn't socialist. Neither are any of the Scandinavian countries. The term has been so misused. The only real socialist countries left are Cuba, North Korea, etc.

Having social welfare programs (that goes for every country in the West) does not mean you run a socialist system. The difference between us and Canada/Europe is that we have the bare minimum of social welfare programs.

Post: #40

So the definition of socialism is being changed now?

Post: #41

(04-11-2013 12:16 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  American's, much like much of the anglosphere, see thesmelves as exceptional little snowflakes who are all budding genius' and billionaires if only the welfare recipient on $30 a day would stop sucking their blood, so we dedicate so much angst about kicking the ribs of those already at the bottom of the pile.... whilst crony bankers walk away with billions, and now we see the 'too big to fail' now become 'too big to jail'.

Stop categorizing the 1% percent into the "angloqueer". You'd be surprised in America. Some of us still hold the line. We don't fall inline with Aussie and Brits. You gave up your rights to women. Stop hating. We'll be there, but let us live our last breath.

Post: #42

(04-11-2013 12:20 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  One would argue why does a socialised country such as Germany actually acheive better societal outcomes than even the U.S., the bastion of anti-socialism.

If socialism had no merits, it couldn't acheive any better outcomes.

If you think the US is anti-socialist, you haven't lived there. I've lived and worked in a few European and Asian cities and have yet to receive a tax bill demanding as large a % of my pay as I did when a California resident.

As far as outcomes, you're confusing correlation with causation. The quality of the US population has declined hugely over the last 50 years so the whatever system we adopted would perform poorly. For example, look at the huge amount spent on education in places like Camden, NJ. SHOCK! They still perform poorly. Japanese students somehow perform much better despite much less on education. Same with health care. Huge spending and yet everyone is a sickly fat slob. Somehow the French are healthier with much less spending.

This doesn't show that socialism works since these more "social" states are spending less per capita and achieving better results. The US would be doing great if throwing money at problems solved them. The above shows that culture and population quality trump gov spending.

Post: #43

(04-11-2013 12:29 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  So the definition of socialism is being changed now?

Mixed economy, dude. Capitalism and socialism mixed together.

Post: #44

T and A Man,

You're all over the place but let's address a few things. First of all, Britney Spears has sold 100 million records. Whatever you have to say against her just remember there are 100 million people on the other side of that opinion. I don't care for her music either, but facts are facts. I'm not exactly a Michael Jackson fan either but I respect the man for selling over 1 Billion records. To call these people talentless is a bit disingenuous.

It's important to stay away from the the silly national stereotypes. Americans by far lead the world in worker productivity along with Norway, Netherlands, etc. Those are facts.

Post: #45

T and A man, good points but I think that our countries (Australia and Canada) are economically different in comparison to the USA and the UK because we don't really create or invent very much, I can't think of any Australian innovations or products off the top of my head and the only Canadian one I know of is Blackberry and we all know how well that company has been doing lately. If it wasn't for our vast natural resources that we dig out of the ground, I strongly doubt that we'd be enjoying the high standard of living that we do today.

Post: #46

(04-11-2013 12:45 AM)Lemmo Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 12:20 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  One would argue why does a socialised country such as Germany actually acheive better societal outcomes than even the U.S., the bastion of anti-socialism.

If socialism had no merits, it couldn't acheive any better outcomes.

If you think the US is anti-socialist, you haven't lived there. I've lived and worked in a few European and Asian cities and have yet to receive a tax bill demanding as large a % of my pay as I did when a California resident.

Socialism doesn't mean it a government draws its tax receipts from income tax. Perhaps California would be wiser to broaden its tax base and disperse it over various economic activities.

Quote:As far as outcomes, you're confusing correlation with causation.

As far as the sentiment goes, I'm not having to disprove an negative.

The U.S does decry socialism as the causation of negative social outcome.

Even so me here, some decry socialism as the causation of 'it does not work'.

Quote:The quality of the US population has declined hugely over the last 50 years so the whatever system we adopted would perform poorly.

How do you measure the 'quality' of the people?

Quote:For example, look at the huge amount spent on education in places like Camden, NJ. SHOCK! They still perform poorly.

Various socialised education schemes around the world have varying qualitiative outcomes with not much correlation to levels of spending I agree.

But socialism isn't about 'more spending equals better outcomes'. Socialism is about access, access that would otherwise be denied based on fiscal ability alone.

Quote:Japanese students somehow perform much better despite much less on education.

Their system is still socialised.

Quote:Same with health care. Huge spending and yet everyone is a sickly fat slob.

Where? Japan?

In the U.S., which has the least socialised healthcare service in the OECD world, it is the most funded, at around 14% of GDP, compared to the OECD average of ~7%, and has no materially better outcomes....

..for the utlity of health provision...

it has better outcomes for the doctors paypacks, it has better outcomes for shars in health care providers, but that shouldn't be the primary measure, and very little other economic activity we measure by that.

We measure by the utility of the product, and as far as the u.s goes, it doesn't really deliver better outcomes. Also, the non-socialised model means many do not have access to many forms of healthcare.

Spend twice as much, get the same results, and some are locked out... hmm.

Quote:Somehow the French are healthier with much less spending.

See above... you don't actualyl seem to know what socialism is, yet are arguing against it.

Quote:This doesn't show that socialism work since these more "social" states are spending less per capita and achieving better results. The US would be doing great if throwing money at problems solved them. The above shows that culture and population quality trump gov spending.

yep... throwing money at them isn't socialism.

Socialism is common product that are centrally funded so no one is denied access. Even if no one has their own income, they aren't denied access to the product.

The antitheses of socialism is that access is determinant on one's own means to afford it.

Post: #47

(04-11-2013 12:55 AM)scotian Wrote:  T and A man, good points but I think that our countries (Australia and Canada) are economically different in comparison to the USA and the UK because we don't really create or invent very much,

I'm not denying that, I am highly critical of Australia being devoid of innovation, especialyl in recent times. it seems to be a factor highly correlated with countries engaged in primary production, and even more so mineral extraction.

But I am playing the ball, not the man.

But that said, we here have own own fetish of protecting Gina Rinehart, because we too think we can be her if we drive our Hilux out bush for 14 days and find a new Pilbara. meanwhile our disadvantaged are always copping a hiding.

Post: #48

(04-11-2013 12:49 AM)megatron Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 12:29 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  So the definition of socialism is being changed now?

Mixed economy, dude. Capitalism and socialism mixed together.

No, socialism is access, not 'economy'.

Post: #49

(04-10-2013 03:00 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

Quote:By American banking standards, the savings banks are incredibly dull. But they didn’t lose money in the financial panic of 2008 and have financed an industrial sector that makes ours look anemic by comparison.

http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com...t-germany/

I understood that German banks were among the hardest hit during the financial crisis.

See this summary to "The Big Short" below, or the entire piece (a long read, but interesting treatment of how the Germans did business). Basically, the Germans trusted that AAA rated products were worthy of their rating, and got burned.

Quote:Lewis asks how people as intelligent, successful, honest and well organised as the Germans got drawn into such a mess and he concludes: “Others do not behave as Germans do: others lie. The same instincts that allowed them to trust the Wall Street bond salesmen also allowed them to trust the French when they promised there would be no bailouts, and the Greeks when they swore that their budget was balanced."

Post: #50

(04-11-2013 12:52 AM)A CLOCKWORK TRADER Wrote:  T and A Man,

You're all over the place but let's address a few things. First of all, Britney Spears has sold 100 million records. Whatever you have to say against her just remember there are 100 million people on the other side of that opinion. I don't care for her music either, but facts are facts. I'm not exactly a Michael Jackson fan either but I respect the man for selling over 1 Billion records. To call these people talentless is a bit disingenuous.

Not, she has zero talent. She is picked so millions of equally talentless drones continue to not grow, not develop or improve themselves, and thinking the way to success is drink the same soft drink and wear the same clothes and makeup and Britney Spears.

Path of least resistence is offerd, a lot easier than reading, practicing and building ones body.

Britney Spears has no talent, she is chosen because someone with talent is too intimidating. The talentless wonders can see someone they can't aspire to, everyone with an autotune can be Britney Spears.

Quote:It's important to stay away from the the silly national stereotypes. Americans by far lead the world in worker productivity along with Norway, Netherlands, etc. Those are facts.

I didn't deny anything about productivity. I'm am talking about the manifestation, and resulting form of the type individualism the U.S has.

It's obervable everywhere, even here with apsiring entreprenuers giving us an inkling of their next hustle, of which large parts involve hiring labour for the cheapest price, and all about capturing margin.

it's a nice fetish, but as I've infered, the german's understand the person actually doing the work... doing the labour, needs to feel rewarded too.