Adam Smith's invisible hand....
unfortunately divine providence doesn't exist...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Rev...unlike USA, all European countries are intrinsically socialist
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
unfortunately divine providence doesn't exist...
I don't believe in divine providence.
Just human ambition & the need to survive.
Well...he was very social, at least.
Profit maximization devalues the W (wages)
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The USA is unique in that is a relatively new country composed of immigrants and descendants of immigrants from all over the world. There is no one common culture in the traditional sense of one ethic identity. Rather it is a culture that stems from a merger of many cultures; melting pot. It was a country that evolved based on open frontiers and constant growth, instead of a zero sum game. The pioneer could claim land and add value. The America dream assumes the ability to add value and not just redistribute.
Europe is composed of many counties that are much older by comparison; 1000 year histories, with relatively homogeneous ethnic populations. They were settled much earlier; and have very few open frontiers. It more based on a zero sum game. The homogeneity and long common history makes it easier to feel like a large family; foundation for socialism, but it also has a family hierarchy due to the zero sum game; distinct class system; royalty and old money.
Globalism was an attempt to turn the world into a jumbo USA. The dream was a melting pot of all cultures, via open borders, to form a new world order, without any history. Globalism in Europe turned out to be a dysfunctional family because it increased the number of unassimilated strangers operating within a zero sum game. The established cultures faced hardships; redistribution in the zero sum game, causing the foundation for socialism to become sandy.
It may have worked out better if Globalism had been designed more like free enterprise into open frontiers; not a zero sum game. This would mean the powerful countries would need to migrate into the frontiers of the poor counties to add value and avoid a zero sum game. Poor immigrants migrating to rich countries, using a zero sun game, hurts the locals due to redistribution. Rich counties migrating to poor countries, will find new frontiers to exploit, and can add value for themselves and the locals. This is not zero sum.
For example, England migrated to Hong Kong and India centuries ago to help make them first world countries in the global community. This was not the plan for the new globalism. The plan was backwards and doomed to failure. A return to nationalism was way for counties, with long similar history, to reform the family units needed for a pseudo-socialist foundation; balance operation in a zero sum game.
The Better Globalism would involve copying the old USA, where pioneers migrate to new territories that are still open and ripe for developing; American dream. As they develop these lands, other immigrants will move it until they call reach a zero sum game; fully developed. The exploited countries will evolve until, they can assume their place in the first world.
This is partly true. Let's not forget that by the times of the Pilgrim Fathers, US was a pretty empty land...whereas England or Northern France were densely populated areas.
Or Rome...2000 years ago, reached 1 million inhabitants...now it has almost 3 million ....so the change is not that significant.
NYC was empty in 1620 but now has 8 million inhab.
Europe has always been populated by the same people.
We are nations...we are not lands of immigrants
Dear @Revoltingest...
how can you think that I don't value Capitalism?
Or that socialists don't love Capitalists?
I do appreciate and respect Trump and his success.
I do appreciate and respect Berlusconi and his success.
Capitalism is the condition that enables the socialist state to operate. Because the socialist state uses capitals to invest.
It's just the public interest that leads the socialist state.
how can you think that I don't value Capitalism?
Or that socialists don't love Capitalists?
I do appreciate and respect Trump and his success.
I do appreciate and respect Berlusconi and his success.
Capitalism is the condition that enables the socialist state to operate. Because the socialist state uses capitals to invest.
It's just the public interest that leads the socialist state.
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
There are few purely socialist or capitalist countries. Most are a mixed economy. It just depends on how much of a social safety net is in place. The US needs more, or at least a better one. Update: Ah, Metis, you beat me to it.
Yup, I know. I was talking about how Rev defines such things, rather than the more common vernacular.
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
Oh. I didn't know who Rev was, but duh, now I do. I thought it was some pastor or something.Yup, I know. I was talking about how Rev defines such things, rather than the more common vernacular.
The thought of him leading a congregation is pretty frightening...lol
Because you've advocated socialism.
And without providing a definition of the term
(that I recall) that differs from the standard one,
which ditches captialism.
Love is irrelevant.
I don't respect him at all.
But neither do I consider all his acts failures.
I give him no thought.
IOW, you favor socialism that is capitalism.
Odd.
Tis a well defined bar, ie, "the people" own the means of production.
Finland is capitalist.
BTW, daughter lived there for a bit.
TBH I'm not even arguing the definition, or what is right. Just that I know how you judge such things and how some other people do doesn't always align.
The OP seems to use a personal non-English
definition of the English word, "socialist".
**THREAD MOVED TO POLITICAL DEBATES**
A word invented by us Latins.
Anglo-Saxons shouldn't impose on us Latin a wrong meaning. Because we invented this word, with all due respect, and we do know what it means. With all the utmost respect.
It comes from Latin socius which means ally. That is: that people within a country should be allies to one another and cooperate for the sake of common welfare. Is Capitalism allowed? Sure...but not if it's against the Common welfare as the art. 41 of our Constitution dictates.
Private economic enterprise is free. It may not be carried out against the common good or in such a manner that could damage safety, liberty and human dignity. The law shall provide for appropriate programmes and controls so that public and private-sector economic activity may be oriented and co-ordinated for social purposes.
Reminds me of a friend who opposes evolution of language
& definitions. (The Marxists are behind this perversion.)
He uses old dictionaries (ca 1900) even when the definitions
don't comport with modern usage. He ends up confusing
everyone he talks too. Iconoclasm on steroids.
I recently gave him a 1847 dictionary I had.
That'll really mess him up!
Where was it before? This just showed up in my alerts as a new thread, but it's a five-year-old thread.
One-on-One Debates.