Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (150956)	9/6/2002 10:26:25 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586391

Concidently, there was a Rep. Congress......so what. He's the one that pulled it off.....not Bush Sr. or Reagan. This is utter nonsense. Newt Gingrich was THE FACTOR that made this happen. Clinton had no choice.

To: tejek who wrote (150956)	9/6/2002 1:29:03 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586391

No not just when Clinton was president. Going at least back to the end of the recession in the early 80s. I am afraid you're mistaken. With the exception of the last three years of the decade, the unemployment rate ranged between 7-10% in the 80's That may be true but it isn't really relevant to what I posted. I didn't say anything about the unemployment rate in the US at this time except that it was normally lower then the unemployment rate in Europe. Concidently, there was a Rep. Congress......so what. He's the one that pulled it off.....not Bush Sr. or Reagan. Hardly a coincidence it was a main theme of the Republicans in congress who had been pushing for it for years without having the power to enact it. If there was no Republican majority there never would have been serious welfare reform. Sweden is very close to being predominately socialist I'm not so sure that is true. They have high tax rates but most of their industry is in private hands not owned by the government. The kibbutzim in Israel are socialistic almost completely, and to my knowledge, none are in danger of collapsing. I think they are subsidized, and they are not as socialistic as they used to be, also they are small not a whole national economy. The real practice of socialism is not some decadent system on the verge of collapse but rather one with different goals and standards than ours. I am not sure that its preferable but its not horrible either. Basically reverse every part of that statement other then the fact that it has different goals and standards and you have my opinion. Tim

To: tejek who wrote (150956)	9/10/2002 9:15:36 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586391

Actually, the Socialist Party in Sweden has never had the power to force real socialization of the economy, it is merely an advanced welfare state, as are the other major countries of Western Europe. The definition of capitalism is not very difficult: it is a situation where the principal investment decisions are made through a predominantly free market in capital, whether through stocks, bonds, or bank loans. Although there is more social legislation in Western Europe, including protective legislation for certain businesses, and greater government intervention in disputes between labor and capital, these countries are mainly capitalist, and that is the engine that has produced sufficient wealth to support the social legislation.