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 (151005)	9/6/2002 3:53:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586426

Ted I say - "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." and you reply with "it was the German unemployment rate that was the lower of the two." Can you understand why that doesn't really respond to what I said or do I have to explain it? For European unemployment rates look at kc.frb.org chart one particuarly post 1983. Also I notice that your response is from a reply to an article that is arguing the opposite of the letter writer's claim, and the letter does not include the date from the article. Tim, there is no way you know that.....Clinton would have had some control over a Dem. controlled Congress and most likely, would have gotten the legislation passed. And no matter who thought up the reform......to the victor go the spoils. The Republicans had been pushing welfare reform since before Clinton was a governor, then Clinton comes in and has a Democratic congress and doesn't get it passed or I think even try to. Then the Republicans get elected with welfare reform was one of their main themes and it does get passed, and you give Clinton credit. Yeah that really makes a lot of sense. That's true.......but we are talking socialism, not communism. Socialism can be a hybrid of capitalism and communism. I think what you are calling communism would be called socialism by Marx. Communism was supposed to be the theoretical (as in it never actually happened) advance state where everything was owned in common by the people and no government or only minimal government was necessary because the working people would be enlightened and share according to people's needs while producing according to their abilities. Socialism was supposed to be the in between state where the government controlled most of the means of production. The hybrid that is in Europe is a hybrid between socialism and capitalism. The so called "mixed economy". And your opinion would be fine if you had the facts but you seem to have learned everything about socialism/communism from 1950's cold war propaganda. I do have the facts. The more socialism is put in to a countries economic system (at least past a tolerable minor amount) the less successful that economy has been. The predominantly socialist systems fell apart because they where economic basket cases. In some cases (Eastern Europe and USSR) the governments fell apart, in others (Peoples Republic of China) the Communist Party stayed in power of a nominally socialist/communist government but allowed a lot of capitalism in to the system. Even if less extreme cases, when economies reduced the amount of socialism (such as the US under Reagan, and the UK under Thatcher) they unleashed a lot of growth and greater economic success. And in mainland Western Europe while there was no real major market reform there was a halt of the gradual drift to more and more socialism as the countries realized that it was unsupportable. As for where I get my opinions from 1 - It isn't really relevant to the issue, and 2 - It is mostly from my own reasoning, to the extent it is from others it is from the writings of people like Adam Smith, Hayek, and Friedman. Tim