Why do most developed countries favor socialism more than the US?


#1

As far as developed countries go, the US seems more capitalist compared to other developed countries. Most developed countries today are socialist (oh yeah, before someone objects, socialism does seem like the correct term, at least in theory). I always wanted to know.


#2

Because they’re 'way ahead of us in decadence.


#3

The US was born in classical liberalism. Only England (among European countries) is involved in that and England was never fully on board.


#4

They become wealthy and then forget why.


#5

Lol they became wealthy and forgot why.


#6

The root of it is probably the American frontier. Wide open spaces. Space for folks to pick up and move on, and find the next opportunity. When one can travel, and be able to do so for over 200 years, from the one end of a continent to the other, in a land without borders and trade barriers, one is naturally more apt to jealously guard individual liberty and autonomy, and the freedom to conduct commerce. We also have long-standing charitable and philanthropic traditions that serve as a counterweight to government assuming those roles. And we’ve always been able to attract waves of immigrants to do most of the dirty work!


#7

Reminds me of an interview supposedly conducted by a REAL journalist around the turn of the last century. In NYC, a journalist went to a construction site in Manhattan. He asked the same question of half a dozen men working there. The first guy was asked, “What are you doing?” He snapped back, “I’m stacking backs of cement. What does it look like?” The second guy, asked the same question, said, “I’m moving these boards, you moron!” The third guy said, “I’m digging a hole. What did you THINK I was doing?” The fourth said, “I’m hammering nails.” The fifth replied, “Go away. I don’t have time to answer stupid questions.” The sixth guy–obviously an older man, recent immigrant who was digging a ditch with a shovel–when asked what he was doing replied, “I’m a-buildin’ a cathedral!” It’s all in one’s attitude, people.


#8

They got their wealth and development on capitalism, and are coasting on it. But the problem with socialism, as Margaret Thatcher pointed out, is that eventually you run out of other people’s money. Socialism cannot sustain what capitalism created, let alone create much of anything on its own; it’s a dead end. That’s why the Soviet Union went bankrupt. It’s why a number of European contries are on the rocks. And there’s plenty of socialism in the U.S.; and we’ve got the unsustainable nearly 20 trillion dollar debt to show for it.

Well, they forgot how, anyway.

Actually, the have-nots forgot how; or didn’t care in the first place. They just want what they want and, as sci-fi Robert Heinlein put it, think it constitutes natural law.


#9

Consider the so-called strongest examples like the Scandanavian countries, I think the facts of where socialism works is a hint at why it doesn’t. Scandanavian countries have substantial portions of their economy based in oil exportation from natural resources in the North Sea. Socialism can succeed where it can be supported from outside the system, be it from previously generated wealth or natural resources. I just don’t think the concepts fit with human nature and fall apart in an economy based on industry or service.


#10

Those resources will not last forever hence why Socialism is unsustainable. A system should be able to support itself and not rely out outside help. That is Economics 101. Where socialism does work is on the local scale(think police a fire service).


#11

Actually, there are some geologists who believe oil IS a renewable resource. It is NOT a fossil fuel for, there hasn’t been enough life on the planet since it’s creation to have produced that much oil. Besides, if there had been, oil wouldn’t be produced by the mere decomposition of the body, otherwise all our cemeteries would be crude oil reserves (on a small scale). The hypothesis is that deep in the Earth’s crust, near the mantle, methane (the most abundant compound - not only on Earth, but in the known universe) is converted to crude due to the extremely high heat and pressure.

That being said, other developed countries lean towards socialism because THEY CAN, WE have appointed ourselves the world’s police force and have, basically, defended “the West” with OUR military. Canada, France, England, Germany, Greece, Spain, Australia, etc have not fully funded THEIR militaries because they didn’t have to. They were then able to funnel those monies to social programs.

jes’ sayin’


#12

That being said, other developed countries lean towards socialism because THEY CAN, WE have appointed ourselves the world’s police force and have, basically, defended “the West” with OUR military. Canada, France, England, Germany, Greece, Spain, Australia, etc have not fully funded THEIR militaries because they didn’t have to. They were then able to funnel those monies to social programs.

jes’ sayin’

Yup. They’re free riders.


#13

[quote=“Timberwolf, post:11, topic:47864”]
Actually, there are some geologists who believe oil IS a renewable resource. It is NOT a fossil fuel for, there hasn’t been enough life on the planet since it’s creation to have produced that much oil. Besides, if there had been, oil wouldn’t be produced by the mere decomposition of the body, otherwise all our cemeteries would be crude oil reserves (on a small scale). The hypothesis is that deep in the Earth’s crust, near the mantle, methane (the most abundant compound - not only on Earth, but in the known universe) is converted to crude due to the extremely high heat and pressure.

That being said, other developed countries lean towards socialism because THEY CAN, WE have appointed ourselves the world’s police force and have, basically, defended “the West” with OUR military. Canada, France, England, Germany, Greece, Spain, Australia, etc have not fully funded THEIR militaries because they didn’t have to. They were then able to funnel those monies to social programs.

jes’ sayin’
[/quote] Quite right, Timberwolf! I’m glad someone besides me understands that. A few years ago, a driller sank a well on 160 acres that had been ignored but in the middle of a supposedly-“played out” oilfield in Eastland County, Texas, hoping to get a 10 or 20 bpd producer. The well blew out and spewed high-grade, “sweet” crude oil at the open-choke rate of 12,000 bpd! When it was shut down by Red Adair’s company (he didn’t JUST put out fires), the ground rumbled. The “allowable” production was set at 100 bpd and it’s been producing that since the mid-80’s with no let-up in sight.

In the early 1970’s, the “experts” were predicting that we’d run completely OUT of oil by 2000. Today, the PROVEN reserves exceed what we knew about 45 years ago! Right here in the U.S., we have enough PROVEN reserves to supply ALL of our needs for the next 200 years and we’ve explored only about 20% of the U.S.