Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
"Socialized business practices" would've never allowed those banks to get in the amount of trouble they did. The whole point of this crisis is that it was "liberal", i.e., unregulated. The whole idea of being a "socialist" country is to ensure that situations like this don't occur, by creating rules those businesses have to adhere to, and so making sure that they live by more or less the same rules as individuals do. What you mention, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with "socialism", and everything with protectionism (which really is something that is more in favor of individual corporations than it is in favor of "capitalism").
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
...
Anyway, nice try dodging having to reply to my response to your statement that "socialism" is ruling the USA now.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tirsales
...
No this is a statement only an american can make. Please - read again what sozialism is and try not to stubbornly repeat what McCarthy said and the yellow press is repeating over and over again.
A general available-for-all system is NOT sozialism and got NOTHING to do with sozialism - in fact, it would be totally acceptable for a capitalistic system.
...
Sozialism is about the ownership of production capabilities.. In fact a capitalistic system is more then able to spend money into companies...
....
|
Thanks. I was thinking it was about time I wrote something about this myself. To be blunt and generalistic, many Americans do seem to be (from what I see/hear/read) under the misapprehension that welfare state equals socialism. It does not.
Please do read 
And Barack Obama is not a socialist
@zerospinboson: I am of the impression that what we call 'liberal' in Europe, is much closer to what they would call 'libertarian' in the US, than what they mean by 'liberal'.