Criticize my idea, please.

[neko kenshi]

Hey, I've been developing an idea for an economic system alot for a while now, and I'd like to see some people's opinions on it, as well as have its flaws pointed out to me.

The basic idea would be semi-socialist state where the government covers most of an individual's basic needs while they cover there wants (assuming that person either has a job or is excempt). The goal would be to create a situation where everyone has enough to live, but there is still motivation to succeed.

People who are employed (defined minimum number of hours per week) or excempt from employment (disabled, grace period between jobs, etc) would be entitled to the following benefits:

1.) A set number of monetary vouchers would be alotted to each working member of society each month based on the number of dependents they could claim. These vouchers would be enough to cover the basic necessities (and could only be spent on those kinds of items) and would be periodically recalibrated to cope with inflation. Essentially money that can only be used on needs.

2.) Free, quality health care. The government would have to regulate it to insure its quality.

3.) Extensive public transportation (I recognize that this would be far more practical in some countries than others).

4.) Free lower level, and either free or heavily subsidized higher level education.

5.) Subsidized housing. This one is a bit more tricky to do. The way I imagine it thus far is that the government will pay a given amount to cover basic housing costs (maybe the bare minimum could even be government provided housing?), and would put that amount towards any housing, with the person paying the difference for any more luxurious housing.

People would still earn money, but much of it would go towards taxes to provide for their needs. Their surplus earnings would go towards providing for their wants.

Pros: The lower class would be much better off. All this increase in management of this program would require a fairly large number of employees, creating a new field to provide jobs.

Cons: The rich people would be less rich. The management could become corrupt, if not audited closely. It would only work in countries wealthy enough to support everyone to some extent.

My last question: is this anything like any economic systems that already exist? Sweden, maybe? I'm not too familiar with economic systems beyond the basic capitalist and communist ones.

Thank you for any input
-Sam

[kensenbatusaii]

a bird on a tree

may sing of its glee

but if you listen well

its the cry to be free


i therefore

say

that the

idea

is totally

nonesense:tired: :tired: :tired:

[nodachi]

Too many people are too selfish to dump much of their money to the government. Even if they get something for it. Example...

A town needs to build a new school. Budget analysis says to build it will raise taxes about $200 per year. Some don't want the tax increase. Some say the school was fine for me 40 years ago, so why do the kids now need a new school, it should be fine for them. Others think, I have no kids, why do I need to pay for it. The new school will have a significant factor on increasing the value of the homes in the town and educated kids don't become a burden upon society and a great expense later on in life (hence helping everyone), but the townspeople are more concerned about the $200 per year it would take from their wallet.

It's mine and screw everybody else is a long standing philosophy for many people.

[Will]

I actually got half way through typing a long response when I stopped caring and remembered you didn't come up with anything new or unique. You're still 17, go read an introductory to economics book or do a google search. Don't be lazy and post on a forum so others can do your work and research for you, information is easy to get to.

Though o sum up arguments I was typing, socialism causes increased bureaucracy and inefficiency but doesn't necessarily ensure quality. Purer liberalization on the other hand increases efficiency and may ensure quality, but it doesn't mean it's affordable, profit is number one.

[Kenzan]

My last question: is this anything like any economic systems that already exist?

Hello Neko,
Yes. It is called Communism. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)

[Kaoru]

Socialism only works on paper. It looks good, but the reality is, that type of government takes the people's money and only the gov officials get rich while the people starve. Face it... Governments will always be greedy, no matter what the system. But, in a capitalist system, at least there are checks and balances to curb their greed for the most part.

As to a half-socialist idea... Won't work. It would end up being completely Socialist because the idea of lots of power for a leader is irresistable. Dictators love Socialism because they get to control every little thing. Yuck!!!

And, giving people everything is stupid. You can't get something for nothing. People should work to earn money to be able to buy what they want, not have it handed to them just because they are poor or whatever. People get on welfare and stay on it because many times, they are too lazy to get off their bums. Not all are like that, but many are. We should not encourage that.

It sounds like you are jealous of more wealthy people when you come up with silly ideas like that. You want to have more money? And, get what you need/want? Get a good college education in a field that will earn you a good living so you can rely on yourself to get what you need and want. Relying on the government to house and feed you and give you what you want is lazy and not good for people's moral. Not only that, you really think a person would GET what they want?? WRONG! All ANY government is interested in, is taking people's money for themselves, and the Socialist and Communist governments are the best at that, and are the very worst.

So, stop talking nonsense and get a good education.

Be happy you live in a free country where you CAN rely on yourself and create your own future.

Otherwise, go live in a place like N. Korea like the average citizen for awhile and maybe then you'd appreciate your home country more after losing all your hopes and have to bow to the Dear Leader and surrender your cell, ipod, games, internet, etc. because there, those items and more, are forbidden. And, be too poor to afford to buy anything at all, even good food. Nobody there is able to have anything except the gov. officials. I saw two very informative specials on N. Korea several months ago, and the reality of what goes on there wasn't pretty!

So, think about how lucky you and others really are!

Kaoru

[Kaoru]

a bird on a tree

may sing of its glee

but if you listen well

its the cry to be free


i therefore

say

that the

idea

is totally

nonesense:tired: :tired: :tired:

Very beautifully put! :)

I agree.

Kaoru

[Masahiro]

what's the incentive for people to strive for better? your ideas is cute, and thoughtful. but it needs a little more "push"!

[neko kenshi]

Nodachi: Good point, thanks.

Will: You're right. Sorry for having not researched properly before bothering you. In light of your response, please allow to rephrase: How do you guys feel about the ideas of a moderate socialist set up (I know a lot of you have already addressed that, it's very interesting).

Kenzan: From my understanding, most forms of communism are far more extreme than this.

Kaoru: This is to accomodate those who can't afford a higher education (I know grants exist, but I don't think they are enough). You seem caught up in the American dream. If you really could do that, do you honestly think the lowest class, even here in rich and spoiled America, are there because they're too lazy? Why would you work three times as hard because you're too lazy? Don't forget that I only suggested accommodating their needs, and only if they have a job, it's not welfare, and it's not giving them everything. And no, money is not a personal problem, I'm middle class, and I plan on a good education as well (preferrably graduate work in physics). And no, money is not that important to me, I just care about having enough to get by ok while having a job I enjoy. Do you honestly believe banning ipods has anything to do with my suggestion? The increased probability of a corrupt government you mentioned is a good point, though.

Masahiro: The motivation would to not be living

[neko kenshi]

correction: "not living on just the bare necessities," haha.

[MrBump]

Socialism is the wrong word. You're proposing a pretty standard version of a "welfare state". Here's some definitions and further reading from wikipedia. Good luck with your studies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

[Obukan_dude]

a bird on a tree

may sing of its glee

but if you listen well

its the cry to be free


i therefore

say

that the

idea

is totally

nonesense:tired: :tired: :tired:

He's baaack...:rolleyes:

[lucy]

Hey, I've been developing an idea for an economic system alot for a while now, and I'd like to see some people's opinions on it, as well as have its flaws pointed out to me.
[...]
Thank you for any input
-Sam

Hi Sam,

if you are interested in all this from an abstract point of view, I recommend Thomas More's Utopia. I read it just recently, it's a good starting point.

Not exactly on topic, but I thought I'd tell you about it. :wink:

Good luck with your studies.

[theicychameleon]

A day in the life of a citizen of the glorious happy shiny people's republic of Neko Kenshi:

You have two cows, you work your ass off milking them, give 90% or so of your milk to the government and you end up with just enough milk to buy an iPod, drink and pay for hospitals and third level degrees in cow milking.
Or...

You have two cows, you lie in all day and still get enough milk to drink and access to health care and as much third level education as you like... somehow an iPod doesn't justify working all day for you.

I'd guess most poeple would fall into catagory number 2. It would appear to me that most people in the west bother working hard because they get to accrue masses of wealth to squander on wide screen plasma tvs.

[pgsmith]

This is to accomodate those who can't afford a higher education (I know grants exist, but I don't think they are enough).
One of the students in our dojo just graduated in December with a degree in biology. She has been working full time and using occassional student loans in order to pay her tuition and bills, by herself, no government grants or other assistance. She graduated with a 3.85 average, while still managing to attend classes at the dojo pretty regularly.

So ... why is it you can't go to college again? I believe the word you're searching for is lazy.

[Paikea]

And no, money is not a personal problem, I'm middle class, and I plan on a good education as well (preferrably graduate work in physics). And no, money is not that important to me, I just care about having enough to get by ok while having a job I enjoy. Sam, with all due respect YOU are not middle class. Your parents are...

[Decado]

Hey, I've been developing an idea for an economic system alot for a while now, and I'd like to see some people's opinions on it, as well as have its flaws pointed out to me.

The basic idea would be semi-socialist state where the government covers most of an individual's basic needs while they cover there wants (assuming that person either has a job or is excempt). The goal would be to create a situation where everyone has enough to live, but there is still motivation to succeed.

People who are employed (defined minimum number of hours per week) or excempt from employment (disabled, grace period between jobs, etc) would be entitled to the following benefits:

1.) A set number of monetary vouchers would be alotted to each working member of society each month based on the number of dependents they could claim. These vouchers would be enough to cover the basic necessities (and could only be spent on those kinds of items) and would be periodically recalibrated to cope with inflation. Essentially money that can only be used on needs.

2.) Free, quality health care. The government would have to regulate it to insure its quality.

3.) Extensive public transportation (I recognize that this would be far more practical in some countries than others).

4.) Free lower level, and either free or heavily subsidized higher level education.

5.) Subsidized housing. This one is a bit more tricky to do. The way I imagine it thus far is that the government will pay a given amount to cover basic housing costs (maybe the bare minimum could even be government provided housing?), and would put that amount towards any housing, with the person paying the difference for any more luxurious housing.

People would still earn money, but much of it would go towards taxes to provide for their needs. Their surplus earnings would go towards providing for their wants.

Pros: The lower class would be much better off. All this increase in management of this program would require a fairly large number of employees, creating a new field to provide jobs.

Cons: The rich people would be less rich. The management could become corrupt, if not audited closely. It would only work in countries wealthy enough to support everyone to some extent.

My last question: is this anything like any economic systems that already exist? Sweden, maybe? I'm not too familiar with economic systems beyond the basic capitalist and communist ones.

Thank you for any input
-Sam

Zzzzzzzz! Wazzat! Someone wants to set up a commie state! Not in my lifetime sir!

OMG! We already do some of that in the UK! But not for our own citizens (or subjects as we are officially known).

[LarsCW]

Socialism only works on paper. It looks good, but the reality is, that type of government takes the people's money and only the gov officials get rich while the people starve. Face it... Governments will always be greedy, no matter what the system. But, in a capitalist system, at least there are checks and balances to curb their greed for the most part.

As to a half-socialist idea... Won't work. It would end up being completely Socialist because the idea of lots of power for a leader is irresistable. Dictators love Socialism because they get to control every little thing. Yuck!!!

And, giving people everything is stupid. You can't get something for nothing. People should work to earn money to be able to buy what they want, not have it handed to them just because they are poor or whatever. People get on welfare and stay on it because many times, they are too lazy to get off their bums. Not all are like that, but many are. We should not encourage that.

It sounds like you are jealous of more wealthy people when you come up with silly ideas like that. You want to have more money? And, get what you need/want? Get a good college education in a field that will earn you a good living so you can rely on yourself to get what you need and want. Relying on the government to house and feed you and give you what you want is lazy and not good for people's moral. Not only that, you really think a person would GET what they want?? WRONG! All ANY government is interested in, is taking people's money for themselves, and the Socialist and Communist governments are the best at that, and are the very worst.

So, stop talking nonsense and get a good education.

Be happy you live in a free country where you CAN rely on yourself and create your own future.

Otherwise, go live in a place like N. Korea like the average citizen for awhile and maybe then you'd appreciate your home country more after losing all your hopes and have to bow to the Dear Leader and surrender your cell, ipod, games, internet, etc. because there, those items and more, are forbidden. And, be too poor to afford to buy anything at all, even good food. Nobody there is able to have anything except the gov. officials. I saw two very informative specials on N. Korea several months ago, and the reality of what goes on there wasn't pretty!

So, think about how lucky you and others really are!

Kaoru

You couldn't have showed more disrespect to other countries then you just did Kaoru.

You can't believe how dissapointed I am in reading this post from you, I thought you would know better then to write out something like this.

The Netherlands is a socialist country, which means that when someone gets ill they can goto a doctor and get treatment, yes I pay 118 euro per month for health care and the goverment pays the other part, but I'm able to go in and doesn't have to pay anything to go in so it's only costing me time.

Goverment officials aren't the ones getting rich in socialisme, i think you have it confused with communisme where the top officials of the goverment live in luxurious villa's and such. Sure they make a good salary but if you look at the hours they make it's not strange either.

Dictators love socialisme? where did you get that idea from? A dictator wants to have absolute power something you won't get in a socialistic soceity.

I think that when you want to strike someone on this forum down like you just did you are the one who should look in the mirror first Kaoru and first google what you are talking about or get that education you told neku to get because you're having it so damn wrong here

[Pugtm]

Hey, I've been developing an idea for an economic system alot for a while now, and I'd like to see some people's opinions on it, as well as have its flaws pointed out to me.

The basic idea would be semi-socialist state where the government covers most of an individual's basic needs while they cover there wants (assuming that person either has a job or is excempt). The goal would be to create a situation where everyone has enough to live, but there is still motivation to succeed.

People who are employed (defined minimum number of hours per week) or excempt from employment (disabled, grace period between jobs, etc) would be entitled to the following benefits:

1.) A set number of monetary vouchers would be alotted to each working member of society each month based on the number of dependents they could claim. These vouchers would be enough to cover the basic necessities (and could only be spent on those kinds of items) and would be periodically recalibrated to cope with inflation. Essentially money that can only be used on needs.

2.) Free, quality health care. The government would have to regulate it to insure its quality.

3.) Extensive public transportation (I recognize that this would be far more practical in some countries than others).

4.) Free lower level, and either free or heavily subsidized higher level education.

5.) Subsidized housing. This one is a bit more tricky to do. The way I imagine it thus far is that the government will pay a given amount to cover basic housing costs (maybe the bare minimum could even be government provided housing?), and would put that amount towards any housing, with the person paying the difference for any more luxurious housing.

People would still earn money, but much of it would go towards taxes to provide for their needs. Their surplus earnings would go towards providing for their wants.

Pros: The lower class would be much better off. All this increase in management of this program would require a fairly large number of employees, creating a new field to provide jobs.

Cons: The rich people would be less rich. The management could become corrupt, if not audited closely. It would only work in countries wealthy enough to support everyone to some extent.

My last question: is this anything like any economic systems that already exist? Sweden, maybe? I'm not too familiar with economic systems beyond the basic capitalist and communist ones.

Thank you for any input
-Sam
im not meaning to be rude but that is almost exactly the same as what my parents tell me they lived under in the soviet union. You're idea is essentially communism in every way but name. And as to those people who say socialism works they are ignoring the fact that most of Europe is dying and will soon be replaced. Also all these governments are going completely bankrupt and its due almost directly to these socialist policies. A good book to read would be "America alone" by mark stien

[LarsCW]

im not meaning to be rude but that is almost exactly the same as what my parents tell me they lived under in the soviet union. You're idea is essentially communism in every way but name. And as to those people who say socialism works they are ignoring the fact that most of Europe is dying and will soon be replaced. Also all these governments are going completely bankrupt and its due almost directly to these socialist policies. A good book to read would be "America alone" by mark stien

You're being rather rude here towards any european member on this forum.

Socialisme and Communisme are 2 totally different things.

[Pugtm]

You're being rather rude here towards any european member on this forum.

Socialism and Communism are 2 totally different things.
they are the same thing with different names. communism is just socialism when it takes over the entire system. neither work. And i refuse to retract my statement about Europe and due to the fact that my statement is true. Like i said you just need to do a little research. Like look at birth rates, death rates, longevity, immigration. Europe in about 20 years wont exist in its present state. Europe will become a mostly Muslim area. Not just Europe though. Most of western world will pass away including Korea and japan.
Again i recomend "America alone" by mark stein, it explains all of this stuff

[Decado]

im not meaning to be rude but that is almost exactly the same as what my parents tell me they lived under in the soviet union. You're idea is essentially communism in every way but name. And as to those people who say socialism works they are ignoring the fact that most of Europe is dying and will soon be replaced. Also all these governments are going completely bankrupt and its due almost directly to these socialist policies. A good book to read would be "America alone" by mark stien

Ahem! Except for the good old UK I might say. We were one of the few countries that qualified under the stringent economic rules laid down by the European Union to qualify economically for taking the Euro. Strangely enough the "stringent" rules were relaxed to allow the majority of the EU states to introduce the Euro under the timetable originally designated by the EU. We declined for some reason! :cheerful: Despite our Labour (i.e. socialist) government we are not a socialist country. And despite Gordon Brown we are still quite economically sound (I think!).

The first part of your post I entirely agree with.

[LarsCW]

The communisme of the sovjet union was a totalitary system while the socialism in europe is based on democracy which is completly different. The part of you pulling religion into this conversation is something that I'm not going to let you because it has nothing to do with any of these systems.

[Decado]

they are the same thing with different names. communism is just socialism when it takes over the entire system. neither work. And i refuse to retract my statement about Europe and due to the fact that my statement is true. Like i said you just need to do a little research. Like look at birth rates, death rates, longevity, immigration. Europe in about 20 years wont exist in its present state. Europe will become a mostly Muslim area. Not just Europe though. Most of western world will pass away including Korea and japan.
Again i recomend "America alone" by mark stein, it explains all of this stuff

The first sentence I pretty much agree with although I might say Communism is true socialism taken to extremes.

The bit I marked in bold is interesting. Firstly, what makes you think Europe will become a mostly Muslim area? Given the fact that Muslims are very much in a very low minority and given France's recent laws and the attitudes in Britain and Germany, how will that happen? And when did Korea and Japan become part of the west?

[theicychameleon]

When did japan and korea become part of the west? I'd say just after world war two :D Just kidding, you have to admit though, in terms of how the average Japanese/South Korean lives, its pretty close to north america/europe. I seem to remember in Junior cert geography that the book always referred to north and south as opposed to east and west... but then theres the embarassing problem of Austalia and New Zealand (damn brittish empire! :)).
And about Socialism, I think that means different things opposite sides of the Atlantic. I'm sure theres a few dictionary definitions but in terms of this arguement maybe it would be best if people clarify what they mean before lashing out.

[Pugtm]

The first sentence I pretty much agree with although I might say Communism is true socialism taken to extremes.

The bit I marked in bold is interesting. Firstly, what makes you think Europe will become a mostly Muslim area? Given the fact that Muslims are very much in a very low minority and given France's recent laws and the attitudes in Britain and Germany, how will that happen? And when did Korea and Japan become part of the west?
its a little complicated and like i said it came mostly Out of Mark steins book and a few others combined with research for debate class. Ill try and simplify it since i just came back from kendo and am tired and still need to do a chemistry project. so im not going to pinpoint all my data and every page of the books etc. I'm just going to give the bare bones reason
Ok basically the birth rates of the western world have dropped enormously and since abortions are legal they are taken advantage of at an increasing rate. For example the birth rate in Japan is 1.34. The lowest any nation has ever gone and still recovered from such a demographic crisis is 1.3. Furthermore the rate needed to simply keep up a steady population is a birth rate of 2.1. Now the birth rate of Muslims in Europe is around 5-7. The birth rates of natives in western cultures is also still falling. So basically Muslims will simply out breed the Europeans and take over. All these socialist countries in Europe also have an increasingly elderly population of natives who are aging and continuously vote more benefits and social programs for themselves raising the tax rates to pay for them. Since taxes are so high nobody is able to have many children except the religious Muslims since they are compelled to by a strong religious background. By 2020 Half of Russia's army will be Muslim. Already 40 percent of France is Muslim. The most popular name in the UK is Muhammed. Muslims are the fastest growing and youngest demographic in Europe and since they are youngest means they will outlive the declining native populations. Again read the book "America Alone" By Mark Stein. all this info is there with proper citations and far more research. The figures above may not be 100% accurate as i am typing them from memory but they are pretty accurate.

[Oroshi]

Oh goodness. I've tried to stay out of this so far, but...

At first, all I was going to do was criticise your frankly absurd claims about the intent of Muslims (do all Muslims clamour for the downfall of western society? Really?) but actually debunking your figures is even easier.


For example the birth rate in Japan is 1.34. The lowest any nation has ever gone and still recovered from such a demographic crisis is 1.3. Furthermore the rate needed to simply keep up a steady population is a birth rate of 2.1.
I'm confused. Are you suggesting that we know of nations whose birth rates have dipped below 1.3, and have subsequently collapsed and vanished?


So basically Muslims will simply out breed the Europeans and take over.
I'd be careful how you word things like this. That's really quite offensive. And are there no European Muslims? Is Islam suddenly a race rather than a religion?


Already 40 percent of France is Muslim.
Wrong. It's actually 5-10%:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fr.html


The most popular name in the UK is Muhammed.
Wrong. Mohammed has not been higher than 20th most popular name for children in England and Wales, and last year was #22. ('Muhammed' is even lower, at #44).
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/specials/babiesnames_boys.asp


Muslims are the fastest growing and youngest demographic in Europe and since they are youngest means they will outlive the declining native populations.
This is not a logical statement. The average age may be lower but the population of Muslims in European countries is generally smaller than that of non-Muslims. Many other factors affect what's going to happen to different populations. Also, people converting to Islam is a factor in how fast the religion is growing - remember, Islam is a faith, not an ethnicity.


Again read the book "America Alone" By Mark Stein. all this info is there with proper citations and far more research. The figures above may not be 100% accurate as i am typing them from memory but they are pretty accurate.

The person you're quoting is regarded by many as something of a racist and Islamophobe himself. I'd suggest reading some sources with differing opinions, and checking facts before making such radical statements.

[neko kenshi]

Mr Bump: Thankyou, I think that that does match pretty well

Lucy: Thnaks, I'll look into it.

Theicychameleon: why don't you ask LarsCW how life is in a socialist state that's well managed.

pgsmith: Not to sound too disrespectful, but do you honestly believe that everyone who hasn't gone to college hasn't because they are lazy? You live in America, you can't possibly tell me that all those mexican immigrants who do all the hard work are lazy. Again, I respect your input on the forum a great deal, but I do have to object to that view. (And please don't attach this to me, I am definitely going to college).

Paikea: That's true. If I had to live on my own right now, I would definitely be lower class. But my point in mentioning that, is that I'm not suggesting the idea of a welfare state becuase I personnally am jealous of wealthier people. So my point still does stand, given that at this point it's my parent's money that dictate my quality of living.

Pugtm: Well, I suppose you would know a lot more about how the Soviet Union was run than I would, but why does the definition of a welfare state match so well with my idea, when it is different from the Soviet Union? Plus, the Soviet Union failed for a lot more reasons than just its economic approach (from what I've heard from every other source, there still is a big difference, though. Then again, it could be that that was more like their later approach. My schooling has focused mainly on it's earlier years). Also, communism is a form of socialism, but it's certainly not its only form. You're saying squares and rectangles are the same thing.

Although I haven't really gotten a chance yet to really investigate the governments of Sweden and The Netherlands well enough to be sure of this claim, I get the impression that they are economically atleast a vaguely similar to this, and they really do seem to be doing ok. And I don't think it takes much to distinguish them from the USSR either.

[LarsCW]

its a little complicated and like i said it came mostly Out of Mark steins book and a few others combined with research for debate class. Ill try and simplify it since i just came back from kendo and am tired and still need to do a chemistry project. so im not going to pinpoint all my data and every page of the books etc. I'm just going to give the bare bones reason
Ok basically the birth rates of the western world have dropped enormously and since abortions are legal they are taken advantage of at an increasing rate. For example the birth rate in Japan is 1.34. The lowest any nation has ever gone and still recovered from such a demographic crisis is 1.3. Furthermore the rate needed to simply keep up a steady population is a birth rate of 2.1. Now the birth rate of Muslims in Europe is around 5-7. The birth rates of natives in western cultures is also still falling. So basically Muslims will simply out breed the Europeans and take over. All these socialist countries in Europe also have an increasingly elderly population of natives who are aging and continuously vote more benefits and social programs for themselves raising the tax rates to pay for them. Since taxes are so high nobody is able to have many children except the religious Muslims since they are compelled to by a strong religious background. By 2020 Half of Russia's army will be Muslim. Already 40 percent of France is Muslim. The most popular name in the UK is Muhammed. Muslims are the fastest growing and youngest demographic in Europe and since they are youngest means they will outlive the declining native populations. Again read the book "America Alone" By Mark Stein. all this info is there with proper citations and far more research. The figures above may not be 100% accurate as i am typing them from memory but they are pretty accurate.


And this has what to do with socialisme being as communisme?

Nothing

[neko kenshi]

Please excuse all my grammatical errors, I typed too quickly.

[Gessho]

So ... why is it you can't go to college again? I believe the word you're searching for is lazy.

Beautiful. This is why the Pope says Europe is declining.

[Pugtm]

Oh goodness. I've tried to stay out of this so far, but...

At first, all I was going to do was criticise your frankly absurd claims about the intent of Muslims (do all Muslims clamour for the downfall of western society? Really?) but actually debunking your figures is even easier.
i never said they are clamoring im saying they will overtake europe and polss show the majority of muslims support setting up sharia. IM NOT JUDGING THEM JUST SAYING.


I'd be careful how you word things like this. That's really quite offensive. And are there no European Muslims? Is Islam suddenly a race rather than a religion?
no but they are a DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP



Wrong. It's actually 5-10%:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fr.html (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fr.html)
ok i admit a mistake



This is not a logical statement. The average age may be lower but the population of Muslims in European countries is generally smaller than that of non-Muslims.
That is totally nonsense. it doesn't matter if there are more but only what the growth rate is. For muslims it is very high(relatively speaking) for natives it is NEGATIVE and quickly declining. On top of that we are talking about exponential growth not linear.


Many other factors affect what's going to happen to different populations. Also, people converting to Islam is a factor in how fast the religion is growing - remember, Islam is a faith, not an ethnicity.
Either way it is a demographic group with values different from those of the west(again not necessarily a bad thing.




The person you're quoting is regarded by many as something of a racist and Islamophobe himself. I'd suggest reading some sources with differing opinions, and checking facts before making such radical statements.
I have and what you are doing is completely ignoring the arguements and slandering a well respected scholar who has done extensive research. FURTHERMORE what you are doing is a fallacy of logic called "Mistaking the arguement" or something like that. Doesn't matter who says what all that matters is the validity of the arguement itself. Why don't you read the book since like i said im probably miswritting a lot of stuff and then argue AFTER you have his side.

[Paikea]

Zzzzzzzz! Wazzat! Someone wants to set up a commie state! Not in my lifetime sir!

OMG! We already do some of that in the UK! But not for our own citizens (or subjects as we are officially known).Have you noticed all those video cameras yet?

This thread hasd become garbage...should be locked.

[neko kenshi]

Let's look at a few statistics (ignoring cache highlights):
This table shows the tendency to stay within the class in which you were born:
http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2850/information_show.htm?doc_id=394517 (http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2850/information_show.htm?doc_id=394517)
A significantly lower portion of the lower class attends college:
"In October 1996, 48.6 % of 16-24 year old high school completers in lower income families were enrolled in college, compared with 62.7 % from middle income families and 78 % from higher income families." (http://www.pbs.org/peoplelikeus/resources/stats.html (http://www.pbs.org/peoplelikeus/resources/stats.html))
And from that same source we learned that they scored significantly worse on the SAT as well, indicating that they aren't being educated as well.
Additionally:
"Another critically important change in the real (ugly) America is the bursting of the traditional fantasy-belief that people can educate themselves into wealth. Is getting more Americans educated and trained all we need to do to attack economic inequality? If so, then inequality should fall over periods of time when people become more educated. Right? Americans have become more educated over the last three decades. In 1970, only three out of four Americans aged 25-29 had completed high school. In 2004, nearly nine of ten Americans that age had a high school education. In 1970, only 16 percent of Americans in their late 20s held a four-year college degree. By 2004, that had nearly doubled to 29 percent. Something else has nearly doubled since 1970: the share of national income that goes to America's richest 1 percent.
That means that the share going to average Americans has dropped. Lower Class Americans in the bottom 90 percent of the nation's income distribution took home 67 percent of U.S. income in 1970, but only 53 percent in 2004, despite their greater education and productivity. American reality: We've become more unequal at the same time we've become more educated. Why? Education doesn't determine how income and wealth - or macro domestic and global prosperity - are distributed in our unfair system. The Upper Class ensures that increasing fractions of income and wealth go to them."
(http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/5/194114/7195 (http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/5/194114/7195))

So people born into the lower class have a tendency to remain in the lower class, they perform more poorly on the SAT, and while the average education of America is increasing, the distribution of wealth is becoming less even. So are poor people really lazier than rich people? Or is there a problem with the system?

PS: There is a study comparing the intergenerational income mobility of America and Sweden that I’m trying to find. If anyone knows where I could find that, I’d appreciate the help.

[MrBump]

Pug: some friendly advice: think hard about what vested interests the author has. What would he like you to believe? Why? How would that benefit him or his organisation/movement?

Anyway you're way off topic and really should not be discussing your opinions on Europe here.

[neko kenshi]

Sorry if I've provoked a garbage discussion. I was expecting a fair amount of objection, but I didn't anticipate the entrance of religion and national pride. I apologize for my lack of foresight.

[Pugtm]

Pug: some friendly advice: think hard about what vested interests the author has. What would he like you to believe? Why? How would that benefit him or his organisation/movement?

Anyway you're way off topic and really should not be discussing your opinions on Europe here.
1. Again it doesn't matter if the arguement is valid
2. Mark stein is a journalist selling an idea about a change in demography how can he benefit?
3. Yeah sorry about changing the subject but someone asked about it.

[Gessho]

Have you noticed all those video cameras yet?

This thread hasd become garbage...should be locked.

Hey now! Don't knock CCTV. I'm an avid fan of the show MI-5 (or Spooks as they call it in the merry olde UK) and I know that CCTV saves lives every week...:cheeky:

[Oroshi]

I don't have time to address all your points now (and in fact it's probably pointless - let's agree to disagree or something). However:

I have and what you are doing is completely ignoring the arguements and slandering a well respected scholar who has done extensive research. FURTHERMORE what you are doing is a fallacy of logic called "Mistaking the arguement" or something like that. Doesn't matter who says what all that matters is the validity of the arguement itself. Why don't you read the book since like i said im probably miswritting a lot of stuff and then argue AFTER you have his side.
I'm not slandering anyone (in fact, accusing me of such is closer to actual slander :)). I said that many people regard him as a racist (which is to say, there are lots of other 'respected scholars' who strongly disagree with his viewpoint to the point that they think he is racist.

Also, if I have mistaken your argument it may well be because you are not presenting it well enough. Your post came across as rather ignorant, reactionary and discriminatory, and was full of factual errors. The fact that I was able to disprove two of your claims with a five-minute google search really doesn't lend weight to your opinions. If you are going to cite one work or writer in particular it's probably best to make sure you get the citations right, and don't present the writer in a way that makes him out to be ignorant and discriminatory.

If you are going to make wild and potentially quite offensive claims (whether it be through wording or content), I think you should really back them up with logic and reliable facts and figures rather than telling us to go and read a certain book on the matter.

Let's draw a line under this and move on. I feel a thread-locking coming on.

[Decado]

its a little complicated and like i said it came mostly Out of Mark steins book and a few others combined with research for debate class. Ill try and simplify it since i just came back from kendo and am tired and still need to do a chemistry project. so im not going to pinpoint all my data and every page of the books etc. I'm just going to give the bare bones reason
Ok basically the birth rates of the western world have dropped enormously and since abortions are legal they are taken advantage of at an increasing rate. For example the birth rate in Japan is 1.34. The lowest any nation has ever gone and still recovered from such a demographic crisis is 1.3. Furthermore the rate needed to simply keep up a steady population is a birth rate of 2.1. Now the birth rate of Muslims in Europe is around 5-7. The birth rates of natives in western cultures is also still falling. So basically Muslims will simply out breed the Europeans and take over. All these socialist countries in Europe also have an increasingly elderly population of natives who are aging and continuously vote more benefits and social programs for themselves raising the tax rates to pay for them. Since taxes are so high nobody is able to have many children except the religious Muslims since they are compelled to by a strong religious background. By 2020 Half of Russia's army will be Muslim. Already 40 percent of France is Muslim. The most popular name in the UK is Muhammed. Muslims are the fastest growing and youngest demographic in Europe and since they are youngest means they will outlive the declining native populations. Again read the book "America Alone" By Mark Stein. all this info is there with proper citations and far more research. The figures above may not be 100% accurate as i am typing them from memory but they are pretty accurate.

I think Oroshi has answered most of the points raised in the above. I'll answer some of the others.

"For example the birth rate in Japan is 1.34." They have a population crisis and need to keep the birth rate down. I doubt that they will go under as there are a lot of them. Population is a cyclic thing - as the population falls then the birth rate increases. Also, I do not believe that many Japanese are Muslims.

"Now the birth rate of Muslims in Europe is around 5-7." "Now" is the operative word here (and probably exaggerated). There are historical and cultural reasons why people who's origins are what we usually refer to as the third world (no denigration meant or intended - it's just fact) where poor health care facilities, high child mortality rates and lack of state care for the elderly were the norm. The tradition was to have as many children as possible to ensure some survived to look after their parents because no-one else would. I would contend that the birth rate amongst European Muslims is falling as it is realised that child mortality is very low in Europe and the state provides care of the elderly. The birth rate drops as they realise having too many children is uneconomically unviable.

Which leads me neatly to "Since taxes are so high nobody is able to have many children except the religious Muslims since they are compelled to by a strong religious background." What utter tommyrot! That assumes that the population allows taxes to become prohibitively high. Did you hear about the poll tax riots we had here a few years ago? And do Muslims somehow have lots of money to be able to have lots of children and afford the high taxes? I think you will find Muslim families, especially 2nd or 3rd generation ones, in the UK are having smaller families for the reasons in the paragraph above. They have no religious compulsion to have lots of children. That's total bollocks!

"Already 40 percent of France is Muslim. The most popular name in the UK is Muhammed." Oroshi has already debunked these stupid statements. Mark Steyn really needs to do his research more carefully before making such stupid and easily refuted statements.

"America Alone". The same fears that Mark Steyn is trying to raise apply equally to America. If there truly is a Muslim plan to breed us out of existence (and that's a laughable fallacy) then America will certainly be targeted. How will America be alone? Doesn't make any sense.

[Decado]

Have you noticed all those video cameras yet?

This thread hasd become garbage...should be locked.

I agree! Fully!

[theicychameleon]

I'm genuinely a little confused here. You put up this thread to try and get some criticism on a proposal for an economic model you were theorising. I responded using the tried and tested "two cow" economic theory ;) But you referred me to (Lars is it? Sorry I'm terrible with names) to see how a socialist economy really works. Are you proposing a new system altogether or are you just in favour of introducing a socialist model to America?

And I think alot of the earlier confusion could be due to how loaded a term 'socialist' has become: some poeple seem to see it as being synonymous with communist (just take the Irish, "socialist worker's party" for instance :)) wheras for others it means a state where citizens are taken care of regardless of their contribution. Maybe if people could clarify what they mean when they're using such terms it might clear the arguement up.

I'm gonna stay away from the whole 'Muslims are going to take over Europe,' thing because its got little enough to do with the topic at hand.

[theicychameleon]

By the way please don't take offence at anything in the post above. I tried to word it as neutrally as I could but its just so damn hard :(

[neko kenshi]

I'm genuinely a little confused here. You put up this thread to try and get some criticism on a proposal for an economic model you were theorising. I responded using the tried and tested "two cow" economic theory ;) But you referred me to (Lars is it? Sorry I'm terrible with names) to see how a socialist economy really works. Are you proposing a new system altogether or are you just in favour of introducing a socialist model to America?

And I think alot of the earlier confusion could be due to how loaded a term 'socialist' has become: some poeple seem to see it as being synonymous with communist (just take the Irish, "socialist worker's party" for instance :)) wheras for others it means a state where citizens are taken care of regardless of their contribution. Maybe if people could clarify what they mean when they're using such terms it might clear the arguement up.

I'm gonna stay away from the whole 'Muslims are going to take over Europe,' thing because its got little enough to do with the topic at hand.


That's because I had it pointed out to me very quickly that my idea was not new at all, and described a welfare state pretty well. Apparently the netherlands and sweden are good examples of these states. Also, the discussion had turned to be more of a discussion over socialism in general. Anywho, yeah, a thread locking is probably in order here...

[Kenzan]

Nodachi:

Kenzan: From my understanding, most forms of communism are far more extreme than this.


1 billion Chinese.
'Nough said.

[pgsmith]

pgsmith: Not to sound too disrespectful, but do you honestly believe that everyone who hasn't gone to college hasn't because they are lazy?
While I am sure that there are extenuating circumstances in many cases, for the most part yes. Laziness is most likely the number one reason for failing to attend college.

You live in America, you can't possibly tell me that all those mexican immigrants who do all the hard work are lazy.
But now you are discussing the totally different subjectof immigration. It is a radically different subject than the one you started this thread about.

So people born into the lower class have a tendency to remain in the lower class, they perform more poorly on the SAT, and while the average education of America is increasing, the distribution of wealth is becoming less even. So are poor people really lazier than rich people? Or is there a problem with the system?
This is the first really interesting statement that you've made. However, I doubt it is in the way you intended.You see, I believe there is a problem with the system, but I think it is caused by the welfare state, not solved by it. A large percentage of lower income families are assisted by the government. Many of them have assumed an attitude of entitlement because of it. If you grow up thinking that somebody owes you a living, you'll not work nearly as hard to make your own living. Most of those that score so much lower on the SAT do so because they didn't bother to learn. It wasn't high on their parent's list of priorities, so it's not very high on theirs. I'm not attempting to denigrate anyone that has found themselves requiring government assistance. I am simply pointing out one of the facts of human nature. If a person is not taught to strive for their own betterment, they will not know how. If the government makes it simple for them to avoid having to learn how to strive, then subsequent generations will not even know that they are supposed to strive for their own betterment.

You see, I am one of those that grew up in poverty. I never went to college because I was too lazy to work that hard for it. I know of only one person from my childhood that went to the effort of going to college. Most either worked menial jobs, sold drugs, or went on welfare because that's what they were used to. A good number of them never lived to see thirty. :)

It's very easy to sit in your comfortable suburban home and think about things beyond your understanding. It's another thing entirely to live those things. It's one of the reasons that so many bad decisions are made regarding the nation's poor. Those making the decisions do not understand a thing about the people that they are attempting to help. What sounds good on paper is very often the wrong thing in reality.

[Paikea]

For the record, Neko Kenshi (Sam) is an earnest, good-hearted and well intentioned young man who practices Iai at our dojo. He's just stepped into the deep end of the political pool (for the first time?), and did not anticipate the Inquisition or the Eugenics Police...

Read more, and keep thinking Sam.

[Neil Gendzwill]

Locking at the request of various people including the thread originator.