<sigh> Is that because Democrats create poverty or because poor people vote for Democrats?

You are a statistical nightmare.

Practically no-one (especially note me) agrees with those wackos (for instance, Earth First! - I've heard of them). They are not representative.

Why can you not understand this? Shades of grey...

(edit) and what is a lie? That the mosquitos are disease resistant? There is a citation next to that quote in the wikipedia article. It leads to this article from the Malaria Journal, which references several others on that specific topic - you make up your own mind if they are eco-fascists or simply scientists focusing on researching their chosen field...

It is because socialism breeds poverty and disparity of wealth...The rich get richer and the poor get poorer under socialism...They try to spread the misery equally, but their corruption usually distributes anything but equitably.

Second, the evolution of the average European unemployment rate hides large cross-country differences. In the four large continental countries -- France, Germany, Spain, and Italy -- the unemployment rate has increased steadily and remains very high, around 10 percent. (I chose the 4 largest countries because they are the most illustrative of where socialism goes - several less significant countries in Europe have relatively good rates of unemployment)

I am a statistical nightmare?...Wake up and smell the Canadian marijuana!

NBER (cause Wikipedia is not an authority by any rational measure)

One little twist in this... that whilst 'America' is essentially a 'right of centre' nation.. yes even the PPBBS despised Democratic Party can be viewed as right of centre, one of its closest allies in all of this is a 'minority' left wing government whose recent election vistory demonstrated that its enough to convince 36% of voters and to have others poll less that you can claim to represent the whole nation and whose 'socialist' approach to healthcare, education, trade seem to be contradictory to its 'totalitarian' approach to crime and dissent...

Oh and its also the country that developed 'socialism' as a way of generating addition profits for the industrialised society iy was reponsible for creating...

How's that for strange befellows....

Or does it all go to show that one man's socialist is another man's caplitalist...

Didn't read the article huh?


There is no relationship distinct to the degree of socialism in the government - in fact the article stresses that other factors (in particular, shocks of various kinds) are more important.

You see, the part at the start of your post:

is opinion. Your opinion, and I think an incorrect opinion at that. There is no proof of what you say - in fact generally the proof is the opposite. The greatest gaps between the wealthiest and the poorest people in nations around the world are in the most capitalist (my opinion) countries. I'd be very surprised if the US wasn't at the top of the list of percentage of the population in poverty in the OECD. Since the poverty measure is generally based on a percentage of median income, it may not be an accurate demonstration of the actual level of poverty, but it is a pretty good indicator of the difference between the haves and the have nots.

(edit) plus, you usually complain bitterly about progressive taxation - the foundation of democratic socialism - which by its very nature stops the rich getting richer by making sure the poor don't get poorer. Basically, you're trying to run both sides of the argument and it isn't working.

And MFAFF's right - Tony Blair is a lefty. It is even called the Labour Party.

(edit again) I actually partly agree that jobs and growth are likely to be maximised over time in a more capitalist environment. I think many countries in Europe have a serious problem with inefficient and overly large governments. I don't advocate "socialism" - I want a taste of it in determining the welfare state/public healthcare and education, but I'm no socialist.

Rats like to hang out in the shadows, Cam.

One who doesn't stand for something will fall for anything...You personify this axiom Cam.

Socialism is a disincentive to the productivity of the productive and nonproductive alike.

How much socialism is a disincentive? I'm not disincentivised, are you?

I've already said a few times in the last couple of days that I stand for tolerance. I'll extend that and say that I believe that people need to understand one another better - walk a mile in another man's shoes.

And clearly I hold this with a relatively high degree of conviction, 'cause I am still friggin arguing with you about it.

Another aspersion of right-wing fascism - that graduated or progressive tax-structures remove production incentives. It is "demonstrably false". ;)

I reached the top bracket in my mid twenties and every year I become more experienced and productive - and my compensation adjusts commensurately.

This thread went to ***** fast. Instead of arguing with Mul, why don't you guys just smash your heads against the wall? At least you'd have something to show for it

Now I know the press problem...not enough young nekid chicks who believe in "free love"...I say, let's bring back Woodstock...
now, that there was a protest! :D

How the fking he11 would you know anything about Woodstock PWD....you were too busy watching Bonanza on TV to notice...