Democracy is not a mode of economic governance, though. judoka - you could also site modern day Singapore as a dictatorship that has heavily directed a (mostly) successful modern economy. They have an advantage with all of that control.
There is no rule set in stone that Democracy is the best system available. It has been around since antiquity, and I don't think the Bible recommended it. The point is that things will change according to the circumstances, if only because people are smart enough to see through the rules and bend or break it to their own advantage. At that point, it's back to the drawing board.
Yes, Lee is a very smart leader. If you put people like little Kim in charge there I bet he run the thing into the ground in two years. What runs a country is not the form of the government but the people. They could be dictators or they could be elected, but only the good leaders will run the country successfully. In democracy usually you don't get the best leaders but you won't get the worst leaders either. You could also replace your leader fairly quickly (both a good and bad point).
The fallacy is the cheaters and greedy are the rich, when those characteristics are associated with all classes. For every lazy rich man you find, I'll find you an ambitious poor man.
The best system has to be a mixture of capalism combined with socialism. The trick is to find the right mix. Everyone of the industrialized nations in the world has this type of government. The difference is the degree of the mixture.
the most effective (direct) way to run a country is communism the most wealth maximizing way to run a country is capitalism the middle of the road is socialism. And America is an ever increasingly socialist country that calls itself capitalist hence why everyone is confused about why our wealth isn't being maximized.
I'm not sure what place Socialism is taking on your Political continuum. I understand it as an economic system.
I can't really agree with you. Whereas lack of regulation or loopholes in the regulations in place allowed unbridled greed to collapse the economy, government pushing bad loan policies (thanks Barney and Chris) was equally at fault. Both my cousin and I have established successful companies that employed people and created wealth from nothing except a little cash and an idea -- not super wealth but certainly better than if I can continued working for someone. This would not have been possible under a socialist or fascist system. I recently sold my business and not a moment too soon. Under former federal regulations, the cost of operating was about $15,000 per year. Now Obama is increasing the licensing fee to $100,000. Of course, that will mean that very few except the already wealthy can do a start-up. I think you are not looking deeply enough into small business.
I do have a test today, that wasn't bs. It's on European socialism. I mean, really, what's the point? I'm not European. I don't plan on being European. So who gives a crap if they're socialists? They could be fascist anarchists, it still doesn't change the fact that I haven't exited the first round of the playoffs in god knows how many years. Obviously it is not an economic system. It represents evil. signed, bill o'really? Did anyone catch his interview on david letterman? The guy said chavez was a tyrant and an evil man. " I do not like tyrants whether it's chavez or francisco franco." There was a mistake with that statement, the brave men who fought against franco would be considered terrorists under o'reilly's allegiance. To sum it up, right wing propaganda has made it into more than an economic system. :shrugs:
Based on the statement you attribute to O'Reilly, I do not understand how you extrapolate your conclusion. Stay in school and study.
those fighting franco were rebels,socialists, and used the soviet enblem in their flags. His comment contradicted itself. It can be okay to hate chavez for being a " tyrant", and never say anything about republican politicians meeting with Right wing tyrants in latin america. I wouldn't expect you to understand. I was just replying to Valdez on why we tend to think of socialism as something more than an economic system. It's the red scare! grab your wolverine varsity jacket and go to the hills. =/
You said that O'Reilly said that he hated all tyrants. A tyrant is a tyrant regardless of how that tyrant defines himself and regardless of who is trying to overthrow him. By extrapolation you could truthfully say that he supported the anti-Franco socialists.
What type of business? Interested in the licensing fee angle. Still, most people are not small business folks, though I am also. I think it is foolish to base a nation's economy on what is allegedly good for small business. Small business is important, but I don't like the way that the GOP constantly tries to use small business as a ploy to avoid taxing the wealthy most of whom are not small businesses. Also, about 95% of small businesses are not netting the type of big money that they GOP uses the concept of "small business" to avoid taxing.
In college, there was this prof at UTSA that was an All-But-Dissertation because he thought the tenure system was unfair. He finished his dissertation and I read it and as Political Theory goes it wasn't half bad. It was somewhat Utopian but truthfully every -ism or system of government has a Utopian design that is mottled by realities beyond government control. His system went like this: Private industry and the capital market place is left intact and dangerous industries and those that impact society as a whole are regulated by the government. Things like Air travel, banking, stock markets, etc. The health care system would be based on a hybrid of NHS in Britain and the health care system in France. Health care is free. Drugs are very cheap for those between 18-65 that are working, free to children, elderly, mentally and physically disabled, etc. There would be no need for health insurance. Doctors that do not perform legitimate public need services, purely cosmetic surgery, long shot fertility, etc. would be allowed to practice as they are now, but would not be paid for by NHS, so individuals could pay into health accounts for these services to be used later... almost like a flex health payments. These would not expire and could be transferred to others like life insurance is now. Anyone that lost their jobs would be entered into a system that takes into account their skill sets and training. These individuals would work for the government until they found another private sector job or they could stay in the government jobs and become supervisors in the government system. Almost any job sector could be included. Government employs doctors, lawyers, farmers, janitors, electricians, musicians, artists, etc. Unemployment payments would be cut to a minimum and be replaced by other government services as in the case for those individuals that were mentally or physically unable to work. Obviously there was more nuance involved, because it outlined an entire system of government and was well over 300 pages, but it had good ideas.
