Those crazy Germans, with their publicly owned railways, free university tuition and lack of nuclear weapons. They even have the cheek to have a bigger economy than the UK.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
American politics
- Thread starter Danishfurniturelover
- Start date
Those crazy Germans, with their publicly owned railways, free university tuition and lack of nuclear weapons. They even have the cheek to have a bigger economy than the UK.
Would that be the Germany that wasn't allowed nuclear weapons during their proliferation or the one that has US war planes loaded with nuclear weapons on its soil just waiting to deploy?
Or is it the free market Germany with its privately owned and publicly insured healthcare system (something I've been arguing for over here for decades)?
Or do you mean the Germany that, for most people, has a lower tax burden than the UK? It's even better up at real world salaries rather than the average.
I'll assume you're also talking about the German rail system that is actually private with the government as the only shareholder. This was due to be sold but had to be cancelled due to the financial crisis. This same system has led to massive underinvestment just like the UK's not private/not public system.
And are you suggesting that those who don't attend university (on average far lower paid) should subsidise the education of those who do attend (on average higher earners)? Doesn't sound very "fair" to me.
Last edited:
@scaramanga I mean the Germany that has no nuclear weapons, publicly owned railways and free tuition university. I know I'm repeating myself but it's worth saying again, as all these things are apparently impossible for countries with a population of more than 100 people.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Also what about how they have a compact between government, business and TRADE UNIONS?
Not every economy is perfect, they're all a bit backward in some ways.
I'd be interested to see just how strong Germany could be without such silly notions.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
They are the economic power house of Europe. So much for your notions that unions are poisonous to an economy.
Last edited:
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Of course they are - they were the ruin of our economy until Thatcher stepped in and fixed it all. A little gratitude to her from the likes of you wouldn't go amiss either.
Germany has traditionally been very clever with its unions. By encouraging the growth of large, non-specialist unions they have been able to use the unions' own inertia, beaurocracy and lack of cohesion to keep them quiet. Have you ever seen an entire workforce on strike? That's because most people don't care about the pay and conditions of other jobs as long as there's a basic level there. Ever see a pilot on strike about a mine closure? Again, that's because unions can only really use their barbaric methods when a large proportion of their members give a fudge.
Take an example in UK terms:
The only people in the world who believe tube drivers should be earning £50k+ are tube drivers and their union bosses. If the RMT had 5M members and consisted of cabin crew and teachers, there's no way in a million years they'd get the collective agreements to force the government's hand. The tube drivers would insist on action and the teachers would say "fudge that" and turn up to the job for which they're paid like proper, decent human beings.
The government would then assuage the entire union with an inflationary pay rise and everyone would have to deal with it.
This is pretty much what's happened in Germany. Their unions have traditionally been huge, varied and disparate, with equally varied and disparate aims. Recently though, this has started to change and smaller, more specialist unions have started causing trouble. The reaction to them has been far less inclusive both from the public and the government.
Mr_B
Niko Kranjcar
momentum is so key in these primaries, everyone likes to jump on the winner's bandwagon, lots of worried faces at the Clinton HQ last night, BERNIE, BERNIE!!!
if only to see more larry david sketches of him
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
I don't get how this translates to the criticism you aimed at socialism earlier if we're talking about Sanders level socialism. And I remain unconvinced about how those criticisms can't also be aimed at a more republican style capitalist society.
The cervical cancer thing you talk about was 50 years ago, no?
Hitchens used to quote some story about baths in low income housing long ago and some upper class dude saying "I don't want them to have baths for their sake, I want them to have baths for my sake". Much the same remains true about policies that can be described as socialist policies today.
-I want people to have access to good, affordable or free, education. Not just for their sake. But for the sake of society. We need to use the actual brain power and talent available. If a large proportion of the population never get the chance of a proper education including higher education who knows which great mind we'll miss out on next. No doubt we've missed out on enough historically already.
-I want people to have have food security. Not just for their sake, but so that their children will not grow up with that and related risk factors in their lives. Stress factors that are known to put children at risk for a whole host of unfortunate outcomes that are extremely costly for societies.
-I want people to have access to health care. Not just for their sake, but so that families, lives and careers are not ruined by illness or injury. I don't want people to have to turn to criminal institutions in those instances. I don't want people to turn to crime, drugs or alcohol abuse because their lives fall apart around them for stuff that is preventable. Not just for their sake, but for our society. Because those people that fall between the cracks (or crevasses) of a failing system cause a lot of problems and cost a lot of money for societies.
Can't say I disagree with any of that.
Where I suspect I do disagree with you/Sanders is how to pay for all of that. He seems to think that taxing people/businesses is the answer, I think encouraging them to employ people is.
thfcsteff
George Hunt
An excellent post. I have often argued the same 'line' when dealing with people who don't naturally empathize with others, as appealing to their belief system will end up being far more productive than trying to crowbar them around to yours.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
Trickle down economics to me seems sketchy. The focus you talk about is essentially what has gotten the US to a massive wealth gap, a disappearing middle class and a growing working poor class.
"Employ people" is a bit of a red herring in the US system for me. People should be talking about "good jobs" (paraphrase Dan Carlin). Your average US minimum wage job flipping burgers or working at Wal-Mart is "employing people", but it's the kind of jobs where people are really struggling day to day to even take care of their families even working massive hours.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
This is the inherent contradiction of capitalism. Business seek to gain a competitive advantage , by attempting to drive down their wage bill, this flows through the industry and we end up with a low wage and LOW DEMAND economy. If workers are on the minimum wage, where does the demand for all those goods and services come from?