FT: The cost of burgeoning national debt

Rochdale_Pioneers

There are some silly definitions of socialism being used here. If you take it to mean the kind of socialism engineed behind the Iron Curtain then yes I agree that its a bad thing. If its the kind of social democracy as applied for 60 years that gives us a welfare state then surely only hardcore loons want to scrap it.

The only people who can logically argue against any kind of social welfare provision for the state are those rich enough to guarantee that they would never need socialised healthcare. a pension, any benefits of any description etc

Generali

chaostheory wrote: »

An incomprehensible statement from a person with a family and no money. I'm sure, however, you are not the only banker making such statements. Time for a reality check for a whole profession that have been living in La La land. Welcome to the real world.

Amazing. Another poster with 2 posts to his name who seems to have taken an instant dislike to me.

Anyone would think you're all the same person!

A._Badger

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

There are some silly definitions of socialism being used here. If you take it to mean the kind of socialism engineed behind the Iron Curtain then yes I agree that its a bad thing. If its the kind of social democracy as applied for 60 years that gives us a welfare state then surely only hardcore loons want to scrap it.

The only people who can logically argue against any kind of social welfare provision for the state are those rich enough to guarantee that they would never need socialised healthcare. a pension, any benefits of any description etc

Then again., one might argue that the sort of socialism 'enjoyed' behind the Iron Curtain is, to some degree, an inevitable by-product. The current bunch of control freaks with their insane meddling, obsessive snooping and incessant law-making are producing a future dystopia, whether they mean to or not.

It may not have the minefields and machinegun towers, but it is starting to feel pretty oppressive - even to commentators whose natural sympathies tend to be with the Left.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

shaggydoo wrote: »

With the deepest respect, how on earth would you expect to support a family on the wage of someone who stands in a shopping mall without the help of socialism? Without socialism you and your family would have no access to health care, without socialism your children would have no access to education.

The only reason you can consider taking such a job is because of socialism. It is sad that you would deny this to others, particularly to those who through no fault of their own were born poor.

You never did answer this question did you Generali? Aren't you in the slightest bit grateful that you and your family have access to universal health care and education? Would you do away with this too, as well as unemployment benefits?

Generali

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

You never did answer this question did you Generali? Aren't you in the slightest bit grateful that you and your family have access to universal health care and education? Would you do away with this too, as well as unemployment benefits?

I wouldn't do away with unemployment benefits.

Sir_Humphrey

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

You never did answer this question did you Generali? Aren't you in the slightest bit grateful that you and your family have access to universal health care and education? Would you do away with this too, as well as unemployment benefits?

I find it ironic that I am arguing for all this stimulus, but would see little benefit personally (my job is bullet-proof even by public sector standards), yet Generali is unemployed in Australia, and will likely continue to be so for a long while if his policy suggestions came to pass.

I guess we are men of prinicple!

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Generali wrote: »

I wouldn't do away with unemployment benefits.

In time you might come to see the benefits of universal health care & education too.:D

Generali

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

In time you might come to see the benefits of universal health care & education too.:D

I can see the need for a safety net - I've done very badly paid jobs in my time and can see that if you're on a fiver an hour then it's not possible to save enough in case of bad times.

However, a safety net should be just that - people shouldn't be living off unemployment benefit for year after year when they're perfectly capable of working.

I've known many people who want to work but can't because of the way the benefits system is structured.

As regards education, I think that education should be paid for by central Government but provided by private companies. Everybody should have access to a great education - a good educational system is a great way to lift people out of poverty.

I don't think people should be condemned to live in poverty. It is my belief that socialism and welfare states tend to keep people poor. I think that one of the most important things that a society can do is try to raise people out of poverty. That isn't done by doling out money to them. It can be done by giving them the wherewithal to get themselves out of the situation.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Consider this - In the US car manufacturers have to pay $6,500 in medical insurance costs for evry worker. In 2006, GM paid $5.2 billion in medical and insurance bills for its active and retired workers, that adds $1500 to the cost of every GM car sold.

To me this indicates that the way the US provides health care makes there companies have a significant competitive disadvantage. Furthermore, the US health sector costs twice as much as the European counterpart and most American live in fear of losing their job as they are anxious about losing their health insurance.

carolt

I find your belief in capitalism to provide appropriately quite sweet, Generali, though I can't agree with you that a privatised education system for example, would be better - speaking as someone who's worked extensively in education, both public and private. I find it hard to believe that the poorest societies are those with a social democracy and welfare state - the truth I suspect is somewhat the reverse. Think Scandinavia.

I do agree with you about the benefit trap though. Don't think that's part of socialism though - the idea of socialism as I understood it was that all would get what they needed and contribute what they could - not that either some would get far more than they needed eg the Fred Goodwins etc, or contribute nothing, eg all the long-term benefit 'lifestyle choice' people.