Quote :

"Well the Japanese have a much better work ethic then most Americans. A lot of Americans are spoiled and lazy expecting someone to spoonfeed them or think someone owes them. In Japan people have a more utilitarian mind set thinking about society at a whole, and caring for family instead of just themselves. This is one reason why I think the more socialist system is more effective in Japan and Europe more so then it would work here. Socialist programs would be more likely abused in this country with a lot of people just leeching off the system."

this is one of the huge seemingly contradictory things about Japan - they are terrible national socialists. People almost never "live off the government" in Japan, but there are far more people leaching off relatives. I don't know if you could live off the government.


Lowjack:

Your responses to other users are over reactions, and your commentary isn't of any higher quality. Exhibit a:



No one who's been involved in any Japan studies is going to agree with you that Americans work longer weeks. It's not the general consensus, your source is cherry picking data in order to simply be patriotic, and you're not taking it good context.

Out of time spent at work, I think Americans are much more productive, but this is just talking out of personal experience. Japanese tend to spend more time reading the newspaper, fraternizing, and wasting time at work than Americans, but also tend to work more overtime.

Tend to. Don't take things for more than they're worth.

Quote :

"ast I checked, this utilitarian Japanese society consumed luxury goods at twice the rate of Americans."

I can imagine. This statistic sounds right to me. In Flath's book he talks in a number of chapters about how the average basket of consumer goods in Japan vs. the USA is different. We spend more on homes and have larger living spaces (and TONS more cars), while Japanese tend to have cheaper and more consumer goods. Even in introductory Japanese classes you'll talk about the popularity of brand names in Japan. They like to blow money on this kind of thing. We blow money on other kinds of things, which typically means cars, lawnmowers, that kind of thing, which Japanese who buy more luxury goods are somewhat shortchanged on.

Quote :

"By socialist system, I assume you just mean universal healthcare. The real reason Japan and Europe can afford universal healthcare is because they don't spend the same percentage of their GDP on defense. They get free protection from the US. They spend the difference on subsidizing universal healthcare."

The USA spends more on health care because we're fatter.


Stop trying to put morals and racism into economics. Most of the differences cited are due to economic history and size of the country. Given the same environment Japanese and white people are behaviorally almost the same.

12/10/2007 10:50:28 PM

yeah american laziness is exhibited through the fat factor

12/10/2007 10:56:11 PM

^^ Uh, that graph has no labels. I'm not saying it's wrong, but could you atleast say what it's supposed to specifically represent?

12/10/2007 10:56:56 PM

rice << McDonalds




In terms of the will-make-you-fat factor.

12/10/2007 10:57:50 PM

previous graph is from

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

and is the yearly working hours for all the countries.

12/10/2007 11:00:28 PM

can't we just ban obese people

12/10/2007 11:06:50 PM

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

No but you can move somewhere else where there are no fatties.

12/10/2007 11:11:50 PM

Quote :

"Exhibit a: .. No one who's been involved in any Japan studies is going to agree with you that Americans work longer weeks. It's not the general consensus, your source is cherry picking data in order to simply be patriotic, and you're not taking it good context"

Really? How about the data from the SAME source that you use but, you know, not seven years out of date? Also, the UN is cherry picking data to look more patriotic?

Quote :

"The USA spends more on health care because we're fatter."

Oops, reading comprehension. I don't believe I made this point. I said that we can't afford universal health care and other countries can afford it because we spend more of our money on defense. This is actually in Flath's book, if you have read it.

Quote :

"Stop trying to put morals and racism into economics."

Again, you seem to be confused. I you have actually read Flath's book, you will surely recall Flath warning that much commentary on the Japanese economy appeals to mystical cultural mumbo jumbo in order to explain economic differences that have rational explanations. In other words, it's quite common to see morals and racism (mentioned above) used to explain why Japanese economics is different.

This is what HUR and some others here are trying to do. This is what I am criticizing.

Quote :

"Most of the differences cited are due to economic history and size of the country. Given the same environment Japanese and white people are behaviorally almost the same."

And somehow you have stumbled on to my position.


[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 12:14 AM. Reason : .]

12/10/2007 11:58:14 PM

you are overly idealistic

12/11/2007 12:28:25 AM

Ah, I see now that you were responding to positions that could be construed as placing Japan as ethically superior.

The defense spending issue applies to everything though, and as far I understand, the United States has a very HIGH per capita health care spending.



^ doesn't prove previous statement, but is consistent at least.


Given that, I wouldn't say that health care is an area where Japan is funnels it's defense savings into. Look at obesity rates. They come out with reports all the time correlating high obesity rates to health problems. Seriously, almost all serious health problems are made worse by being more obese, and Japan is one of the thinnest nations in the world. They also have about twice the rate of smoking of the USA, but one of the highest life expectancies in the world.

Flath may have listed health care with things that get more money due to lesser defense spending. I would claim that they simply don't need more health care spending because they're already healthier. This isn't saying the defense spending thing isn't true.


Also, this is slightly irrelevant, but the USA has better hospitals. They're more expensive and have a higher tendency to over prescribe stuff, but still, we have top in the world hospitals - if you have the money you can get the best health care in the world here.

12/11/2007 12:29:01 AM

Quote :

"If it can be shown that it was fairly gotten, then there is no amount that is too much. "

Concur.

Quote :

"As the disparity incomes continues to more epic proportions, we could very well see the first trillionaire during our lifetime"

TRILLIONAIRES

FUCK YEAH!



[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 12:46 AM. Reason : i'm more concerned about socialists like the OP than trillionaires.]

12/11/2007 12:45:03 AM

good call they if they are so worried about peoples health campus should ban french fries, taco bell, and all that other crap that encourages obesity instead of scapegoating cigarettes. It would be an added benefit of having less bitches get the freshman 15.

Lowjack brings up a good point. Not that thing we should go around giving handouts to those who lack initiative to get a job. However, I do think some social welfare programs really do help some americans who are a victim of circumstance. As far as priorities goes I would rather have my taxes $$$ paying to help americans; then being the world police and hooking up Bush's buddies with $multi BILLION gov't contracts in the defense and oil sectors.

but fuck the socialists if a person plays fair and makes billions the gov't should not punish the individual. on the other hand they should be an active outlook to prevent power individuals from manipulating the market, tax evasion, and illegal business practices.

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 12:51 AM. Reason : l]

12/11/2007 12:48:52 AM

Especially when they're so adept at pissing it all away.

12/11/2007 12:51:43 AM

Quote :

"we have top in the world hospitals - if you have the money you can get the best health care in the world here."

therein lies the problem, if you have money

In this country, we have to have health insurance because it is almost impossible to save up and pay for your own treatment out of your own pocket.

Car insurance is because you might get in a wreck. Home insurance is because you might have your house burn down. But you will need medical care at some point and usually much more frequently. The fact that we have allowed a basic necessity of life to be speculated out of the affordability of even the middle class is unconscionable. Not only must we be speculated on by the medical industry, we must be speculated on by an insurance industry that is predicated on maximizing profits by smoke and mirrors (i.e. deductibles, copays, claim refusal, approved treatments/procedures)



[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 12:56 AM. Reason : .]

12/11/2007 12:54:01 AM

yeah and by pissing it away they bye services and goods that is providing someone with a job or giving profits too.

Realistically the wealthy do not hurt the economy unless they put their money under their mattress or take it offshore.

12/11/2007 12:54:25 AM

^^ health insurance companies are fundamentally no different than any other insurance company

12/11/2007 12:56:31 AM

Quote :

"i'm more concerned about socialists like the OP than trillionaires."

Of course, you are more afraid of perceived threats to liberty than real ones.

Quote :

"health insurance companies are fundamentally no different than any other insurance company"

They are fundamentally different in the service they provide. You don't need car insurance to live. There's several million people in NYC alone who prove this everyday.

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 1:01 AM. Reason : .]

12/11/2007 12:58:23 AM

Quote :

"Car insurance is because you might get in a wreck. Home insurance is because you might have your house burn down. But you will need medical care at some point and usually much more frequently. The fact that we have allowed a basic necessity of life to be speculated out of the affordability of even the middle class is unconscionable."

I worked hard in college and most likely my company will provide my health insurance; because besides wanting to be "humanitarian" it is in their best interest to keep my healthy. If you look at car insurance being a safe driver equals lower insurance (assuming two people drive the same car). On the other hand if you have 4 speeding tickets, a previous DUI, and have 2 accidents you will have much higher insurance. This rewards me for being a good driver while punishing those who practice unsafe driving techniques. With Universal health care everyone would pay the same into the system. Looking at my car example if I live a healthy lifestyle why should I have to subsidize someone who willfully makes unhealthy choices i.e obesity/smoking/heroin addict/getting into fights/etc. Also, why should I be forced to pay the health care then wait in line BEHIND some welfare mom who takes each of her 10 kids to the doctor whenever they get a stuff nose.

Quote :

"Of course, you are more afraid of perceived threats to liberty than real ones."

It depends on rather they made their $$$ through hard work, smart buisness practices, and legal use of the system OR through political corruption, manipulation of the people, and illegal practices. Really the uber-wealth can and will exist regardless of how Socialized our system is. Just look at Saddam; he provided socialized healthcare, education, food. Life was quite pleasant as long as you did not speak out against him or were a Kurd, however, Saddam acquired billions in assets. Socialism does NOT equal NO uber-rich

On the otherhand punishing people for striving for success and making a lot of $$$ is taking away their liberty.



[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 1:06 AM. Reason : l]

12/11/2007 1:01:08 AM

Trillionaires are threatening our liberty? What, they're going to buy America and become dictator of <your name here>-istan?

If they're making their money within the law, then you'd be opposed to their liberties to say that they should not have said money.

12/11/2007 1:01:35 AM

^ I'm not dumbing down this conversation for you. If you don't understand how money influences politics then we don't need you here.

12/11/2007 1:03:18 AM

SOCIALISM DOES NOT MEAN THERE WILL BE NO GOV'T CORRUPTION , NO EXTREMELY RICH WHO MANIPULATE THE SYSTEM AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS, OR CORPORATE INFLUENCE ON THE LEADERS.

12/11/2007 1:08:07 AM

Quote :

"Looking at my car example if I live a healthy lifestyle why should I have to subsidize someone who willfully makes unhealthy choices i.e obesity/smoking/heroin addict/getting into fights/etc."

Yet this is basically what's happening right now. The overall unhealthiness of America is driving up costs for everybody.

12/11/2007 1:09:32 AM

^^^Oh, your claim is that they're influencing politics in the same way people who are currently millionaires influence politics... You should really be more explicit, or people will just assume you're spouting of socialist nonsense.

They break the trillion mark? Good for them. But are they really going to be influencing politics that much more than people past the 100 mil mark? No. Of course not. You are claiming that a threat is arising when it's really no greater than a threat already present. I don't like the fact that this happens, either, but there's really nothing that can practically be done about it, unless politicians and corporations as a whole suddenly decide to become honest.

And socialism isn't so much a perceived threat (as opposed to a real one, as per you post... meaning that you think that if you perceive something then it is not real? what a backwards world...) as it is an actual one. If socialism were to rise in America, it would not be a good thing. Just like current corruption of politics by current wealthy corporations is not a good thing. But the difference is that we the people can vote against politicians with socialist policies.

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 1:14 AM. Reason : ^s]

12/11/2007 1:12:23 AM

I just hope we have divided government. As long as the president and congress are of two different parties, they will check each other. God help us if the branches all align again. Looking objectively, a good chunk of congress and the executive branch should be in prison right now (on both parties, but mostly Republican).

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 1:15 AM. Reason : .]

12/11/2007 1:13:06 AM

^I'm glad you edited that post to include partisan bias. It gives you credibility. Really.

v Well said.

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 1:19 AM. Reason : little triangles]

12/11/2007 1:16:39 AM

There will always be corporate influence on the gov't (unless we turn communist) and private interest groups running a black hand behind the scene. Our jobs as responsible voters is to elect politicians who we think have our best interests in mind. How socialist we are is just a matter of budget priorities. $20 billion to drops bombs on towel heads or $10 billion to subsidize crack whores pumping out babies & $10 Billion to help out young americans get through college. The most well to do will always find a way to manipulate the system in their favor.

12/11/2007 1:18:22 AM

Hey, theres a Republican bias to the corruption that occurred in the past 6 years. History should judge it to be the greatest profit taking of the American people in our country's history.

12/11/2007 1:19:33 AM

^^ you must be an individualist

http://www.wtamu.edu/~jrausch/polcul.html

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 1:24 AM. Reason : linky]

12/11/2007 1:24:01 AM

Ah, you were thinking corruption in the executive branch. Yeah, I'll agree that most of that administration should be jailed for at least something. Usually I ignore the people in the executive entirely, though, as I usually assume that if an administration "wasn't corrupt" it was just because we weren't hearing about it.

I was thinking more in terms of Congress, where both parties share in the fun of taking what essentially amount to bribes.

12/11/2007 1:25:00 AM

^^^ I do agree. I think certain influential figures practiced policies that specifically benefited the few at the expense of the masses. Essentially practicing corporate welfare instead of lassiez fair economics.

Quote :

"Our jobs as responsible voters is to elect politicians who we think have our best interests in mind."

This administration combined with the absolute crap coming out of congress has made me lose faith in our leaders. Even coming this election assuming Ron Paul does not pull of a miracle I do not who i'd vote. After W i said no GOP candidate but I really can not agree or relate much to the Democratic candidates. Ironically the platform I like best in the Dems which is the most moderate is Obama. The GOP has McCain and Rudy but their sabre rattling interventionists stances is nearly a deal breaking. Maybe i should start packing my bags for New Zealand for when WW3 breaks out.

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 1:29 AM. Reason : l]

12/11/2007 1:25:03 AM

^ You know, its really surprising how many people I've met who have honestly considered moving to another country if things continue down their current path. I mean not like jokingly either. I see it as a really startling indicator.

12/11/2007 1:35:35 AM

^^I feel the same way for a lot of that.

Yeah, unless Paul pulls off the huge upset, I'll probably vote Obama, assuming he makes it. He's a fairly moderate democrat, doesn't strike me as being nearly as corrupt as other politicians, and really doesn't appear to want to enact any policies that I disagree all that strongly with...

If the race ends up being Hilary vs Guliani... God help us all. Rudy wants to start World Fucking War III and Hilary wants to transform us into a welfare state... not to mention they're two of the most corrupt and underhanded politicians I've seen in a presidential race.

Quote :

"You know, its really surprising how many people I've met who have honestly considered moving to another country if things continue down their current path. I mean not like jokingly either. I see it as a really startling indicator."

Heh. Most people won't have the balls to do something like this, but if Hilary v Rudy happens, I'm just going to be studying abroad in the UK for that much longer.

College: Giving people the means to escape American politics.

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 1:38 AM. Reason : .]

12/11/2007 1:35:50 AM

Quote :

"Of course, you are more afraid of perceived threats to liberty than real ones"

You have GOT to be bullshitting.

Socialism is basically by definition not only a threat, but a restriction of liberty. Rich people are only a potential threat, and a lesser one at that.





also, i don't understand the support for Obama relative to Clinton. Clinton may not be likeable, but hating on her for being a socialist or too far to the left while supporting Obama in the same breath just doesn't make sense to me. If anything, Hillary Clinton strikes me as more centrist than Obama (though certainly not the centrist her husband was).

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 1:39 AM. Reason : afsd]

12/11/2007 1:36:32 AM

Well, I'm sure they will be glad to let you fight their wars for them

12/11/2007 1:37:38 AM

We really should not make it a White v Black issue.

Not like their is a choice 100% socialism or 100% laissez fair capitalism

100% superhero politicians or 100% corrupt scumbags

Likewise an "elected" senate can just as easily trample a man's rights as a dictator.

Quote :

"Hillary Clinton strikes me as more centrist than Obama (though certainly not the centrist her husband was)."

From my observation Clinton has done extensive pandering to the minorities , liberal minded hippies, and progressive working class regarding a more "socialist" direction for america. This may just be banter like McCain's groping of the Religious Right but either way it causes her to lose points in my book.

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 1:42 AM. Reason : l]

12/11/2007 1:40:16 AM

^ I agree

I think that the Senate is the government institution that has done the most to prevent political reform

12/11/2007 1:42:45 AM

^^^^From the times I've watched him speak, he hasn't really said anything too far out in left field. Besides that, a lot of his platform is dealing with racial tolerance and whatnot... and while I don't actively go out and support that, I've certainly got nothing against it. He seems like one of the few Dem candidates that won't really do much of anything in office, which I prefer over someone who will take a lot of presidential action that I disagree strongly with.

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 1:47 AM. Reason : .]

12/11/2007 1:43:07 AM

its really a tough choice Big Brother zooming in on my life or getting raped in the ass every other friday to help subsidize a bunch of lazy stupid americans that are leeches on society (maybe an over generalization since I am sure a lot of people do not abuse the system and use if to help get back on feet/ move forward/ etc)

12/11/2007 1:45:55 AM

Quote :

"Hilary wants to transform us into a welfare state"

Where do people get that from? I mean, she's definitely not my favorite candidate and I don't want to be forced to vote for her, but what specifically has she said that makes people think this? I just think it's an unfair accusation.

12/11/2007 1:47:18 AM

I did lose a lost of respect for Obama during his black power speech in Harlem. I would prefer not seeing Al Sharpton as VP, 50 Cent secretary of defense, and Michael Vick director of the EPA.

12/11/2007 1:47:27 AM

^^ i don't really disagree with that--I just think that Obama is as bad, and likely worse.

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 1:49 AM. Reason : ^ come on, dude]

12/11/2007 1:48:45 AM

Quote :

"or getting raped in the ass every other friday to help subsidize a bunch of lazy stupid americans that are leeches on society"

Halliburton, Kellogg Brown & Root, Blackwater?

12/11/2007 1:49:40 AM

^^^^I was just spouting a typical anti-Hilary talking point, really. What I meant was more or less "she's got way too many socialist-esqe ideas for me to like her at all"


^^^I didn't see it, but almost every candidate has to say nutty things when they're pushed in front of an extreme demographic.

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 1:51 AM. Reason : fast topic for 2 in the morning]

12/11/2007 1:50:42 AM

^^ I have already addressed my disgust about W & Co.

12/11/2007 1:52:12 AM

then do something about it

vote

12/11/2007 1:59:14 AM

I think his point is that he's legitimately fucked either way--there isn't going to be a viable candidate for him.

12/11/2007 2:02:38 AM

^^Well, as he said in his earlier post, it's either Big Brother and Friends (haliburton, ect) or subsidizing leeches on society... so either way you vote someone is going to be taking your money and using it for something you don't want it used for.

^Yeah, that.

12/11/2007 2:04:40 AM

You think that most of your tax dollars (as if you pay income tax currently) goes to lazy minorities (your leeches) who do nothing. But it doesn't. Stop it.

So would you rather have your money go to Halliburton and the war profiteers? You would rather give money to a corporation who had political connections to the White House and gives campaign contributions to elect and reelect candidates who support the beginning and continuation of meaningless armed conflict for their own economic well being?

What sort of fucked up moral system are you on?

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 2:16 AM. Reason : .]

12/11/2007 2:13:38 AM

It doesn't matter what your Morals are when you're part of the Majority.

12/11/2007 2:19:57 AM

^^Who said I thought that most taxes went to welfare? At least, I didn't say I thought that. That last post was just an application of HUR's previous points to the "do something... vote" statement. I was just answering for him based upon previous statements.

Also, no one said they'd rather their money go to Haliburton and the like... the general consensus seemed to be that people don't want a government that spends their tax dollars on stuff they disagree with, meaning that in such a case as described above, the choice would be to not vote for either and let the rest of America decide how to best waste money.

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 2:23 AM. Reason : .]

12/11/2007 2:22:46 AM