Why Socialism can never die

[RangerRay]

*yawn*

I stopped reading at "Sigh".

That's too bad.  You might have learned something.

You don't find it odd that beside Cuba and North Korea, Canada is the only country that has universal health care?  The conditions in our hospitals are strikingly similar.

Before someone drags out the "Evil AmericansTM", many European countries (France, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, etc.) operate a mixture of private and public healthcare.  No one pays out of pocket, health care costs to the state are much lower than Canada's, and health outcomes are much higher than in Canada.  We should be exploring European models of health care, that the Canada Health Act do not allow, which to me, indicates that this archaic piece of legislation should be put down.

As an aside, I have no problem with someone paying to access faster health care.  If I could afford it, and I could get a portion of my taxes returned, I would do it too!

 

[TCBF]

" I find that some of what they have to say on subjects such as captialism, imperialism, globalization, East/West/North/South relations and/or hegemony to be insightful and sometimes instructive."

- What a load of commie B.S.

 

[paracowboy]

Why Socialism can never die

we're not shooting enough Socialists.

 

[Mike Baker]

we're not shooting enough Socialists.

:rofl:
That is a good one.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Why Socialism can never die

Because one is born every minute.

 

[TCBF]

... and two to take him.

 

[couchcommander]

Anyway, I like to think of it as a tool in my toobox (or lense) that I can take out and use to question some of my own assumptions and perspectives.

Indeed, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Marxist historical perspectives are just as narrow and innaccurate as most other narrow historical perspectives. At the same time, they can be very useful for understanding a certain, and often times very prominent, aspect driving certain events.

In the end, historical change is not the result of one force, its a result of the whole spectrum of human experience. And just like the human experience is not encompassed within one perspective, historical change cannot be encompassed within one perspective; it's a process involving the comingling of countless factors, some more prominent than other however (no, not implying Marxist perspectives here).

In the end though, it can actually be very interesting. Try analysing early post-confederation Canadian history from a Marxist perspective, very intriguing.

 

[Gunnerlove]

You don't find it odd that beside Cuba and North Korea, Canada is the only country that has universal health care?  The conditions in our hospitals are strikingly similar.

Easy there. Only three countries in the world have universal health care? You would be right if you were not wrong. What about Australia since 1976?

Socialism can be taken to all kinds of extremes, kind of like Capitalism. I like to think of economic systems as religions, people will defend all facets of their religion and make excuses for all the bad parts while trumpeting the good  parts. Kind of like full on Capitalists and Communists.

Ask yourself what is the total value of the oil being extracted from Canadian deposits. Where does the money go? I mean most of it, not the stupid $400 keep the peasants happy cheques in Alberta. Look at Hibernia. We backed the project as a Nation and what is our current pay back? 8% wow. Past governments have given the rights to our natural resources away. Instead of running the extraction as an exploitation of a public resource demanding maximum return on investment our property was given away in the hope of future tax income.
"If after walking into your house I throw a roll of nickles at you while leaving with your TV have you just been robbed or did we just engage in a business transaction?" Question asked by an economics Prof regarding resource extraction

In my opinion Norway would have made a far better model than the US for our national energy policy. Or I could be out to lunch and we should continue to toss our resources away (China is buying up our oil rights and fast) in exchange for small short term gains. They may be pink but carry no debt and still have universal health care, and mandatory military service.

 

[DBA]

The Hibernia royalty scheme was negotiated in the era of under $20/barrel oil. It also went over budget and took a long time to start production. So an overgenerous royalty scheme that allows a high return on sunk costs before increasing beyond low levels means not much money for the provincial government. A decent article about it in The Independent Inc.

The problem isn't really royalty rates as how to attract the investment needed without giving away the farm. From what I can tell landing some of these projects becomes a political issue and the economics of the project or royalty schemes takes a second seat. It's frustrating the way government tends to accept so much of the risk through loan guarantees and tax breaks yet leaves so much potential windfall on the table. They way overpaid for the investment dollars just like for the Upper Churchill fiasco.