England maybe leave EU june 23.

[deleted_user]

Socialism has not been instituted truely because it can't and I don't believe I'm advocating for your definition of socialism. Market driven solutions are good but require some outside allocation. The health of the peoples is a good place to start. I don't think the potential mobilization between classes is feasible across a many a people as to make a great solution in and of itself. I am in favor of increased nation wealth via. the practices mentioned, just that we should do a little something with it for everyone. Just a bit, you know? Doesn't take a lot of GDP. It's a lucrative system.

[n0el]

Socialism is based on the principle that the poor will always stay poor, a market-based system promotes mobility between social classes

You can have socialism and a market based system.

[lejend]

Socialist countries are only deemed "not real socialism" after the fact, after the project has failed and resulted in widespread poverty and millions of deaths. While the experiment is still ongoing, every socialist in the world praises it as an example of real socialism in action.

[fightinfrenchman]

Socialist countries are only deemed "not real socialism" after the fact, after the project has failed and resulted in widespread poverty and millions of deaths. While the experiment is still ongoing, every socialist in the world praises it as an example of real socialism in action.

What European countries are "socialist"

[fightinfrenchman]

Socialism is based on the principle that the poor will always stay poor, a market-based system promotes mobility between social classes

You can have socialism and a market based system.

What does socialism mean to you?

[Dolan]

Socialism is based on the principle that the poor will always stay poor, a market-based system promotes mobility between social classes

In real life, though, both socialism and capitalism tend to keep the masses poor, while the elites accumulate profits from work they don't even do.
This is what the "trickle-up effect" should mean, not the conventional meaning used in economics.

[n0el]

Socialism is based on the principle that the poor will always stay poor, a market-based system promotes mobility between social classes

You can have socialism and a market based system.

What does socialism mean to you?

Real democracy

[jesus3]

Socialism is based on the principle that the poor will always stay poor, a market-based system promotes mobility between social classes

This is just a polemic statement with the sole intention to agitate people. You seem to be unwilling or incapable of getting out of dichotomies, of a strict black and white world view.
First off: Socialism ≠ Communism.
Secondly: You can incorporate Socialist elements within market-based economies.
And, more importantly, market-based economic systems incorporating socialist elements empirically tend to favor social mobility.
As examples you may take a look at Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland with some (Iirc even within the top 5) of the world's lowest percentages of wealth inequality while sustaining a very high living standard and even relative percentage of millionaires. Way ahead of the US, the poster child of rampant neo-liberalism.

sources:
https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm
https://wid.world/world/#sptinc_p0p50_z ... se/country

[RefluxSemantic]

@Horsemen The UK is probably more socialist than many EU countries. I mean free universal healthcare through the NHS? That's plain communism.

Not sure. Their public healthcare is pretty shit I think. I believe its so far below Dutch standards that even the cheapest travel insurance lets you go to private hospitals.

[Horsemen]

Socialism is based on the principle that the poor will always stay poor, a market-based system promotes mobility between social classes

In real life, though, both socialism and capitalism tend to keep the masses poor, while the elites accumulate profits from work they don't even do.
This is what the "trickle-up effect" should mean, not the conventional meaning used in economics.

https://www.ft.com/content/0556d66a-394 ... 26f8c3cba4

A typical worker today now works about 32 hours a week — about half as many as their counterpart did in the mid-19th century. But this long-term decline in working hours has been sharpest at the bottom end of the labour market, with long hours apparently becoming a sign of social status.

[Horsemen]

Socialism is based on the principle that the poor will always stay poor, a market-based system promotes mobility between social classes

This is just a polemic statement with the sole intention to agitate people. You seem to be unwilling or incapable of getting out of dichotomies, of a strict black and white world view.
First off: Socialism ≠ Communism.
Secondly: You can incorporate Socialist elements within market-based economies.
And, more importantly, market-based economic systems incorporating socialist elements empirically tend to favor social mobility.
As examples you may take a look at Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland with some (Iirc even within the top 5) of the world's lowest percentages of wealth inequality while sustaining a very high living standard and even relative percentage of millionaires. Way ahead of the US, the poster child of rampant neo-liberalism.

sources:
https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm
https://wid.world/world/#sptinc_p0p50_z ... se/country

- The Scandinavian model only works because those countries are small, export-oriented, and culturally homogeneous
- I was talking about social mobility, not wealth equality. Moving up the social ladder in Sweden is more difficult due to lower salaries, higher taxes, rent controls etc. preventing workers from low-income backgrounds increasing their wealth

[Amsel_]

What happened to socialism being common ownership of the means of production?

[jesus3]

Socialism is based on the principle that the poor will always stay poor, a market-based system promotes mobility between social classes

This is just a polemic statement with the sole intention to agitate people. You seem to be unwilling or incapable of getting out of dichotomies, of a strict black and white world view.
First off: Socialism ≠ Communism.
Secondly: You can incorporate Socialist elements within market-based economies.
And, more importantly, market-based economic systems incorporating socialist elements empirically tend to favor social mobility.
As examples you may take a look at Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland with some (Iirc even within the top 5) of the world's lowest percentages of wealth inequality while sustaining a very high living standard and even relative percentage of millionaires. Way ahead of the US, the poster child of rampant neo-liberalism.

sources:
https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm
https://wid.world/world/#sptinc_p0p50_z ... se/country

- The Scandinavian model only works because those countries are small, export-oriented, and culturally homogeneous - While homogeneity was true until recently, the size of a country is a popular but not a viable welfare indicator. All of the economies I've listed are highly diversified

- I said social mobility, not wealth equality. Moving up the social ladder in Sweden is more difficult due to lower salaries, higher taxes, rent controls etc. preventing workers from low-income backgrounds from increasing their wealth

1) "The Scandinavian model only works because those countries are small, export-oriented, and culturally homogeneous"

While the homogeneity argument holds true (until recently in e.g. Sweden), the size of a country is a popular but not a viable welfare indicator. All of the economies I've listed are highly diversified

2) " I said social mobility, not wealth equality. Moving up the social ladder in Sweden is more difficult due to lower salaries, higher taxes, rent controls etc. preventing workers from low-income backgrounds from increasing their wealth"

This is a false statement and those are inherently linked to each other. Climbing up the social ladder is in fact easier and a result of free education as well as a social safety net. The more educated people you have, the more people will have business ideas and the will to be entrepreneurs. Additionally, you're more likely to take economic risks if you know you won't lose your entire existence if it doesn't work out. Income equality also enables people to really follow their strong suits rather than the most profitable industry, driving innovation in EVERY sector.

Sources: https://www.oecd.org/economy/growth/NER ... growth.pdf

and

8:15min (sources beneath the video)

[Horsemen]

What happened to socialism being common ownership of the means of production?

This is how lefties reposition the goal posts to make socialism seem like the best system ever

[occamslightsaber]

Socialism is based on the principle that the poor will always stay poor, a market-based system promotes mobility between social classes

This is just a polemic statement with the sole intention to agitate people. You seem to be unwilling or incapable of getting out of dichotomies, of a strict black and white world view.
First off: Socialism ≠ Communism.
Secondly: You can incorporate Socialist elements within market-based economies.
And, more importantly, market-based economic systems incorporating socialist elements empirically tend to favor social mobility.
As examples you may take a look at Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland with some (Iirc even within the top 5) of the world's lowest percentages of wealth inequality while sustaining a very high living standard and even relative percentage of millionaires. Way ahead of the US, the poster child of rampant neo-liberalism.

sources:
https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm
https://wid.world/world/#sptinc_p0p50_z ... se/country

Ironic that you are calling him out for his polemic statement, when you are on the hate train against neoliberalism yourself. The US is hardly “the poster child of rampant neoliberalism.” In fact, those Scandinavian countries that Bernie bros admire so much pioneered the way in opening up their economies through neoliberal reforms, which made them wealthy enough to afford many of their social programs in the first place (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... usion/amp/). Their subsequent socialist experiments eventually took a toll on their economies, which led Scandinavians to conclude that the only way to sustain their welfare states is through robust market mechanisms. As a result, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc are some of the most business-friendly countries in the world; they don’t raise much more tax revenues from capital and business taxes than the US and their marginal corporate income tax rates are actually more competitive than that of the US (https://taxfoundation.org/how-scandinav ... t-spending). Scandinavians are able to afford their extensive social programs, not because they went balls to the wall with their corporate taxes like Bernie wants to here in the US, but because their upper-middle class pays much higher taxes to support those policies. For instance, the highest tax rate in Sweden (56.9%) applies to all income above 1.6 times the average income, whereas in the US, the top tax bracket (46.8%) only kicks in at around 8.5 times the average income.

[duckzilla]

[Dolan]

UK defence secretary Ben Wallace interview: We can’t rely on US

Britain must prepare to fight wars without America, the defence secretary has warned, amid concerns that President Donald Trump will pursue an ever more isolationist foreign policy.
In an interview with The Sunday Times, Ben Wallace admitted that the prospect of America withdrawing from the world “keeps me awake at night”.
He said the government needed to rethink military assumptions, in place since 2010, that the UK would always be fighting alongside the Americans — and should use the upcoming defence review to buy new kit to ensure that the armed forces do not have to rely on US air cover and spy planes in future conflicts.

In remarkably outspoken comments published Sunday, UK Defense Minister Ben Wallace criticized Trump's isolationist foreign policy, saying he would worry "if the United States withdraws from its leadership around the world."
He added that the UK was looking at reducing its dependence on the US for defense and was turning to other international allies instead.
"The assumptions of 2010 that we were always going to be part of a US coalition is really just not where we are going to be," he said.

The UK is preparing to ignore Trump's threats and strike a deal with Huawei as Boris Johnson is told to 'call their bluff'
The UK government is preparing to defy Donald Trump and strike a deal with Chinese telecoms company Huawei, despite the president's repeated threats to cut off security ties with the country.
Trump has warned the UK that the intelligence-sharing arrangement between the two allies will be at risk if the deal for a role in Britain's 5G network goes ahead, with US officials warning that "Donald Trump is watching closely."
However, Johnson is preparing to allow the Huawei deal to go ahead despite the threats, amid a widespread belief in Europe that Trump's warnings are a "bluff".

Uh oh. I thought the Anglo alliance was unshakeable. This doesn't bode well for that special trade relation...

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[Horsemen]

So Brexit is finally happening from the sound of it?

Brexit day is 31st Jan

[fightinfrenchman]

So Brexit is finally happening from the sound of it?

Brexit day is 31st Jan

What will actually happen then?

[I_HaRRiiSoN_I]

all the nuclear weapons will explode..... but in reality essentially for the rest of the year we will be an economic partner of the EU as normal as we transition but will be excluded from all things political / policy and decision making.

The question is will we get a trade deal by the end of the year, as its currently all or nothing in that department

[fightinfrenchman]

That sounds great, you have to follow rules but don't get a say in them. Nice job!

[Horsemen]

So Brexit is finally happening from the sound of it?

Brexit day is 31st Jan

What will actually happen then?

I'm popping open a bottle of whiskey and celebrating

[fightinfrenchman]

Show hidden quotes

So Brexit is finally happening from the sound of it?

Brexit day is 31st Jan

What will actually happen then?

I'm popping open a bottle of whiskey and celebrating

Celebrating what? What is going to materially change on that day specifically?

[Horsemen]

Show hidden quotes

So Brexit is finally happening from the sound of it?

Brexit day is 31st Jan

What will actually happen then?

I'm popping open a bottle of whiskey and celebrating

Celebrating what? What is going to materially change on that day specifically?

Brexit will finally be done