I resent that, a dictatorship is run efficiently! The goverment of New York State is not efficient at all! :O:

Lets see in this country...
If you need education (all do) you go to public school, unless you pay additional tuition for a private school. :yep:
If you need security you call the police, unless you pay for a private security company. :yep:
If you want to spend time in nature you go to a park, unless you own your own undeveloped land. :yep:
If you need medical treatment... you pay a private company to subsidize it... :shifty:

Since you demonstrate your wisdom on politics by parroting some rants from the crazyest fringe I wouldn't call yourself lucky Bubble as most people have more sense than to follow those loons so you will be disappointed in looking towarcds your "lucky break" as you are just going to end up with the same run of the mill politicians your country has had since it existed just like all the other countries with elections do.

Things are different.The election of Obama woke a lot of people up.Admiral Yamamoto's "sleeping giant" comment comes to mind.The Left is in denial or thinks if they save face it will deter the opposition but it will not.We shall soon see who will be laughing.

Capital flees to the US?
AFAIK, the primary way for money to somehow flee to another country is by trade. If we look at the Cumulative Current Account Balance per Capita we see that the US is in red while most of western Europe is green (note especially the "Socialist States" of Norway and Sweden), meaning *your* money disappears to *our* countries. Not a bad achievement by our Socialist nations, compared to you Capitalists;)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...per_capita.png

Most people *are* in fact aware of what you call "limited freedom". You somehow assume we are all lost souls waiting for The True Messiah Of Capitalism who will turn us towards the right path. You assume that most are happy because they wouldn't understand our current system.
I'm very sorry to burst your bubble, but it doesn't work that way.

You assume that if the state supports you, you won't work hard. To a limited degree that's true. If you're uneducated and you get no money at all, you *have* to work hard or you can't pay your bills. But shouldn't an uneducated, unwanted laborer have an equal right to have spare time and relaxation as a highly educated professional?
Of course there are always people who abuse the system, but the extreme majority of people don't.

Strange priorities you guys have. If you want to visit a park, you can do it for free. If you've got a life-threatening disease you either pay or die:doh:

Am I the only person here who finds it a bit weird to deem a plant more important than a man's life?

The only things that have changed are the faces. The crappy, selfish game remains the same.

(insert my usual rant about CEO fat cats outsourcing a crap ton of US jobs overseas here in response to darkfish's damning post )

Made in USA......ain't something you see very much of anymore. Until we see a helluva lot more of that, down the tubes we'll continue to go. Not that the upper 1% cares, they have theirs, country be damned.

That is capitalism for you.

Capitalist propaganda?

No, sir - this is economics 101.

Wealth equates to the ability to acquire hard resources. Money is the exchange for said hard resources. The bottom line in all cases are the resources themselves, and they are of finite supply. If you equally redistribute wealth then you would stretch demand for finite resources equally. There are only so many high quality steaks, yachts, etc. to go around.

Now what happens? Everyone wants that which there is not enough to share. So who gets those things? Naturally, either the powerful by way of force (despotism and the despot's acolytes) or those who create such things reserve them for those who's own talents would make excellent barters.

Most cases the latter occurs but in many the former does. I'd much prefer the later. Now, fiat capitalism streamlines the process. Instead of the yacht maker paying, say, the doctor for services with a yacht (which would run out of value as soon as the doctor has no need for a yacht), the yacht maker makes money which which to pay the doctor. And the doctor makes money with which to buy the steak. And the butcher makes money with which to buy ....

Equal wealth redistribution artificially negates the value of those things in the highest demand. For instance (sticking with the yacht example), now that everyone can afford a yacht, there are not enough to go around. So then only some can actually have the yacht, giving the yacht a high, unequal value which defaults the very notion equal wealth distribution. Or we just forget about yachts altogether which then serves to bring down the value of both those who can own yachts and those who create them, hence the idea of the decline of overall national wealth.

Don't misunderstand me - I've written many a paragraph on here supporting why I believe some measure of socialism is inevitable due to the eminent shift to a service-based economy we are facing. However, by no means would an equal distribution of wealth be advisable - all wealth would necessarily HAVE to be lowered, because, as I stated resources are finite and there would be an intrinsic value to possession of said resources (uneven wealth) or such demand for such resources would be eliminated (reduction of wealth).

What more can the upper 1% do? It's the bottom 99% that perpetuates the outsourcing of jobs through our constant hunt for the best bargains while we continue to elect politicians who create policies making it impossible for US companies to compete...

It's up to the consumer to decide to have less but higher quality, at a higher cost. Than it is up to businesses to supply this demand. Thus far, however, that demand is practically non-existant.

I'm not talking about completely equal wealth distribution. I'm talking about a relatively equal distribution. Meaning that all extremes are capped off. Because as you say, a completely equal distribution of wealth wouldn't work.

I don't believe in Communism a la USSR.
I do believe in Socialism a la many W-European countries.

I don't believe in limiting wealth, period, but I do believe that the poor shouldn't be left behind. On the other hand, I'm in a nation where the poor routinely have HDTV's and spinning rims, so I believe that social welfare mechanisms should be restricted to those who have fallen on hard times - not those who CHOOSE to remain poor.

As far was Western European nations are concerned, which one that has a population anywhere near the United States do you believe we should model ourselves after?

1st off... Europe love him because he's not G.W. Bush. Second, hes more progressive like others have said.

The only reason that we are not more progressive then Europe is greed. Why would the rich in this country want to give money to help with public funded programs when they could by another Porsche, or go to cabo for a month?

Well, first of all no European nation has a population anywhere near the US:03:

Secondly, as I'm Dutch, I'm much more familiar with the Dutch system than the other European systems. I do know I like the Dutch system pretty much, but I know the other systems much less good so I can't really give a definitive answer.

And finally, I don't necessarily recommend anything. You should use the system you like. If that's plain capitalism, and it makes the average US citizen happy, so be it. It's not my place to decide for you what system you should use. I'm only defending the European system against Dick Morris and Bubblehead.

Precisely. :|\\Fair enough, but I think Dick Morris makes some pretty valid points.