Capitalism does not support evolution at all. Inside natural selection there is something called reciprocal altruism which means that in order to become the fittest you have to work together and make sacrifices for one another. Natural selection is not about the advancement of one person. It is about the advancement of all species. Capitalism is a corrupt system that makes the poor people suffer and rewards the CEO's of major corporations for doing nothing.

(April 4, 2009 at 7:35 pm)Tiberius Wrote: But socialism doesn't encourage people to work. People are greedy by nature, we want to survive. Capitalism is the only system that rewards those who work with a fair proportion of money. Socialism grants the doctor the same as the garbage man. In such a society what would prevent me from simply doing a garbageman's work for a doctor's salary? Plus the fact I'd need to spend several years of my life at medical school, all so I could become a doctor and earn the wage of a garbageman.

bozo has tried and failed to explain this to me in a way that seems fair to me. I'd love to see another system to capitalism, but at the moment socialism doesn't seem to work at all.

Here we go again! Of course people would work under socialism. The difference would be how wealth is distributed. Under socialism, the meg-wealthy and the underclasses would not exist.
You have a very jaundiced view of humanity, Adrian.Like a lot of capitalists, you hate to think that some at the bottom of the heap might be " scrounging " yet never think to show the same venom to the mega-rich, who work the system to their own greedy agenda. For example, what use to humanity are acountants? Nil. Yet they are hired by the rich to rob the poor by avoiding paying taxes they rightly should be paying.
As regards how jobs are valued, personally I value the garbage man highly. He keeps me safe from disease by emptying my decaying rubbish.
I value a garbageman above an accountant every day of the week.
I'm glad you say you want another system.you clearly don't want socialism so you're stuck with capitalism. And when you continue saying socialism doesn't work, that is just your opinion. It works in Cuba, does it not?

---

(April 5, 2009 at 6:14 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Socialism as a political concept is screwy. Community supporting itself, and it's weakest members, is what it should be about. Sure some jobs are more valuable than others, but all are interdependant. Likewise those dependents that can't work can be from any career. Different societies will have different priorities. Aren't plumbers in the US far more highly regarded than they are in the UK? Perceived importance changes. At different times different skills are valued.

On the other hand.. capitalism is good in that it reflects nature more accurately. Socialism goes against natural selection. Wasn't capitalism invented by Christians <unsupportable claim alert >?

Actually Frodo, I find you a bit screwy,hence I've largely aoided exchanges with you.
Socialism isn't screwy, its the alternative to capitalism i.e a society based on co-operation, not competition. I don't want a society based on survival of the fittest thank you very much.

It seems to me like if you got rid of the "meg-wealthy" and the underclasses, you would simply create a new meg-wealthy and underclass within the factions that are left. The meg-wealthy would be whoever is at the top, and the underclasses would be whoever is at the bottom.

Actually I do show the same venom to the mega-rich. I know there are a lot of corrupt people at the top, but then there are a lot of people at the top who started at the bottom and worked very hard to get to where they are today. I don't see why they would have to be punished, which a socialist system would do. If they have worked hard, they deserve all the money they earn. The capitalist system allows this, and I think all we need to do is have more regulation on business to make sure they cannot become corrupted.

I think you have a very naive view of accountants. If all the accountants on Earth were to suddenly die, most business would fall apart. I'm not talking about the rich either, I'm talking about small business as well. My mother's ex-boyfriend had a small carpentry company, and he hired an accountant to do his books. Accountants are meant to help business by providing a service that is hard to most people. Your claim that garbagemen are more valuable than accountants is simply laughable. Most people can do their own garbage, they can burn it or take it to a quarry themselves if the need be. Most people cannot do an accountant's work.

I find capitalism a system based on both competition and co-operation. You can either make it on your own by providing a competing service, or you can join a company and co-operate with them to help your career. Both ways allow you to rise up the ranks, but often the second is the easier (although slower) of the two. If you have a good idea though, you can make it on your own.

(April 5, 2009 at 12:09 pm)Tiberius Wrote: It seems to me like if you got rid of the "meg-wealthy" and the underclasses, you would simply create a new meg-wealthy and underclass within the factions that are left. The meg-wealthy would be whoever is at the top, and the underclasses would be whoever is at the bottom.

Actually I do show the same venom to the mega-rich. I know there are a lot of corrupt people at the top, but then there are a lot of people at the top who started at the bottom and worked very hard to get to where they are today. I don't see why they would have to be punished, which a socialist system would do. If they have worked hard, they deserve all the money they earn. The capitalist system allows this, and I think all we need to do is have more regulation on business to make sure they cannot become corrupted.

I think you have a very naive view of accountants. If all the accountants on Earth were to suddenly die, most business would fall apart. I'm not talking about the rich either, I'm talking about small business as well. My mother's ex-boyfriend had a small carpentry company, and he hired an accountant to do his books. Accountants are meant to help business by providing a service that is hard to most people. Your claim that garbagemen are more valuable than accountants is simply laughable. Most people can do their own garbage, they can burn it or take it to a quarry themselves if the need be. Most people cannot do an accountant's work.

I find capitalism a system based on both competition and co-operation. You can either make it on your own by providing a competing service, or you can join a company and co-operate with them to help your career. Both ways allow you to rise up the ranks, but often the second is the easier (although slower) of the two. If you have a good idea though, you can make it on your own.

Ever heard of the Levellers? ( not the band, although they are lefties ). They were early socialists who saw the evil of wealth being held by the minority, whilst the poor people starved. Their name means what it says on the can, to spread the wealth more evenly. Thus, under socialism, the mega-rich would disappear, as would the starving. The mass of people would enjoy the same standard of living, guaranteeing the necessities of life to all.

Don't make me laugh with your examples of the " local boy made good ". Do you not acept that millions of people work very hard all their lives for a modest income whilst making the boss rich? And what about inherited wealth? What about the idle rich? What about the royal family?

I am not naieve about accountants at all, just scathing about their worth to humanity. They exist to help other capitalists avoid paying their dues. A doctor, nurse, dentist,garbageman,joiner,plumber is more valuable to me.
And talking of naievity, you put your faith in regulation of business? You gotta be joking!

Your last para says it all really. You are aspirational and see capitalism as being able to satisfy that. So be it, socialism is not for you. The rat-race is, it seems.

---

(April 3, 2009 at 3:50 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Jesus was a socialist. It's a good start!

Welcome aboard!

Remind me about this please. His socialist credentials?

(April 5, 2009 at 2:24 pm)bozo Wrote: Ever heard of the Levellers? ( not the band, although they are lefties ). They were early socialists who saw the evil of wealth being held by the minority, whilst the poor people starved. Their name means what it says on the can, to spread the wealth more evenly. Thus, under socialism, the mega-rich would disappear, as would the starving. The mass of people would enjoy the same standard of living, guaranteeing the necessities of life to all.

I think people would object to this system. I think that the people who could afford it would pay for better conditions (I certainly would). Does socialism deny the top-end earners their right to pay for better accommodation? If it does, then I don't think many would accept socialism. If it doesn't, then socialism tends towards capitalism, simple as that. I just don't see people living in a pale grey society, where everyone is pretty much a drone, living the same lifestyle. The difference of lifestyles is what makes people so great, and if someone wants a better lifestyle, they have the encouragement to work for it.

Quote:Don't make me laugh with your examples of the " local boy made good ". Do you not acept that millions of people work very hard all their lives for a modest income whilst making the boss rich? And what about inherited wealth? What about the idle rich? What about the royal family?

You may laugh, but it's a valid point. Your quick rejection of it shows you don't consider there to be a difference between self-made men and people who inherit money. I do see a striking difference between the two. Yes, millions of people work very hard for a modest income, but there is no stopping any of those people from advancing through the ranks like people have done before. Many lack the drive, many simply like where they are. There are a multitude of reasons why people like having a modest income. I'm not against inherited wealth. If you have worked your ass off to ensure your children have a better future, I think that is a great accomplishment. The idle rich I don't necessarily like, but I cannot simply prevent them from doing nothing when they have the money to do nothing. They are feeding money back into the system themselves by using services provided to them by the lower classes. I doubt the barbers and valets of the idle rich are unhappy with their situation.

As for the royal family, I'm against them as a installation of power, and against them getting money from the state. I'm not against Prince Charles having legitimate businesses though, and as long as they have no governmental power and are not tax supported, I don't see any reason why they cannot continue with their way of life.

Quote:I am not naieve about accountants at all, just scathing about their worth to humanity. They exist to help other capitalists avoid paying their dues. A doctor, nurse, dentist,garbageman,joiner,plumber is more valuable to me.
And talking of naievity, you put your faith in regulation of business? You gotta be joking!

No, they exist to provide a service to help people handle their taxes. You are bunching a few dishonest accountants with the rest of them, who provide a legitimate service to people. It's like saying all doctors are corrupt because a few doctors murder their patients.

If you have a point about regulation of business, bring it up. Don't use snide comments like "You gotta be joking" and expect me to let it slide. You obviously object to my point, so debate it properly please.

Quote:Your last para says it all really. You are aspirational and see capitalism as being able to satisfy that. So be it, socialism is not for you. The rat-race is, it seems.

Capitalism has satisfied my needs so far, and I think it is far easier to work with a system already in place than to gamble everything with a system that doesn't appear to work, especially when its proponents cannot even explain how eliminating mega-rich and the poverty-striken will not just lead to mega-rich and poverty-striken yet again further down the line.

(April 5, 2009 at 2:42 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(April 5, 2009 at 2:24 pm)bozo Wrote: Ever heard of the Levellers? ( not the band, although they are lefties ). They were early socialists who saw the evil of wealth being held by the minority, whilst the poor people starved. Their name means what it says on the can, to spread the wealth more evenly. Thus, under socialism, the mega-rich would disappear, as would the starving. The mass of people would enjoy the same standard of living, guaranteeing the necessities of life to all.

I think people would object to this system. I think that the people who could afford it would pay for better conditions (I certainly would). Does socialism deny the top-end earners their right to pay for better accommodation? If it does, then I don't think many would accept socialism. If it doesn't, then socialism tends towards capitalism, simple as that. I just don't see people living in a pale grey society, where everyone is pretty much a drone, living the same lifestyle. The difference of lifestyles is what makes people so great, and if someone wants a better lifestyle, they have the encouragement to work for it.

Quote:Don't make me laugh with your examples of the " local boy made good ". Do you not acept that millions of people work very hard all their lives for a modest income whilst making the boss rich? And what about inherited wealth? What about the idle rich? What about the royal family?

You may laugh, but it's a valid point. Your quick rejection of it shows you don't consider there to be a difference between self-made men and people who inherit money. I do see a striking difference between the two. Yes, millions of people work very hard for a modest income, but there is no stopping any of those people from advancing through the ranks like people have done before. Many lack the drive, many simply like where they are. There are a multitude of reasons why people like having a modest income. I'm not against inherited wealth. If you have worked your ass off to ensure your children have a better future, I think that is a great accomplishment. The idle rich I don't necessarily like, but I cannot simply prevent them from doing nothing when they have the money to do nothing. They are feeding money back into the system themselves by using services provided to them by the lower classes. I doubt the barbers and valets of the idle rich are unhappy with their situation.

As for the royal family, I'm against them as a installation of power, and against them getting money from the state. I'm not against Prince Charles having legitimate businesses though, and as long as they have no governmental power and are not tax supported, I don't see any reason why they cannot continue with their way of life.

Quote:I am not naieve about accountants at all, just scathing about their worth to humanity. They exist to help other capitalists avoid paying their dues. A doctor, nurse, dentist,garbageman,joiner,plumber is more valuable to me.
And talking of naievity, you put your faith in regulation of business? You gotta be joking!

No, they exist to provide a service to help people handle their taxes. You are bunching a few dishonest accountants with the rest of them, who provide a legitimate service to people. It's like saying all doctors are corrupt because a few doctors murder their patients.

If you have a point about regulation of business, bring it up. Don't use snide comments like "You gotta be joking" and expect me to let it slide. You obviously object to my point, so debate it properly please.

Quote:Your last para says it all really. You are aspirational and see capitalism as being able to satisfy that. So be it, socialism is not for you. The rat-race is, it seems.

Capitalism has satisfied my needs so far, and I think it is far easier to work with a system already in place than to gamble everything with a system that doesn't appear to work, especially when its proponents cannot even explain how eliminating mega-rich and the poverty-striken will not just lead to mega-rich and poverty-striken yet again further down the line.

IN ORDER OF YOUR PARAS:

Of course the very wealthy would not want socialism! They have nothing to gain! The vast majority of the world, however, might one day wake up to the fact that they would. I have little doubt that the wealthy will resist and bloody revolution may well bring in socialism one day. I'd sooner it were achieved by concensus, but I think it unlikely.

So, you'll be a fan of men like Alan Sugar then?! The millions who toil in dead-end jobs have no other choice in life, but to work for " the man " and make him rich. Have you noticed how when comparitively small businesses have problems, they will trot out all sorts of remedies, usually sacking people is top of the list, yet rarely accept taking action that will afect their own ( the bosses') lifestyle?
And what about the unemployed? In some areas of Liverpool, there are now 3 generations of families where the men have never worked. Men doomed to spend their miserable lives in a drunken,druged-up life of crime.
What about the miners, in the days when we had a coal industry? Could they gain a better living? The country won the last world war fueled by the coal those men dug. What was their reward? Not in Sugar's league for making crappy computers.
As for inherited wealth, a lottery in life grants it, regardless of ability or worthiness. You'll be a fan of " Upstairs Downstairs " too then? Valets, maids etc. toiling night and day for the toffs! I know that's history, but the class considerations are still there.
Oh and Prince Charles is a noted tight-arse with his millions ( shall we ignore the royals' racist attitudes in this debate? )

Accountants are accountants. They play with figures. They contribute nothing to humanity. They aid the better-off.
I'#m not being " snide " about your faith in regulation, just dismissive.
Does the attitude of our MP's and Lords over their expenses and payments for smoothing through legislation not suggest how rotten and corrupt life is at the top? They all answer the same that " they are doing nothing wrong ". Technically they're probably correct, which is pretty bad, cause it means they've all got their snouts in the trough. So if we can't regulate the law makers, what chance big business can be purified? Nil, I suggest.

I wn't bother responding to your last para, I'd be repetitive.

(April 5, 2009 at 3:42 pm)bozo Wrote: Of course the very wealthy would not want socialism! They have nothing to gain! The vast majority of the world, however, might one day wake up to the fact that they would. I have little doubt that the wealthy will resist and bloody revolution may well bring in socialism one day. I'd sooner it were achieved by concensus, but I think it unlikely.

That wasn't the point. Let's assume I am a computer security analyst who earns a "top-end" salary in your socialist paradise. This is my question: Is there anything preventing me from using my hard earned cash to buy better accommodation for my family than the garbage collector (lower end of the salary) can afford?

Quote:So, you'll be a fan of men like Alan Sugar then?! The millions who toil in dead-end jobs have no other choice in life, but to work for " the man " and make him rich. Have you noticed how when comparitively small businesses have problems, they will trot out all sorts of remedies, usually sacking people is top of the list, yet rarely accept taking action that will afect their own ( the bosses') lifestyle?

Alan Sugar worked hard to get where he is today, and I see no reason why he can't live a life of luxury that his work has afforded him. You either work very hard and are able to rest for a long time, or you can work at a medium pace and rest every now and then. Or you can not work at all and see where it gets you. Sure, people who work "for the man" are making him richer, but they are also making themselves richer, and it is only because of "the man" that they are ale to do this. If "the man" weren't there to offer jobs they might not have one.

Quote:And what about the unemployed? In some areas of Liverpool, there are now 3 generations of families where the men have never worked. Men doomed to spend their miserable lives in a drunken,druged-up life of crime.
What about the miners, in the days when we had a coal industry? Could they gain a better living? The country won the last world war fueled by the coal those men dug. What was their reward? Not in Sugar's league for making crappy computers.

As far as I can see it, the unemployed are going to be a problem in any society, whether it is capitalist or socialist. The best way to combat unemployment is for the government to create new jobs, and usually big business creates a lot more jobs than the government can. The best thing for the government to do is to remain as minimalist as possible and further education and healthcare so that people can get jobs in the future.

Quote:As for inherited wealth, a lottery in life grants it, regardless of ability or worthiness. You'll be a fan of " Upstairs Downstairs " too then? Valets, maids etc. toiling night and day for the toffs! I know that's history, but the class considerations are still there.

I know a few people who work as chefs / maids for "toffs" and they love the work. They don't see it as "tolling night and day". They see it as a great opportunity to do what they love, whilst being in a relaxed work climate. My aunt's fiance works as a chef at a castle. He gets all his accommodation expenses paid, plus food. The only requirement for him is to cook for the family if they ever decide to visit the castle (as they don't live there the entire time). To be quite honest, I think I'd love to have his job if I didn't want to go into computing.

Quote:Oh and Prince Charles is a noted tight-arse with his millions ( shall we ignore the royals' racist attitudes in this debate? )

I think we can agree that we both probably despise the royals equally. I simply see no reason why the Prince should not be able to keep his money earned from his own business, as long as none of it was funded by the state.

Quote:Accountants are accountants. They play with figures. They contribute nothing to humanity. They aid the better-off.

Bravo. You demonstrate how you know absolutely nothing about accountancy. If by "playing with figures" you mean evaluating profits, determining best investments, and calculating tax due, then sure, they play with figures. I doubt that is what you meant by the term though. They contribute a lot to small business just as they contribute to big business. If accountants didn't exist, my mother's ex wouldn't have a thriving business, as he would be up all night trying to make heads or tails of the taxation system. I have absolutely no idea where you get your disturbing view of accountants from, but it is a fallacy to compare the few to the many and say it makes a generalization.

Quote:I'#m not being " snide " about your faith in regulation, just dismissive.
Does the attitude of our MP's and Lords over their expenses and payments for smoothing through legislation not suggest how rotten and corrupt life is at the top? They all answer the same that " they are doing nothing wrong ". Technically they're probably correct, which is pretty bad, cause it means they've all got their snouts in the trough. So if we can't regulate the law makers, what chance big business can be purified? Nil, I suggest.

This is why I favour a Libertarian government. One that is kept small and regulated by multiple external organisations to prevent corruption. One that is very open about its decisions and policies. The argument concerning corruption in capitalist and socialist governments is a long one, and I think we need to eradicate government corruption before we can even think about tackling corruption in economic systems. I could ask the same question of you. If we can't regulate the law makers, what chance does socialism stand of working? Nil, I suggest.

(April 5, 2009 at 4:51 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(April 5, 2009 at 3:42 pm)bozo Wrote: Of course the very wealthy would not want socialism! They have nothing to gain! The vast majority of the world, however, might one day wake up to the fact that they would. I have little doubt that the wealthy will resist and bloody revolution may well bring in socialism one day. I'd sooner it were achieved by concensus, but I think it unlikely.

That wasn't the point. Let's assume I am a computer security analyst who earns a "top-end" salary in your socialist paradise. This is my question: Is there anything preventing me from using my hard earned cash to buy better accommodation for my family than the garbage collector (lower end of the salary) can afford?

Quote:So, you'll be a fan of men like Alan Sugar then?! The millions who toil in dead-end jobs have no other choice in life, but to work for " the man " and make him rich. Have you noticed how when comparitively small businesses have problems, they will trot out all sorts of remedies, usually sacking people is top of the list, yet rarely accept taking action that will afect their own ( the bosses') lifestyle?

Alan Sugar worked hard to get where he is today, and I see no reason why he can't live a life of luxury that his work has afforded him. You either work very hard and are able to rest for a long time, or you can work at a medium pace and rest every now and then. Or you can not work at all and see where it gets you. Sure, people who work "for the man" are making him richer, but they are also making themselves richer, and it is only because of "the man" that they are ale to do this. If "the man" weren't there to offer jobs they might not have one.

Quote:And what about the unemployed? In some areas of Liverpool, there are now 3 generations of families where the men have never worked. Men doomed to spend their miserable lives in a drunken,druged-up life of crime.
What about the miners, in the days when we had a coal industry? Could they gain a better living? The country won the last world war fueled by the coal those men dug. What was their reward? Not in Sugar's league for making crappy computers.

As far as I can see it, the unemployed are going to be a problem in any society, whether it is capitalist or socialist. The best way to combat unemployment is for the government to create new jobs, and usually big business creates a lot more jobs than the government can. The best thing for the government to do is to remain as minimalist as possible and further education and healthcare so that people can get jobs in the future.

Quote:As for inherited wealth, a lottery in life grants it, regardless of ability or worthiness. You'll be a fan of " Upstairs Downstairs " too then? Valets, maids etc. toiling night and day for the toffs! I know that's history, but the class considerations are still there.

I know a few people who work as chefs / maids for "toffs" and they love the work. They don't see it as "tolling night and day". They see it as a great opportunity to do what they love, whilst being in a relaxed work climate. My aunt's fiance works as a chef at a castle. He gets all his accommodation expenses paid, plus food. The only requirement for him is to cook for the family if they ever decide to visit the castle (as they don't live there the entire time). To be quite honest, I think I'd love to have his job if I didn't want to go into computing.

Quote:Oh and Prince Charles is a noted tight-arse with his millions ( shall we ignore the royals' racist attitudes in this debate? )

I think we can agree that we both probably despise the royals equally. I simply see no reason why the Prince should not be able to keep his money earned from his own business, as long as none of it was funded by the state.

Quote:Accountants are accountants. They play with figures. They contribute nothing to humanity. They aid the better-off.

Bravo. You demonstrate how you know absolutely nothing about accountancy. If by "playing with figures" you mean evaluating profits, determining best investments, and calculating tax due, then sure, they play with figures. I doubt that is what you meant by the term though. They contribute a lot to small business just as they contribute to big business. If accountants didn't exist, my mother's ex wouldn't have a thriving business, as he would be up all night trying to make heads or tails of the taxation system. I have absolutely no idea where you get your disturbing view of accountants from, but it is a fallacy to compare the few to the many and say it makes a generalization.

Quote:I'#m not being " snide " about your faith in regulation, just dismissive.
Does the attitude of our MP's and Lords over their expenses and payments for smoothing through legislation not suggest how rotten and corrupt life is at the top? They all answer the same that " they are doing nothing wrong ". Technically they're probably correct, which is pretty bad, cause it means they've all got their snouts in the trough. So if we can't regulate the law makers, what chance big business can be purified? Nil, I suggest.

This is why I favour a Libertarian government. One that is kept small and regulated by multiple external organisations to prevent corruption. One that is very open about its decisions and policies. The argument concerning corruption in capitalist and socialist governments is a long one, and I think we need to eradicate government corruption before we can even think about tackling corruption in economic systems. I could ask the same question of you. If we can't regulate the law makers, what chance does socialism stand of working? Nil, I suggest.

Again, in order:-

Sorry, but who wants socialism is very much the point.

Sugar got rich by the sweat of others. He got the lion's share though.

Unemployment is a very big problem in capitalist society, but is a necessary component part of the rotten system. It wouldn't be under socialism.

Prince Charles inherited his wealth.

Accountants are accountants, I won't repeat for your pleasure. What about bankers?

Your Libertarian tag merely masks your fondness for capitalism.

(April 5, 2009 at 5:12 pm)bozo Wrote: Sorry, but who wants socialism is very much the point.

Yet again you dodge around the question. I wonder why this is? It's a pretty simple question: If I were a top-end earner in a socialist system, would there be any barriers stopping me from spending my money on more "luxurious" accommodation for my family?

Quote:
Sugar got rich by the sweat of others. He got the lion's share though.

Sugar got rich by having an idea and following it through. There are plenty of people who have jobs and decent incomes because he has a business empire.

Quote:Unemployment is a very big problem in capitalist society, but is a necessary component part of the rotten system. It wouldn't be under socialism.

How wouldn't it be? How would you combat unemployment in a socialist system? This is why I think the problem of unemployment is not one to do with economic systems but with the way the government handles things.

Quote:Prince Charles inherited his wealth.

I've said before, I have no problem with inheritance. There is absolutely no reason why a person cannot work hard to ensure the life of their children is better than theirs. Prince Charles also runs several businesses though. His income is not totally inherited.

Quote:Accountants are accountants, I won't repeat for your pleasure. What about bankers?

Well I'm very sorry you were sexually abused by an accountant as a young boy. I understand how you cannot see reason after such a traumatic experience, so I won't bring it up again. There is no point arguing with a brick wall. Bankers? I used to work at a pensions company owned by a bank. I find nothing wrong with people storing their money in such facilities. I guess under a socialist system people would store their money in treasure chests?

Quote:Your Libertarian tag merely masks your fondness for capitalism.

Of course, end with a completely unfounded remark.

I find socialism to be the only resonible good idealogy. My country are based on socialism soince the beginning of the century and have had a socilist party that was leading Sweden, except from time then more right wing and libertarian parties. Just now do we have a right wing party and now are economy is in a huge crisis.

Now we are in a bad economic time. If this new goverment hadn't privatised so many companies would perhaps not been so effected by the crisis. Anyway my point is that during that time we have been socialistic have we had a strong economy. We where the richest and wealthiest country in the world during the 50's and 70's. We have always been on of the top countries in that category. We also have no real exicting pobert. Also have had free healthcare forour citizsens have been free for the public instead of that really unfair and stupid system like in U.S. Which this new right wing goverment wanted to introduce.

I don't really like politics and don't really like any party, but I know what I don't like.