we actually might be witnessing the death of socialism!

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Are you Francis Fukuyama by any chance? I seem to have read this before.

[Wonkish1]

Are you Francis Fukuyama by any chance? I seem to have read this before.

I had no idea who that was so I googled him. And since I'm practically on the polar opposite of the party as what you would describe as Neo Conservatives I think you apparently aren't paying attention very well.


The argument above isn't some sort of ideological manifesto you have to wrap your head around. Its basic math, Europe has spent more than it takes in for so long that now it is going to pay for those mistakes. Had the people of Europe only demanded the amount of social welfare that their countries could afford they wouldn't have had this problem. They didn't so now they do!

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

I'd be so happy with getting rid of the idea that we should give to the poor because of ideology.

We should give to the poor because we should give to the poor, not because some paper written by some bearded man told you to do so.

[Gustaf]

lol wonkish1, just lol.

Also, Am I alone in being disappointed we have threads about this but not about the concentrated attack on the welfare state we're currently witnessing?

You're certainly not alone in not having started a thread on that.

Besides, isn't it more or less the same thing?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Besides, isn't it more or less the same thing?

Well, no. Because one would be discussing a very real thing happening at the moment, while the other would be arrogant masturbation.

[Joe Republic]

Is Wonkish under the impression that Europe is a single country?

[Wonkish1]

Is Wonkish under the impression that Europe is a single country?

Where do you get that?

[opebo]

I'd be so happy with getting rid of the idea that we should give to the poor because of ideology.

We should give to the poor because we should give to the poor, not because some paper written by some bearded man told you to do so.

Actually the best reason is simply that capitalism doesn't work without State redistribution to rectify its inherent malfunction.

[Joe Republic]

Is Wonkish under the impression that Europe is a single country?

Where do you get that?

Your posts.

[Verily]

Unrelated: Was looking up tax rates in Europe--Herman Cain stole 9-9-9 from Montenegro! Also Slovakia, which is 19-19-19.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You missed an episode, socialism died in 1989.

Oh wait, you were talking about progressive social-democracy I suppose ? Well, guy, next time you are to make such a point, at least try paying more attention to European politics.

[Wonkish1]

Is Wonkish under the impression that Europe is a single country?

Where do you get that?

Your posts.

And I said that where?

[Gustaf]

Besides, isn't it more or less the same thing?

Well, no. Because one would be discussing a very real thing happening at the moment, while the other would be arrogant masturbation.

Still not seeing the difference.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Besides, isn't it more or less the same thing?

Well, no. Because one would be discussing a very real thing happening at the moment, while the other would be arrogant masturbation.

Still not seeing the difference.

Between what and what?

[Хahar 🤔]

You have to admit though the average American has no clue about European political history at all. I'm much better than the vast majority of Americans on this front.

That may be so, but then the average American does not hold forth as an authority on the issue...

Well I'm an authority on the current economic situation of Europe. I'm fairly good on the current political situation in Europe. I'm probably decent on issues of European political history. No where did I ever say that I was an authority on European political history. You inferred that on to me because of the fact that I've taken authority status on other issues.

The problem here is that most people here do know a fair bit about European political history.

[Wonkish1]

You have to admit though the average American has no clue about European political history at all. I'm much better than the vast majority of Americans on this front.

That may be so, but then the average American does not hold forth as an authority on the issue...

Well I'm an authority on the current economic situation of Europe. I'm fairly good on the current political situation in Europe. I'm probably decent on issues of European political history. No where did I ever say that I was an authority on European political history. You inferred that on to me because of the fact that I've taken authority status on other issues.

The problem here is that most people here do know a fair bit about European political history.

Sooo....whats your point?

[Gustaf]

Besides, isn't it more or less the same thing?

Well, no. Because one would be discussing a very real thing happening at the moment, while the other would be arrogant masturbation.

Still not seeing the difference.

Between what and what?

Between a very real thing happening at the moment and arrogant masturbation, of course.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Besides, isn't it more or less the same thing?

Well, no. Because one would be discussing a very real thing happening at the moment, while the other would be arrogant masturbation.

Still not seeing the difference.

Between what and what?

Between a very real thing happening at the moment and arrogant masturbation, of course.

Ah, yes. Of course.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The European left is in a bit of a crisis. The Right sold out their ideology decades ago, but the left is still not used to it.

There you go again, being serious and reasonable...

Are you being sarcastic? Or giving me the blind hen benefit?

As you should have known by now, at least as far as I am concerned, sarcasm is the highest form of seriousness.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You have to admit though the average American has no clue about European political history at all. I'm much better than the vast majority of Americans on this front.

That may be so, but then the average American does not hold forth as an authority on the issue...

Well I'm an authority on the current economic situation of Europe. I'm fairly good on the current political situation in Europe. I'm probably decent on issues of European political history. No where did I ever say that I was an authority on European political history. You inferred that on to me because of the fact that I've taken authority status on other issues.

The problem here is that most people here do know a fair bit about European political history.

Sooo....whats your point?

That you might be able to BS people into believing you're a genius elsewhere, but for all of this forum's (incredible) faults, we're at least pretty good at calling people out what they're clearly flying blind in any given thread. We have some smart people around here (particularly on European political history) and they're clearly way out of your league.

[Wonkish1]

That you might be able to BS people into believing you're a genius elsewhere, but for all of this forum's (incredible) faults, we're at least pretty good at calling people out what they're clearly flying blind in any given thread. We have some smart people around here (particularly on European political history) and they're clearly way out of your league.

Way to jump into something you when you have no idea how it started.

I made an off the cuff very general remark referencing European socialist parties between 1940s and 70s. A remark that was true. Another poster decided to go into more detail and throw out a bunch of names of Prime Ministers and Presidents. In particular Willy Brandt. I said I recognized his name, but didn't recognize which of several people he was. Then people said asked how I could be an expert on European socialist party history. I said that I never claimed I was, I just made a very general and true statement. The issue died and now its been resurrected.

So Marokai, is it wrong for a person to say what he's an authority on, what he's not an authority on, what he's pretty good about, what he's so so about, etc. or should everybody just assume because someone is good at a few subjects that they have somehow taken on the identity of "genius of everything"?

My ability to remember exactly who Willy Brandt was or even know who Kafka was doesn't mean anything in reference to my ability to assess capital markets, government budgets, my knowledge of economics, and many more subjects. I guess you seem to think it does?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I made an off the cuff very general remark referencing European socialist parties between 1940s and 70s. A remark that was true.

Except that it wasn't, dear. The whole point was that it wasn't.

[Wonkish1]

I made an off the cuff very general remark referencing European socialist parties between 1940s and 70s. A remark that was true.

Except that it wasn't, dear. The whole point was that it wasn't.

Actually yeah it was. I essentially said that period was an example of something. That is a general statement.

Lets just be clear at no point have I said the notion that I am an expert on European socialist party political history. That is all that needs to be said.

And the fact that I'm willing to even go down this road of an off the cuff statement shows that I'm willing to hold my self to a high standard on what I am an authority on and what I am not. If I went down and looked at the people who have acted like they understood things like economics, capital markets, the economy, etc. I could quite easily point to a ton of people that act like they know what they are talking about on those subjects that clearly don't have a clue.

Going forward we should have people admitting what they don't know much about and what they do. Not people that try to make a big deal out of someone pointing out they aren't an expert about for example recent European political history as they pretend to know a lot about economics for example when its clearly not true.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually yeah it was. I essentially said that period was an example of something. That is a general statement.

The problem was that it was an inaccurate general statement. There was a big difference between the sort of policies advocated and (when possible) pursued by social democratic parties in the 1940s and the sort advocated and pursued (when possible) by social democratic parties in the 1950s and (especially) 1960s. This was especially true regarding nationalisation, which is why those names were mentioned.

[Wonkish1]

Actually yeah it was. I essentially said that period was an example of something. That is a general statement.

The problem was that it was an inaccurate general statement. There was a big difference between the sort of policies advocated and (when possible) pursued by social democratic parties in the 1940s and the sort advocated and pursued (when possible) by social democratic parties in the 1950s and (especially) 1960s. This was especially true regarding nationalisation, which is why those names were mentioned.

Dude, I'm not going down this road again with you. I made a general statement that was true. I then added to a range of 40s to 60s(instead of 60s off the cuff) to get rid of any ambiguity. You like spending time on a complete waste of time!