The Suicide of the West

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bubba_Switzler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
weller2 said:
If you swap “secularization” for “leftism”, then I would agree with you. Singling out “secularization” is mistaking symptom for the cause.

My argument here is that the leftist social model CAN work, but it requires an economy with a huge production surplus. This is very simple: you will probably agree with me when I say that leftism likes paying people for not working, right? Okay. So I posit that in order for a leftist model to work, there must be enough production surplus to afford paying all these non-contributing individuals for well… non-contributing. (BTW, non-contributing includes (part of) government bureaucrats, professional social activists, gender studies lecturers etc.) This is why leftism correlates with GDP per capita, i.e. the higher developed a society is, the more it can afford to implement leftist ideas.

So, until 2005 (or until 1975, depends, how you define the criteria) the West definitely COULD afford a leftist social model because it had economic surplus. And the reason it had economic surplus is that it had surplus in the primary energy (i.e. cheap oil). As cheap oil ended, so did the economic surplus, and the leftist model became unaffordable. However, nobody has realized that (well, Carter did, but the message has fallen on deaf ears), and so we are still pursuing the path of increasing state bureaucracy while the surplus allowing us to feed this bureaucracy diminishes.

Worse, since the bureaucracy has power, it will not yield, and continue draining resources from the productive part of the society, straining it even further. This leads to social unrest, so the government feels threatened, so it increases its grip… which costs even more. Rinse and repeat.

And even worse, we have the global warming problem, and addressing global warming requires government bureaucracy. So we are in a situation where we actually need to have “big government”, but cannot afford it. In other words, one choice is “power to the government” to lower CO2 emissions, but on that path we risk that the bureaucracy will strangle the productive part of the economy to death. The other choice is “power to the people”, but on that path we risk that the climate will get out of control due to unrestricted CO2 emissions. I believe that the very survival of Western culture depends on finding a solution to this conundrum.

Again; from my observations in Northern Europe, this is not necessarily a problem, as long as there is enough surplus to so that people are relaxed – i.e. their basic needs are met – and thus not prone to aggresion. On the other hand, if the society is strained, then survival instincts take over, and children who have never been taught a strong moral code will revert back to Neanderthal behavior patterns. I understand that this is what you’re having in US.
Click to expand...
With all due respect you are assuming Europe is a static system, it is not. You are also making the same mistake Marx did and ignoring basic human psychology, ie the state cannot impart values nor sacrifice because of it’s innate relativism. The Russians learned this the hard way.

Just like in Russia albeit more slowly, secularism in Europe will eventually undermine the Christian work ethic and willingness to sacrifice for the common good by replacing it with moral relativism and subsequently needs of each individual will take precedence over all other as it did in the Soviet experiment, even though this is actually the opposite of what Marx predicted. Talk about rinse and repeat. This was predicted in the Bible though, the godless lose the ability to use common sense.
 
weller2 said:
It appear that Rin delivered what you have asked for.
Click to expand...
No…he is just trying to prove me wrong by finding a chart that shows percentages rather than actual $$$.

I asked: “Maybe you could name another country that provides more foreign aid to the third world than the U.S.”

He would be right IF I asked to name a country with a higher percentage of GNI going to foreign aid.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
I don’t like your chart. I like mine better:

The results of the annual World Giving Index are out. And, this year, two countries share the top spot as the most generous in the world — the U.S. and Myanmar.

marketwatch.com/story/and-the-most-generous-country-in-the-world-is-2014-11-18
Click to expand...
This index does not measure “countr[ies] that provides (…) foreign aid to the third world”, which is what you asked for.
PS. I didn’t know Mark was an economist :confused:
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should try opening a Bible and read the verses I referenced :rolleyes:
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
No…he
Click to expand...
She
is just trying to prove me wrong by finding a chart that shows percentages rather than actual $$$.
Click to expand...
If you go by so-called “actual $$$”, then obviously the biggest economy in the world will be the most “generous”. Such a comparison is however meaningless, which is why Our Lord called the smallest of donations by a poor woman “more than all they who have cast into the treasury.”
I asked: “Maybe you could name another country that provides more foreign aid to the third world than the U.S.”
Click to expand...
Which I provided.
He
Click to expand...
She
would be right IF I asked to name a country with a higher percentage of GNI going to foreign aid.
Click to expand...
Generally, comparisons such as the one you asked for are measured by percentage of GNI, simply because comparisons in “actual $$$” are meaningless.
 
weller2 said:
And I completely agree with that!

That said, the entire spiritual basis of capitalism is more, more, more…
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. Capitalism is a system that allows individuals to choose how much they want to work and how much they want to earn. Many choose fewer hours and less money so they can pursue other avenues. You are not granted this freedom under socialism.
 
Rin said:
If you go by so-called “actual $$$”, then obviously the biggest economy in the world will be the most “generous”.
Click to expand...
I suppose I could say thank you for agreeing with me and end the discussion right now.
Generally, comparisons such as the one you asked for are measured by percentage of GNI, simply because comparisons in “actual $$$” are meaningless.
Click to expand...
I dislike the word “meaningless” when applied to any of my statements or posts. :mad:

Pardon the simplistic nature of this example…

If you were a small third world country that has just been devastated by an earthquake and you had to choose between accepting the one container load of rice from the country with the highest percentage of GNI or the standard assistance package from the U.S., consisting of a Navy Fleet, hospital ships, medical teams, construction battalions. Plane loads of food, Corporate donations and an amount of cash collected by American Catholic school children that exceeds the total GNP of the country with the highest GNI…what would you choose?

Don’t tell me…I know…you would refuse the U.S. aid and cite Mark 12:43-44
 
Say two old ladies are trying to get home late at night.

One meets a multimillionaire who has his P.A. open a briefcase full of money and peels out one $20 bill so the old lady can get a taxi home. He will never notice the loss of that one note.

The other meets a homeless guy who gives her every last penny he has - fortuitously just enough for her to get the bus home. This means that he will sleep hungry on the streets rather than being able to get a bed and a meal at the local shelter.

Which has been most generous - the multi millionaire or the homeless guy? Certainly the old lady would prefer to have the taxi than the bus, but that is not the same question, is it?🤷
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Don’t tell me…I know…you would refuse the U.S. aid and cite Mark 12:43-44
Click to expand...
Straw man. Obviously I would not refute. I would however also not idolize the States for having a large economy.

My point is simply that when comparing “who gives the most”, absolute values are meaningless, whether you like it or not. It says nothing about the country, other than the size of its economy. And I’m sorry, I will not promote the United States to sainthood for being a superpower.

The same fallacy is heavily present in the UN life quality index, by the way, where Norway has an unfair advantage because the index measures wages in absolute terms, without compensating for the higher cost of goods and services, high taxes and so on. Yes, Norway has the highest income level in the world in absolute terms, but that is also meaningless information, since it does not take other economic factors into account, and as such does not reflect real income.

Yet, Norwegian patriots harp on about their artificially high wages, and American patriots harp on about their country’s “generosity”. Both would probably point out the flaw in the other person’s argument, while not seeing the same flaw in their own.
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
His
Click to expand...
Her
chart was wrong because it ignored private charitable giving. The US gives more away than any other nation.
Click to expand...
The chart was correct since it reports what was being discussed, international aid to third-world countries. The other index measures degree of generosity in terms of helping strangers, donating money and volunteering time. Those are absolutely good cultural traits, but they are not what was being discussed. For all we know, a country could make zero contributions to third-world development aid, and yet end up on top of that index, if the population donates enough to other causes.
 
DrTaffy said:
Say two old ladies are trying to get home late at night.

One meets a multimillionaire who has his P.A. open a briefcase full of money and peels out one $20 bill so the old lady can get a taxi home. He will never notice the loss of that one note.

The other meets a homeless guy who gives her every last penny he has - fortuitously just enough for her to get the bus home. This means that he will sleep hungry on the streets rather than being able to get a bed and a meal at the local shelter.

Which has been most generous - the multi millionaire or the homeless guy? Certainly the old lady would prefer to have the taxi than the bus, but that is not the same question, is it?🤷
Click to expand...
The purpose of generosity is to help or assist by sharing what one can afford.

Since the millionaire was able to share more and provide more assistance, obviously he was the most generous. Not to diminish the nobility and benevolence of the homeless guy…he gave all he could afford. The lady who took the taxi benefited the most.
 
weller2 said:
Elaborate please.
Click to expand...
Glad to…but it would take more bandwidth than this website can handle.

What jumped out at me was his statement: “You are not granted this freedom under socialism.”

I remember very little freedom. Personal or economic. In the State Grammar Schools we were given tests to determine how we could best serve the “collective”. The grades of the tests provided three levels. Potential Engineers/Scientists, Technicians and Labor. Students scoring high (Engineer/Scientist) were whisked off to State Prep schools for advanced learning. The collective did not want any smart, educated kids growing up with the wrong way of thinking. Those scoring as Technicians had the choice of trade school, on-the-job technical training or Military academy. The lowest scoring students stayed at the school and learned to read and write and do simple arithmetic…and how wonderful it was to work for the state and how terrible capitalism was. At 15 they went to work or enlisted in the military. This gave the state bragging rights about the high level of education they provided. What they had to show was a bunch of brainwashed, brainy kids. Two thirds of kids (the others) simply didn’t exist in the school system.

Socialism is the doctrine that people have no right to exist for their own sake, that their life and work do not belong to them, but belongs to society, that the only justification of their existence is service to society, and that society may use them in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its collective good.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
What jumped out at me was his statement: “You are not granted this freedom under socialism.”
Click to expand...
Which in context was
CHESTERTONRULES said:
This is incorrect. Capitalism is a system that allows individuals to choose how much they want to work and how much they want to earn. Many choose fewer hours and less money so they can pursue other avenues. You are not granted this freedom under socialism.
Click to expand...
which implies that one is not allowed to work part-time in socialism. This is demonstrably false (see basically any EU country).
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
In the State Grammar Schools we were given tests to determine how we could best serve the “collective”.
Click to expand...
Which country was that?
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
The grades of the tests provided three levels. Potential Engineers/Scientists, Technicians and Labor. Students scoring high (Engineer/Scientist) were whisked off to State Prep schools for advanced learning. The collective did not want any smart, educated kids growing up with the wrong way of thinking.
Click to expand...
Nope. The Collective was ensuring that smart kids are not dragged down by their much dumber classmates. The system the West currently uses (and which has sadly made inroads in the East also) is that the teaching level is matched to the dumbest kid in class. This ensures that a lot of future engineers become meth heads by the time they graduate (unless the parents can afford a private school).
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
The EU is not real socialism. It is a mixed government controlled economy. (Actually worse than true socialism).
Click to expand...
I remember “true” socialism. I will take EU 🙂
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
In my old country you worked 10 hours a day. 6 or 7 days a week. Because the state demanded it. That’s real socialism.
Click to expand...
Romania? Ceaucescu was insane even by Eastern Block standards…

Poland was 6x8h eventually moving to 5x8h by 1980s. Part time was definitely allowed because my grandfather worked this way.
 
SuperLuigi said:
:ehh:

Does this comment really mean to imply that France is a socialist nation?
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s a modern European-style socialism. They even have a president from a socialist party.

Socialism is not communism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top