I agree...what interesting is that many think of (European) socialism origin and relation to communism and/or marxism,especially in USA and that makes it a dirty word while the basics realy comes from Christian Religion instead as explained in the article.
About the wars and defense spending per head of country population I have to disagree with you.
The Netherlands even had his government trowing over to support the USA in his wars and probably spend in comparrison maybe more than the USA did.Do not forget that in any war USA gets involved the Dutch fight side by side to your course even when you are wrong to have those wars.
Last but not least yes it did led you to a leader in economics for a certain period of time but shows now clearly that you did it wrong and are going to pay the price for it.The USA amount of succes in economics was extually to history standards a very short period and it realy started with the Dutch borrowing you some money ....:24:
.what interesting is that many think of (European) socialism origin and relation to communism and/or marxism,especially in USA and that makes it a dirty word while the basics realy comes from Christian Religion instead as explained in the article.
Our 'capitalist' society is full of socialism that most don't even consider ...probably because we've lived with it out of necessity.
From public schools to the transportation/highway system to the post office which has been partially/semi privatized. What is seen as working is usually accepted, with the stipulation that it's observed from within our own economic structure. Elements of socialism are all around us and been in practice for centuries. Even the act of Federally subsidizing a market to aid in support/growth or create... is socialism in action.
But to emulate takes more than the argument of success. It also has to include failure.
And socialism has provided examples of that, also. The Soviets and Yugoslavia, for example.
The Soviets were even #2 in economic out put, at one time.
Sure, you could have argued in the 70's that their model was viable, but history proves otherwise.
Putin has been said to have placed the blame on corruption.......but that's still one of his big problems today...in a Russian poll, Russians still blame corruption as a major negative influence:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ht-against-russian-corruption-poll-shows.html
Changing a socio-economic model is no guarantee to eradicate corruption.....or even reduce it.
There is so much corruption in the US society from the legislative to the judicial to the man on the street......I don't see any logic that changing our political/ socio-economic system will bring correction.
Didn't for the Russians and the issues the Soviets faced were probably closer to the same as ours than of the Dutch. Not the same, just more similarity and scale.
About the wars and defense spending per head of country population I have to disagree with you.
You can disagree all you want.
The Dutch have not been a factor in the Middle East to the degree the US has.
The Netherlands even had his government trowing over to support the USA in his wars and probably spend in comparrison maybe more than the USA did
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_forces_of_the_Netherlands
excerpt:
. Several political parties have suggested raising the military expenditure so that it is closer to the
NATO standard for military expenditures, which is 2.0% of the GDP.
US Military expenditures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_military_expenditure
excerpt:
For FY 2010, Department of Defense spending amounts to 4.7% of GDP.
And I suspect many would argue higher.
So, your claim doesn't hold up.
Last but not least yes it did led you to a leader in economics for a certain period of time but shows now clearly that you did it wrong and are going to pay the price for it.
Can't argue there, but for different reasons than you project.
In the past, we've taken some elements of socialism past practicality and we've allowed corruption in the corporate arena.
But it's not the concept of capitalism that's bringing us down, it's corruption from within that was allowed.....the Bush era being the most obvious example.
The USA amount of succes in economics was extually to history standards a very short period and it realy started with the Dutch borrowing you some money
Yeah...but they weren't socialists
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/E/newnetherlands/nl8.htm
and it looks like the Dutch got little out of it
This sad outcome of the war Holland had fought with the new American republic against England, naturally did not boost the stock of Dutch progressives at home. For years the country tottered on the brink of a civil war; then, when in 1787 the Dutch progressives who called their party `the Patriots' tried to topple the aristocratic regime, neighboring Prussia intervened. Prussian soldiers invaded the country, restored the oligarchy, and forced the leading Patriots to flee
