Nine Myths about Socialism in the US

[scandal 951]

Myth #6. Poor people have more chance of becoming rich in the US than anywhere else.

Social mobility (how children move up or down the economic ladder in comparison with their parents) in earnings, wages and education tends to be easier in Australia, Canada and Nordic countries like Denmark, Norway, and Finland, than in the US. That means more of the rich stay rich and more of the poor stay poor here in the US.

Actually, of all the statements in the OP most of them seemed accurate and reasonable to me based upon my experiences living in the US and abroad in different countries - with the exception of this one.

Call me naive and a romantic idealist in my belief in American exceptionalism, but I firmly believe that this "myth" remains true in the USA, and truer here than anywhere else in the world. It may well not be true for many in the ghettos and deprived of the privileges the middle and upper middle class take for granted. But socially, culturally, we all have been raised on the myth that in America, anyone can grow up to be President (and yes, he really just did!). In America, anyone can be a high school dropout and make it big on Wall St or by founding a company. In America, any doe eyed midwestern girl can dream big dreams and make it big in Hollywood or on Broadway. This is our national dream and it's true if only because we want it to be true, and make it true. Day by day, individual by individual, story by story.

[Justine+David 218]

There are a lot of other numbers that show the problems with the US health care system instead of that one.

The claim that the US has the best healthcare system in the world usually comes for the people that can afford it, and prefer to keep it a privilege that increasingly only the wealth can really afford.

Oh you're absolutely right. The current system is horrendous. No arguments there...

It's just a pet peeve of mine when the natural home birth folks that think hospitals are the devil shout from the roof tops this statistic...

[ready4ONE 5,400]

WOW! What piece of ####### this article is

Of the many misconceptions this article presents so that it can make the lefties out there feel good about there opinions it was number 9 that got to me.

Fact,U.S. government distributes more in foreign aid than any other country, by far. What this article does is hide behind the word "percentage" Thus giving the lefty loonies the "proof" they need.

So genius... If you have $100 and give $5 to the poor, and I have $199,999,999 and give $10 then I should boast about giving twice as much as you did?

Toss the words '#######' and 'lefties' all you like, this post is a fail. And might want to seek a professional opinion on who is a loonie. ;-)

[Martyshk 137]

It's just a pet peeve of mine when the natural home birth folks that think hospitals are the devil shout from the roof tops this statistic...

Let the inbred folks have high infant mortality rate, imo... Balances the IQ of the country out

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Do you know of any real world examples of a truly free market? Any real world examples where a country was absolutely devoid of any socialist policies?

Yeah I know, your standard BS response. There are no 100% free markets. But the ones that are closest to totally free are the best ones. The USA used to be the freest and we were the best in the world. Now we are getting away from the free market and going toward what the rest of the world is doing and we are losing our edge.

[scandal 951]

Yeah I know, your standard BS response. There are no 100% free markets. But the ones that are closest to totally free are the best ones. The USA used to be the freest and we were the best in the world. Now we are getting away from the free market and going toward what the rest of the world is doing and we are losing our edge.

I don't know about that.

I'm a big believer in "free markets" too. Free - but level, and fair, and safe, and regulated.

For example, the "free for all" OTC CDS market proved to be a disaster. Some would say CDS were the problem - so ban them. I don't think that - I think they're an important risk diversification tool when used properly. I think the answer is a new market for CDS - but a regulated and exchange based one with central clearing and posted collateral as you would have on any proper exchange.

So I don't agree that "the ones that are closest to totally free are the best ones." Not if "closest to totally free" means unregulated and with counterparty credit risk that blows up in your face, no way.

Markets yes. Safe, secure, regulated, fair and equitable markets that promote commerce and innovation. Not markets that invite disaster.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I don't know about that.

I'm a big believer in "free markets" too. Free - but level, and fair, and safe, and regulated.

For example, the "free for all" OTC CDS market proved to be a disaster. Some would say CDS were the problem - so ban them. I don't think that - I think they're an important risk diversification tool when used properly. I think the answer is a new market for CDS - but a regulated and exchange based one with central clearing and posted collateral as you would have on any proper exchange.

So I don't agree that "the ones that are closest to totally free are the best ones." Not if "closest to totally free" means unregulated and with counterparty credit risk that blows up in your face, no way.

Markets yes. Safe, secure, regulated, fair and equitable markets that promote commerce and innovation. Not markets that invite disaster.

Well, I wasn't talking specifically about the stock markets. I was talking about the economic markets in general. IMO the trading markets have gotten way out of hand. There is nothing wrong with the equity and commodity markets but the derivative markets are to much.

The only regulation in private business I agree with are for safety and the prevention of competition killing monopolies.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to outlaw and prosecute force or fraud. It is the opposite of a controlled market, where the government regulates how the means of production, goods, and services are used, priced, or distributed. This is the contemporary use of the term "free market" by economists and in popular culture; the term has had other uses historically. A free market economy is an economy where all markets within it are free. This requires protection of property rights, but no regulation, no subsidization, no government-imposed monopolistic monetary system, and no governmental monopolies.

The theory holds that within the ideal free market, property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged solely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. By definition, buyers and sellers do not coerce each other, in the sense that they obtain each other's property rights without the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or fraud, nor are they coerced by a third party (such as by government via transfer payments) [1] and they engage in trade simply because they both consent and believe that what they are getting is worth more than or as much as what they give up. Price is the result of buying and selling decisions en masse as described by the theory of supply and demand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The only regulation in private business I agree with are for safety and the prevention of competition killing monopolies.

Labor laws?