Comments on: Fallout: Jilted State awaits Bush in Israel

By: Soccer Dad

Soccer Dad — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:57:19 +0000

Haveil Havalim #145…

Sorry for the delay, family obligations and laziness prevailed and I wasn’t able to post this morning. So now, a little late in the day, please enjoy Haveil Havalim. InstaCarnival Beta Draft HTML for Carnival Edition http://blogcarnival.com/bc/sprevie...

By: churchillovitz

churchillovitz — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:31:23 +0000

You’ve definitely got a point there, and indeed, I just read recently that England’s welfare state set up in ’45 is failing dismally. As Churchill’s famous saying goes: ‘The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

By: saus

saus — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:50:36 +0000

Truthfully I suggest that Israel have a democratic government that represents its voters and their mandates. Olmert's government's approval ratings are under 10%. This is unheard of in a democracy, I suggest we vote, my own vote will not be for Olmert or Kadima, but I have no objection to anyone else's vote.

What you described above is capitalism. There are unemployment benefits, welfare, social assistance, taxes, education etc etc in all capitalist economic systems. Socialism is not tax the rich, capitalism already taxes the rich, in capitalist systems 99% of low incomes are not taxed at all.

Socialism is the seizure & redistribution of wealth determined by the state, and the needs of the state surpass the needs of the individual. It removes incentives, is ineficient, and promotes waste like no other system.

Without incentives humans will be glad to simply sponge off others whether they need it or not. Taxes to pay for services is normal & part of a mixed market economy, redistribution of wealth seized by the state & then allocated collectively is a failed system that promotes mass unemployment, deficits, debt and is simply non sustainable. Eventually, no one goes out to make the money needed for the redistribution, why on earth would they? Frankly the inefficiency alone makes it a non starter for me never mind any ideological arguments.

By: churchillovitz

churchillovitz — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:07:16 +0000

Who do you suggest would be the best person for the PMs job? Bibi? And by the way the line between socialism and capitalism is greatly diminishing- both are tending to move towards the center. Why do you, actually, prefer capitalism? Isn’t it better to have a benefit system for those who need it- even if means taxes?

By: saus

saus — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:55:31 +0000

heh - but then it wouldn't be a lament. Here's my best effort though for the future. We're screwed.

By: churchillovitz

churchillovitz — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:37:04 +0000

First of all, in line with my fiercely held contention that the British have the best sense of humour (”Thank God we British can laugh at ourselves”), I should like to share a joke, which fellow Englishmen will get, Yanks probably will get, and Israelies might get: David Beckham is standing in front of a can machine. He puts in fifty pence and a can rolls out, he puts in another fifty pence and yet another can rolls out. As he goes on repeating this, a guy taps him on the shoulder and says ‘what the heck d’ya think you’re doing!?’ ‘Shut up!’ replies Beckham, ‘Can’t you see i’m winning!’ . Now, it’s a good article, but could you possibly put the point in (less than) two sentences or so? -we English like getting to the point! Cheers.