Roger Hicks
Veteran
Highlight: Sorry, no, that's complete nonsense. Which moderate socialist regimes were emigrants to the USA fleeing? There really weren't any until well after WW2, by which time relatively few Europeans (except from the most war-ravaged or poorest countries) were especially interested in emigrating to the USA -- assuming, of course, that they'd have been let in.
Most emigrants from Europe were fleeing poverty under traditional regimes, where the rich did their best to make sure that the poor stayed poor; or religious persecution (some of them, of course, merely wanted to be the ones doing the persecuting); or simple failure in their own lives.
Also, consider the phrase "Some of us don't want your moderate socialism." Very true. But others do; and many more would want it if they could see the way that most Europeans (not just the rich) live. For just one example, it's quite nice not to live in permanent fear of bankruptcy from medical bills and to know that infant mortality rates where you live are 30-70% better than in the United States (5.9 in USA, 4.43 in the EU as a whole, 3.34 in France where I live). Those figures, incidentally, come from that well-known left-wing organization, the CIA: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
Thanks for reminding me of what the abbreviation OWS stood for, incidentally.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
That's a fair paraphrase of the only question I'm asking in this context.
Cheers,
R.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
True enough, but somehow while the tea party impacted the GOP, OWS just melted away when they left their camps.
Yeah, there were some great shots from the New York OWS events.
cosmonaut
Well-known
I once watched a clip on the Rolling Stones and Mick and Keith were asked how to you decide to go on tour? Do you just pick up the phone and say let's do this.
No, there was much more to it. Mick claimed they had a couple of hundred full time employees and that they had to make sure that people could afford to buy tickets. So they watched the economy and when things were on the upswing they would tour. Everything they do revolves around money and taxes sometimes they even front their own money to pay for the tour and make their money back as the tour goes.
So. If the Stones are touring the economy follows.......
Strange post but true.
Sparrow
Veteran
... strictly speaking your ancestor left Europe so they could continue to persecute minorities ... Europe was becoming too tolerant for puritans' liking at the time
zauhar
Veteran
Roger, this is more true of Americans than Europeans in my experience. Americans cannot tolerate their individual worldview not being universally applauded - this attitude afflicts all political persuasions.
A simple explanation is that Americans are probably the most socially isolated people in the world (assuming we don't consider Facebook, Twitter, or even RFF as 'social contact'). As a consequence, anyone who thinks differently is a faceless strawman, subject to all sorts of psychological projection.
I try to avoid this kind of projection, even when thinking about the 1%. I know that there must be SOME members of the 1% that I would like on a personal level. Of course, I am provided no opportunity to fraternize with the enemy, so it's a moot point. ;-)
Randy
zauhar
Veteran
Cosmo, given the ticket prices for the Stones show when they came through Philly, I think they are indeed playing to the 1%!!
Randy
gb hill
Veteran
Sadly true of some, but bad apples exist everywhere. I do know most exile from Europe was from religious persecution but I'm trying to stay clear of religion
I guess in all reality moderate socialism didn't exist way back then & it might be a good thing now, that is if people were really honest in the wellfare treatment of others. But they are not.
gb hill
Veteran
I paid $20.00 to see the Stones, Journey, & George Througood @ JFK Stadium 1981. The Stones sound system was awful. George blew them all away.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Randy,
Well, I do know and like some very, very rich people. One makes one of the best dessert wines in the world. In order to buy the vineyard, he had to buy the 11th century chateau-fort that came with it. I'm sure you've often done the same sort of thing yourself. About as often as I have...
Then again, most of the very, very rich people I know and like were not bankers, CEOs, CFOs or the like (I know some of them too, and mostly I don't like 'em). In other words, they weren't high-ranking employees whose salaries were set by other high-ranking employees who saw a clear advantage in pouring the company's money into their own pockets rather than paying lower-ranking employees properly. These are the "1%" that so many people hate, the more so if the rich people in question have unrealistic views of their own worth, intelligence, etc.
Keeping this firmly in the realm of photography, one of the seriously rich people I know and like very much, though I've not seen him for several years, is Sir Kenneth Corfield. Another, now deceased, was Brian Gould. When I asked him what he made before he bought Gandolfi (with Sir Kenneth), he replied "Money".
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Highlight: Hmmm. Not sure. How are they not? I have my own views on how they might not be but I'd be interested in hearing yours.Sadly true of some, but bad apples exist everywhere. I do know most exile from Europe was from religious persecution but I'm trying to stay clear of religion
Cheers,
R.
cosmonaut
Well-known
This is true. I saw them twice but I can't afford it now. Well I might could but really need to put money in other areas. But at that Mick also stated their ticket prices were not higher than anyone else's and they had to insure at making money back. One tour they did they invested $100 million up front cost.
This time around they did do a couple of small shows for $25.00 a head. Mick claimed scalped prices are reported like they are normal pricing and they get a bad rap. He works hard to keep prices down.
It also stated they left the UK due to 98% tax rates. I find that hard to believe, but it's what they said.
zauhar
Veteran
Dear Roger,
I think the European aristocracy must be a very different breed than the the American CEO/CFO class. In my imagination, the aristocracy buys art to put on the wall and look at, the American vulgar rich buy Jackson Pollacks and Picassos and then stick them in climate-controlled vaults.
At least that is my psychological projection, which your story would tend to confirm.
Randy
gb hill
Veteran
Greed for one. As well as manipulating the system for wealth. Look at people like Castro in Cuba who use the guise of socialism to keep the masses in poverty. Amazing to see that the masses of Cuban refugees who take that 90 mile boat ride to America are not interested in returning, but embrace our freedom. It seems it is mostly Socialist countries where Dictatorships abound.
zauhar
Veteran
Actually I think the Brits did have a 98% rate for earnings over some threshold - we used to have 90% in the states, but the 1% soon took care of that. Now if they're lucky and skillful they can manage 0%, much more to their liking.
I saw the stones in the 90's - it was a fabulous show, easily worth the ~$50 I paid for a cheap seat. I do realize they sink a lot into the tours, and in fairness the big ticket prices are largely due to resellers.
Randy
valdas
Veteran
Please define socialism. I live now in Finland for four years. It is more socialist than Soviet Union where I spent my first 20 years before it collapsed. I don't see much dictatorship in Finland
And I love this Nordic socialism despite admiring Friedrich Hayek when I was student.Roger Hicks
Veteran
First, Castro's Cuba was a vast improvement on the old Mafia-run playground for wealthy Americans, and if it hadn't been for the doctrinaire US embargo it would probably be a much richer country today. As it is, Cuba's infant mortality rate is still lower than that of the USA (same source as before).
Second, yes, Cuba is a poor country. So are most of the countries in the Caribbean. The Dominican Republic is not normally held up as an example of communist dictatorship, but the infant mortality rate is about 5x that of Cuba and per capita income is slightly lower (usual source for figures).
Third, why is it in Castro's interest to keep Cubans in poverty? Or any other Cuban leader? Turn it around. It is much more in the interests of the United States to keep Cuba in poverty, because a successful communist state on their doorstep would raise uncomfortable questions.
Fourth, how many dictatorships are left anywhere? There's the old fashioned loony state of North Korea (which is more or less a monarchy anyway), but keep it in mind that "dictatorship" is always a handy stick to beat people with, especially if you're a bit selective with the facts. I mean, what would you say about a country where the ex-head of the secret police became president, and then his son became president a bit later? Ask yourself about the Bush family... No, I'm not saying he was a dictator. I'm just saying that it's quite easy to put a "spin" on facts. And how much better than a dictatorship is an absolute monarchy, such as is found in America's great ally, Saudi Arabia? For that matter, what about Mugabe? Hardly a socialist. More a kleptocrat. But as close to a dictator as makes no odds.
Fifth, do not conflate the endless different varieties of socialism: the Scandinavian model, for example, with North Korea. EDIT: See the post from Valdas above.
Cheers,
R.
gb hill
Veteran
Please define socialism. I live now in Finland for four years. It is more socialist than Soviet Union where I spent my first 20 years before it collapsed. I don't see much dictatorship in Finland
It's when companies & organizations are owned & controlled by the government instead of individuals. Ever hear of Bill Gates or Steve Jobs? Both are susceptible of corruption. Just be blessed you feel a since of freedom where you live.
back alley
IMAGES
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Ever hear of bailouts? The government is perfectly happy to allow auto makers, bankers and other large companies to make one-way bets, where the profits go into the pockets of a few and the losses are imposed willy-nilly on the taxpayer. Ever hear of large corporations, which are run by what Galbraith christened "the technostructure" and where no single owner is traceable? Or indeed even considered by the technostructure? Ever hear of "aerospace" companies that would collapse without government subsidies?
And how much worse off would the world be without Bill Gates or Steve Jobs? Do you sincerely believe that someone else wouldn't have done something very similar if neither man had ever lived?
Come on: you're being very highly selective.
Cheers,
R.