Economic Systems

[st_dux 26]

This thread is basically a continuation of the side discussion on economic systems that was going on in the Libya thread. I am splitting it off into its own topic so as not to drag the other thread further off course.

instead of saying such bullshit come here and try to live for average payment , when you need hire flat and buy all

400 Euro to hand per month

hire 20 square metters flat in my city for 300 euro (cost of 30 square metters flat in Warsaw is... ca. 80 000 EU)

try to LIVE for 100 paying for electricity and such like and food , try to have holidays in mountains, try to heal teeth etc.

I am simply interpreting the data that I am able to find. I meant no offense, nor did I mean to infer that I have first-hand experience of living in Poland (or any previously-communist country). All of the things you described above -- paying for your own flat, your own food, your own medical expenses, your own holidays, etc. -- are aspects that are typical of capitalist societies, and average (not ALL, but average) people in many of these societies that I am aware of are able to pay for all of these things. I can tell you from first-hand experience that average people can afford these things in the United States, and from looking at the statistical data that is available, it looks like most people are able to pay for these things in Poland as well (i.e., most people are not currently in poverty). Your own personal experience may be different, and I would be interested in hearing it. I am only able to look at the hard data, and this data does not seem to paint the disastrous image of post-communism Poland that you describe.

Even now universities are free in the Czech Republic so don't say that they weren’t free before... And yes it does cost money

Note the added emphasis. You have contradicted yourself here. The fact that it is "free" for individuals does not mean that it is actually free. It is paid for, by everyone, whether they choose to utilize the education or not. This limits choice, which can hinder economic growth in a market economy. You could certainly argue that this is a worthy sacrifice in order to allow even the poorest of people to get an education (I wouldn't), but you can't argue that it's free. It isn't.

You mean the success of 1 000 000 Polish and Czech immigrants (including me) that moved to London after the EU opened? Yeah I’m very pleased with leaving everything behind in my country and paying someone my whole wage for 2 rooms, I’m so happy that I’m jumping from joy every day, and all the Poles and Czech that came with me are also very happy.

I give you a lot of credit for emigrating from your home country in order to find a better life. That has to be difficult, and I sympathize.

That said, most people did not leave, and at least in Poland, the number of Poles coming back to Poland has overtaken the number emigrating in recent years (although it was the opposite for a while). Unemployment in the Czech Republic is only 4.4% right now, which is really quite low by world standards at the moment.

Can I ask you a question, why do you Westerners bullshit so much about subjects that you have absolutely no clue about? Is it because you think you know everything, is it because you’re bored, is it because you want to look important or clever? I really don't understand Maybe if you’re so good at explaining how life was for me in my own country you could explain this to me too?

I apologize if I have offended you. I have studied economics quite a great deal, both in and out of school, so I don't think it's quite fair to say that I know absolutely nothing about how various economic systems work. Obviously, I have neither the experience nor the perspective of you or vilas, and that is really why I am having this discussion: I'm curious as to how your experience has brought you to conclusions so different from my own.

I have seen the prosperity that capitalism creates, both first-hand and historically. In both Poland and the Czech Republic, economic growth has gone up substantially since the transition to capitalism, yet it was stagnant during the later phases of the communist regime. Where is the problem here that I am missing?

Edited June 8, 2011 by ST_Dux

[vilas 477]

I give you a lot of credit for emigrating from your home country in order to find a better life. That has to be difficult, and I sympathize.

i don't cause i take other person place and other person oportunity which belongs to him because he was born there and it is his holy right to feel home in his home without being afraid that any competition appears

it is wrong that man must leave place where he was born , where his roots are, when friends are, relatives

when i born in one place, i wanna be here

regarding statistics:

8 men earn 1000

1 man earn 2000

1 man earn 7000

what is statistical income ?

17 000/10 = 1700

this is statistic

when few man have MILIONS and milion have thousand

statistically all have "few thousands"

statistically you have 3 legs when you walk with dog

also statistics about income are shaped by law of Personal Income Tax

if our law make emigrants (Poles) who back from UK to pay tax

it means their British salary goes to our stats and "now look how people live great"

yea... man returned from UK because in his country he couldn't find job, and now his country put hand "give me tax" and "statistically we earn better" (PIT-53 income tax blanket as i remember)

All of the things you described above -- paying for your own flat, your own food, your own medical expenses, your own holidays, etc. -- are aspects that are typical of capitalist societies, and average

but you compare it to countries where:

- noone ever get free flat (hired from state for very low money) - like we had

- noone ever get free university like i had

- noone ever get almost free holidays like i had

- noone could spend day in work on eating, listening to the radio, reading books like we had being safe noone can touch you and you will have money to pay for flat , you will have food etc.

i don't care about economical profit , i look from "human" point of view, it is for me "most important" cause "stress kills, look at Karoshi" , i am human, not machine

the things i described are things that stroke us after 1989 that suddenly "you must have money" instead of "wait year longer"

the things you not see is "everyday life here" and "cannot afford something" etc.

economically many people get nothing good after 1989

but turists who visit old town, castles - are not present in supermarket queue, when mother refuse candy from girl "cause it cost too much"

saying about economy, you must remember one thing:

is nation in rule of it's territorial belongings - factories we built as nation since 1945

is nation deciding about means of production etc. on their territory

is nation sovereign to decide or "some corrupted politicians sold all and now you have nothing"

to produce something - first you must have machine, plant

when someone sold your plant - you cannot produce your product

Edited June 8, 2011 by vilas

[-martin- 10]

First of all I agree with everything that Vilas said, and I respect you for trying to understand our point of view unlike most Americans.

Note the added emphasis. You have contradicted yourself here. The fact that it is "free" for individuals does not mean that it is actually free. It is paid for, by everyone, whether they choose to utilize the education or not. This limits choice, which can hinder economic growth in a market economy. You could certainly argue that this is a worthy sacrifice in order to allow even the poorest of people to get an education (I wouldn't), but you can't argue that it's free. It isn't.

I guess I have contradicted myself a bit but the point that I’m trying to make is that education was and still is (for now) free to anyone that wishes to use it, so even if a young person from a disadvantaged family has no money the door is open to him, unlike in the UK where he is presented with the price of £9000 per year or the option of taking out a loan which he will be paying back for 30 years. How will he even get married afterwards if he has no flat and a loan on his neck...

Think about it, you pay tax but education is free.

In the UK you pay tax and you pay for education, so let’s say I live in a socialist country and in my whole life (50 years) I paid £7000 of tax, let’s use it as an example. And my two sons successfully finished university.

Now you live in the UK and you also pay £7000 of tax in your life time, but now you want to educate your two sons too, so you have to pay them each £35 000 for university plus those £7000 in tax money, meaning you pay £77000 for what I paid £7000. Your ripping yourself off and very badly.

to allow even the poorest of people to get an education (I wouldn't)

Why in the world not? :butbut: Isn't that a bit selfish, that only you can get educated because you were lucky enough to have the money while someone that’s been dreaming about it their whole life cant because he wasn't as lucky as you?

I would gladly pay my tax money knowing that people can use it to go to the dentist or hospital and relive themselves from pain or that even the weakest and most venerable people in society are able to get a chance to get a better life.

That said, most people did not leave, and at least in Poland, the number of Poles coming back to Poland has overtaken the number emigrating in recent years (although it was the opposite for a while).

Well this can be explained by several factors

1) The reason why Poles and Czech emigrated to the UK originally when the EU opened is because back then the British Pound was the strongest currency in the world, I remember the exchange rate was £1 to 48 Czech Crowns, so when you made some money here you would have quite a bit to cash to buy a car or whatever you wanted in Poland or CZ.

2) The reason why Poles and Czech started to leave the UK is because soon after coming here they found out that they are unwanted, the level of racism against Eastern Europeans in those days was unbelievable and it still it, and ironically it comes from black people who aren’t native to the UK themselves. (No racism intended, just stating a fact).

3) The second reason why Poles and Czechs started to leave the UK is because they aren’t idiots, I know engineers that cleaned the streets because the UK wouldn’t accept their diplomas and they said to themselves “I’m working here as a cleaner, paying my whole wage for rent and what do I actually get out of this, I might as well go back homeâ€

4) The third reason why people are leaving the UK now is because of the fall of the British pound and the rising prices in Eastern Europe, so quite frankly it no longer makes any sense to work in the UK because it’s not worth it.

5) The fifth main reason why people are leaving is because they never intended to stay, as Vilas said, they got families, girlfriends, houses back at home, here they have absolutely nothing they just came here to make some cash to buy stuff at home.

Unemployment in the Czech Republic is only 4.4% right now, which is really quite low by world standards at the moment.

That is not an accurate figure because although 4.4% may be registered as unemployed people, another 4 – 6% of the population is claiming various medical benefits such as claiming to be mentally ill (this is very popular in CZ), because nobody wants to work their ass off basically for free, people rather pretend to be ill and stay at home, what’s the difference you get paid the same either way.

All of the things you described above -- paying for your own flat, your own food, your own medical expenses, your own holidays, etc. -- are aspects that are typical of capitalist societies, and average (not ALL, but average) people in many of these societies that I am aware of are able to pay for all of these things. I can tell you from first-hand experience that average people can afford these things in the United States,

But the point is that in a modern civilised society people shouldn’t worry about if they will be able to afford basic needs such as medical expenses, food and shelter, especially in this day and age when these things can be easily provided.

It is a basic human right for every human being to be able to receive medical treatment for free, to have shelter where he can sleep, wash himself, cook his meal and be safe. What kind of a society lets its members sleep on the street like animals, especially in this day and age when shelter can be easily constructed.

It is also a basic human right to be able to afford food without having to beg for it like somewhere in the 15th century.

To have compassion, to care and administer to those who are weak or in need is a basic human property and duty which sets us apart from animals. If the government isn’t able to provide these basic things for its citizens and allows its citizens to start families and prosper in their own land then I don’t see a reason why we need a government.

I'm curious as to how your experience has brought you to conclusions so different from my own.

When I lived in Canada and America I felt very detached from the rest of the world, in that kind of environments it’s easy to give in to the media and the political agenda of the rich because they are basically your only source to the outside world where as in Europe you can just take your car and go to see other countries for yourself.

I think that Americans are just used to doing things the way they’ve always been doing them and can’t imagine the country working in any other way, they somehow have a successful image of democracy embedded in to them even though they know they don’t live in one, and I also think that because America is so far from Europe and because it has never really been affected by wars like Europe has Americans have totally different opinions then Europeans and I think that because Americans live in their own kind of classes they don’t really come in to contact with poorer people where as Europe is an old continent, devastated by wars may times, witnessed death and suffering Europeans have different opinions based on what they experienced.

Western Europeans have been spoiled by Americans after World War 2 but people in the Eastern Bloc weren’t spoilt and still understand the suffering they have been put through and are going trough now as a result of more broken promises by the West. People still understand that social values are the most important thing unlike their Western neighbours who have become materialists.

I give you a lot of credit for emigrating from your home country in order to find a better life. That has to be difficult, and I sympathize.

Yeah, it is difficult and I appreciate your sympathy but my answer for this is the same as Vilas.

Edited June 9, 2011 by -Martin-

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Think about it, you pay tax but education is free.

Someone was forced to give up a portion of their wealth via taxes - state sponsored theft - so that you could go to college at their expense.

That also brings up the next variable: Cost of higher education is a service one can expect to go up each and every year. Why is that? Well it's quit simple. If schools don't have to worry about competing for a slice of the pie - market share - there is no incentive for them to reduce cost. Most higher education institutions have insanely high overhead that they also pass off onto the consumer: Library fee, parking, administrative fee and other fees that leave you scratching your head.

Having said all of that, how can anyone in right mind hate Capitalism than be totally fine with state sponsored monopoly that higher education institutions are notorious for?

Consequently, if everyone feels they have a "right" to get an education then you are cheapening your over-priced education because the market will be flooded with people with four year degrees.

I respect you for trying to understand our point of view unlike most Americans.

There are two Americas: North and South. Each has many different countries that make them both up.

But the point is that in a modern civilised society people shouldn’t worry about if they will be able to afford basic needs such as medical expenses, food and shelter, especially in this day and age when these things can be easily provided.

And why are commodities high? All the signs and blinking lights point RIGHT back to central planners/government intervention.

Like I said before, housing prices vary from place to place. If I want to go live in the Galleria area of Houston, I better not be surprised how much real estate will cost me. Since I'm a rational consumer, I would just go and move to the other parts of town that are much more affordable.

they somehow have a successful image of democracy embedded in to them even though they know they don’t live in one

You are correct that we don't live in a "democracy."; we live in a constitutional republic. If you think they are the same, then you need to do some reading.

A constitutional republic is a state, where the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over all of its citizens. Because the head of the state is elected, it is a republic and not a monarchy.

In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches.

The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes the state a republic.

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."

Americans live in their own kind of classes they don’t really come in to contact with poorer people

Do you realize that you sound absolutely ignorant?

Both of sets of my grandparents suffered through the Great Depression, suffered friends and family killed or wounded during WW2, then lived a pretty good middle class life. My family can be traced back from to the Irish and German immigration to the US. Because I was instilled with a good work ethic of work at something you love to do and work hard at whatever it is that you do, even if it's digging ditches, I believe that's why I'm on the road to success.

My best friend's parents came from Monterrey to South Texas and were dirt poor, created a Mexican food restaurant and now they are living pretty well. They always used to remind my buddy when we were young how lucky we are to live in a country where anyone can succeed if they have the will and drive to do so.

I, however, also take offense of your silly notion that Americans (those from the United States) don't understand other cultures. We are much more culturally diverse and accepting of other religions, nationalities, races and ethnicities. I have been to Europe. Guess what? It's pretty much 90 percent white. Yeah, yeah, if you go to a bigger town the odds go up that you will see someone with darker skin, but I'm talking about Europe as a whole. So please stop your hollier than thou crap.

People still understand that social values are the most important thing unlike their Western neighbours who have become materialists.

I once told this to a guy I know that plays Arma with me who lives in the Ukraine, and he told me "you think you are the only country with people that are materialist?" He told me the reason people in his country are that way is because they have gone without things they would loved to have had for such a long time. Once they became independent western companies came in sold goods or services to those that needed or wanted them.

Then I have to remind myself, what is wrong with someone being a materialist? Who am I to say they are bad because they have something that brings them pleasure? Am I materialist because I bought OFP: CWC/Elite, Arma1/2/OA from BIS? Would the answer you want to hear from me is to move out side and live in a TePee, dig a hole to take a number 2 and cook my food over an open fire while wearing deer skin clothing? What is a materialist and how does one not become one?

Edited June 9, 2011 by Hans Ludwig

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Not this shit again.

I hope it gets through your skulls, unless you don't survive, when governments of the world start another world war in this decade at the pretense of resource scarcity, primarily due to China.

I really do hope you will understand that there is no "community", there are individuals, SOVEREIGNS, who chose to live in a particular society, because of their standards of morality. If you lack said standards, you won't give a shit what society has to offer you in exchange for robbing you, through force of taxation.

P.S. U.S. Is Intensifying a Secret Campaign of Yemen Airstrikes

Nobel Peace Prize winner. I suppose you could make Peace in the world, provided you've destroyed it once beforehand. ;)

Edited June 9, 2011 by Iroquois Pliskin

[-martin- 10]

I will fully reply to your post later today Hans, I don't have enough time now. :)

I have been to Europe. Guess what? It's pretty much 90 percent white. Yeah, yeah, if you go to a bigger town the odds go up that you will see someone with darker skin, but I'm talking about Europe as a whole. So please stop your hollier than thou crap.

Well yeah... Europe is 90% white, guess why... because white people are native here, if you go to Africa you will find that most people are black while if you go to China you will find most people are Asian. What's your point?

You think that the only way to show that you’re not racist is to fill the country up with people of other races and create such a mix that you don't know what country you're in? If you like that then that's fine, do it in America but don't force others to do it, and I don't say this because I'm racist or whatever you think, I say this because I'm not blind and I see how multiculturalism has failed in Europe, how the integration of travellers (gypsies) has failed in Czechoslovakia, how the unity of Muslims and Christians failed in Kosovo and Bosnia and Egypt, how much racism there is towards people in London.

If people wanted to live together there wouldn't be any countries in the world.

I however like to feel at home in my own country, not to go on the street and feel like I'm in Asia or Africa, not from a racist or nationalist point of view but because these people have completely different cultures that have nothing to do with my country and most of them don't even want to learn anything about my country, they simply don’t belong there.

Multiculturalism creates so many problems, for example in London I worked in a supermarket, first the manager was proper British and white and there was a fair mix of employees, but then an Indian manager came and within months 90% of the workforce were Indian, there was just no way that you could get a job there if you weren’t Indian. I had a friend who wanted to work there but when a space became available within days a new Indian woman was working there.

Multiculturalism is not the answer to anti racism, it just creates more racism.

Not being racist means you don't care about a person’s colour or race, not that you fill your country up with all the nationalities of the world to show that you’re not racist.... completely ridicules.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Well yeah... Europe is 90% white, guess why... because white people are native here, if you go to Africa you will find that most people are black while if you go to China you will find most people are Asian. What's your point?

You think that the only way to show that you’re not racist is to fill the country up with people of other races and create such a mix that you don't know what country you're in? If you like that then that's fine, do it in America but don't force others to do it

And you portray YOURSELF as a communist, a HUMANIST, a caretaker of HUMANITY and its needs? You're a simple-minded nationalist, that's what you are, as are most of the ex-USSR peoples. I still wonder how 70 years of the Union didn't wipe out non-nations, Soviets must've been doing it wrong.

and I don't say this because I'm racist or whatever you think, I say this because I'm not blind and I see how multiculturalism has failed in Europe, how the integration of travellers (gypsies) has failed in Czechoslovakia, how the unity of Muslims and Christians failed in Kosovo and Bosnia and Egypt, how much racism there is towards people in London.

That's not the problem of the UK, or France, it is the issue of said people being of low-quality due to the conditions and events through which they have lived in their, now former, countries.

Nothing to worry about, if they choose not to assimilate in their new country of residence, there will come some type of "Kristallnacht", and then ignorance will no longer be bliss for said people.

If people wanted to live together there wouldn't be any countries in the world.

That is being worked upon by the Globalisation via free-market, WTO mechanisms and the free movement of people (educated, willing, able and virtuous enough to undertake such a task), can't you see it?

A very, very slow process, unless you force the integration, like happened post-WW II in Europe.

[topas 1]

(...)that's what you are, as are most of the ex-USSR peoples. I still wonder how 70 years of the Union didn't wipe out non-nations, Soviets must've been doing it wrong.

I may be reading this the wrong way; but to clarify; you're addressing this to -Martin- who is from the Czech Republic?

If so, "ex-USSR" and "non-nation" seem to bit out of place here, if not even arrogant and somewhat insulting. Well, at least I would see it this way if Poland was meant.

It may be the easiest way to do; but you're doing it wrong by putting such labels on countries with rich, over 1000 years old history.

Implying that a group of people should have better been "wiped out" by the Soviets (!) is too primitive to be commented, sorry (or I don't get the humor or whatever's behind)

[-martin- 10]

And you portray YOURSELF as a communist, a HUMANIST, a caretaker of HUMANITY and its needs?

Can you show me even one letter that I ever wrote which says that I'm a communist, or caretaker of humanity (whatever that is)?

I'm no communist, nor was I ever in the communist party nor was I ever in any political party. I'm a simple man who has been dragged through the troubles of life and because I'm not an idiot and I can see how much of these troubles could have been prevented, how many of these troubles were willingly and knowingly caused by human greed, lust, stupidly and arrogance and how much people who have done nothing wrong suffer as a result of this.

But your right that I’m a humanist, any human being with a heart is a humanist. No matter how much you try to slam me down in to the ground with your arrogance I will never let that stop me from standing up for people who are in weak and in need, because everyone deserves the right to prosper and to be respected, not only a few people who have caused others to suffer in order to achieve this.

You're a simple-minded nationalist, that's what you are, as are most of the ex-USSR peoples.

First of all I’m a Slav and I’m quarter Czech, Polish, Ukrainian and Yugoslav so suggesting that I’m a nationalist as if I only love one nation above all other nations (I guess you mean the Czech Republic because I happened to be born there) just doesn’t make any sense to me what so ever, nor is it true in anyway way.

And yes I do love Eastern Europe because that’s my country (notice I said that all of Eastern Europe is my county, not one nation), that’s the place I was born in and where my roots have been for generations, that’s where my friends are and no place is more dear to me then Eastern Europe.

This doesn’t mean that I hate anyone who doesn’t live in Eastern Europe, because I’ve been living in various countries the West for a long time now and I’ve met people from different races, countries and I understood myself with them, I’ve been friends with them and never has it come to my mind that I’m somehow better than them.

But guess what all the people that I’ve ever met told me? They told me that although they did find a slightly better life in the West they still miss their old countries where they have families and friends and that eventually they will go back there if they can.

Do you actually think that someone wants to leave everything behind and emigrate?

That's not the problem of the UK, or France, it is the issue of said people being of low-quality due to the conditions and events through which they have lived in their, now former, countries.

The answer to lowering racism and the worlds emigration problem is to develop every nation to the point where people who are native to it will be able to prosper there and not have to emigrate anywhere and be taken as “low-valued†people as you yourself said. How is this related to racism? Look at it this way:

Asian people for example immigrate to the UK from Asia but are unable to find decent jobs because they don’t have qualification, this leads to them being classified as “low-value†resulting in them being underpaid meaning that they have to live in harsh conditions , white people see the way Asian people live and further more classify them as “low-value†so even if a Asian man who has been educate din the UK goes to look for a job he will be looked at as a person of “low-value†because that’s the opinion in white people’s minds (the early form of racism) which results in the Asian community thinking “Those whites won’t let us do anything they always put themselves above us to let’s do the same to them†resulting in the Asians isolating themselves from whites and discriminating whites and the whites reacting to this in the same way, then arguments break out and fighting (the final form of racism).

If people didn’t have to emigrate but were allowed to prosper in their own countries this low value aspect would be gone, not as many people would emigrate and take up jobs in other countries and the world would be a happier place overall.

But when millions of people flood your country naturally there will be resistance which ends up in racism because race is the first thing anyone uses to see that a person is foreign/different them himself.

I still wonder how 70 years of the Union didn't wipe out non-nations, Soviets must've been doing it wrong.

I agree with Topas said about this.

Even suggesting that the Soviets should wipe out a people with so much history, culture, creativity and bonds as us, or any other nation in fact is an idea so immensely barbarian and sick that I’m ashamed that you used the term “our nationsâ€...

I, however, also take offense of your silly notion that Americans (those from the United States) don't understand other cultures. We are much more culturally diverse and accepting of other religions, nationalities, races and ethnicities. I have been to Europe. Guess what? It's pretty much 90 percent white. Yeah, yeah, if you go to a bigger town the odds go up that you will see someone with darker skin, but I'm talking about Europe as a whole. So please stop your hollier than thou crap.

You do have christian fundementalism in the US, this does not exist in the UK or Czech Republic.

If you come to London I guarantee you that you will be more likely to find a person of darker skin then a native English person. But once again stats, if we add Eastern Europe to Western Europe then Europe as a whole is 95% white, including London... Utter nonsense.

Edited June 9, 2011 by -Martin-

[st_dux 26]

- noone could spend day in work on eating, listening to the radio, reading books like we had being safe noone can touch you and you will have money to pay for flat , you will have food etc.

Why should you be able to slack off at work without fear of losing your job? If someone else can do your job better than you, then they should get it instead. This is how society advances, by allowing excellent people to excel.

... even if a young person from a disadvantaged family has no money the door is open to him, unlike in the UK where he is presented with the price of £9000 per year or the option of taking out a loan which he will be paying back for 30 years. How will he even get married afterwards if he has no flat and a loan on his neck...

Think about it, you pay tax but education is free.

I understand how it works, but in your example, you make it seem as if governments that offer varying degrees of services (like education) have the same tax rate. They don't. The fact that school costs individuals money in the UK means that the populace as a whole gets to pay lower taxes. This, in turn, makes it easier for would-be entrepreneurs to accumulate wealth that they will later invest. Their investment leads to products for consumers and jobs for workers.

As for school loans, they aren't nearly as bad as you make them out to be. University tuition is far more expensive in the United States than it is in the UK, and I had to take out loans in order to get my education. I'm still in the process of paying them back, but it won't take anywhere close to 30 years (more like 5). The way you get yourself a flat and get married during this time is simple: You get a job. That's what I've done, and I have my own place. I'm not married, but I could afford to be if I wanted to (actually, in a lot of ways, marriage is more affordable than living alone).

Isn't that a bit selfish, that only you can get educated because you were lucky enough to have the money while someone that’s been dreaming about it their whole life cant because he wasn't as lucky as you?

I would gladly pay my tax money knowing that people can use it to go to the dentist or hospital and relive themselves from pain or that even the weakest and most venerable people in society are able to get a chance to get a better life.

Not everyone needs higher education. Most jobs don't actually require any knowledge beyond what one learns in high school (secondary school), so I see no need to provide higher education to everyone. Exceptional students with the drive to succeed will usually be given scholarship grants to get them through school even if they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford it; the rest can either pay for it or pass on it. I think that a lower tax rate benefits society more through the encouragement of entrepreneurship than does higher education for everyone.

As for universal medical care, I do see the value in it, and I believe that it works well in some countries (e.g., France). That said, there is another side here worth mentioning. Why should people be forced to pay taxes to cover the medical expenses of people who live unhealthy lives? For example, why should I have to pay so a drug addict or obese person can get expensive medical care that they wouldn't require had they just been more responsible to begin with?

But the point is that in a modern civilised society people shouldn’t worry about if they will be able to afford basic needs such as medical expenses, food and shelter, especially in this day and age when these things can be easily provided.

These things really aren't so easily provided. People are starving to death at various places throughout the world as I type this. The reason these things appear to be easily provided is because you and I both live in developed nations where wealth is plentiful. But most of the world isn't like this, and the places that are got there through a system of free enterprise and trade (i.e., capitalism). Attempting to make us all live a better life is a noble goal, but destroying the system responsible for the generation of wealth that has given us better lives already is taking a step in the wrong direction.

Western Europeans have been spoiled by Americans after World War 2 but people in the Eastern Bloc weren’t spoilt and still understand the suffering they have been put through and are going trough now as a result of more broken promises by the West. People still understand that social values are the most important thing unlike their Western neighbours who have become materialists.

I would argue that the more prominent pattern here is that Western Europeans embraced capitalism while those in the Eastern Bloc were (somewhat forcibly) subjected to a communist system. As a result, economies in the West thrived and economies in the East became stagnant. This pattern was consistent throughout Europe.

That said, I have no doubt that the shock of a sudden change in economic system (not to mention all the corruption that comes along with such an event) led to much immediate hardship for the people of the Eastern Bloc. This short-term result, however, does not change the fact that the introduction of capitalism eventually led to economic growth and a rise in the average quality of life never before seen in this part of the world (according to the data, anyway).

Perhaps it would even be possible for you to return home now? The economy of the Czech Republic is apparently quite strong these days. What's your take on the current (not 1989) situation of your home country?

Edited June 9, 2011 by ST_Dux

[-martin- 10]

Why should you be able to slack off at work without fear of losing your job? If someone else can do your job better than you, then they should get it instead. This is how society advances, by allowing excellent people to excel.

Hmm it’s difficult to answer these kinds of questions to foreigners but I’ll try.

You see in socialism everyone had to be employed that means that the job which 1 person does today, back then 5 people did so there was no stress at work, no boss up your ass everyday like now, no overloading in work because nobody cared about profit, in fact the boss was your friend at work and because the job was split between 5 people rather than 1 there was really nothing else to do at work then watch TV because everyone did something to get the job done and then there was lots of free time.

So I want your opinion: What’s better, to work for minimum wage like a donkey, come how tired, depressed, pissed off and miserable or to work for minimum wage and go to work to do your bit to get the job done, relax, have a chat with your friends and then go home and still be able to do your hobbies or spend some time with the family rather than coming home and falling in to bed with no energy? (it’s hard to believe but it really was like that)

From a capitalist point of view, as a normal person who doesn’t own a factory or make anymore profit when the company makes more profit, doesn’t get invited to fancy parties for managers, why should you work like a donkey for minimum wage and care about how society advances or the company advances if you get absolutely nothing out of it except for a few pennies that they have to give you by law?

The most important thing for you as an average person to do is make money to pay for what you need to pay for while using up as least of your energy or health as you can, and spend as much time doing what you like and spend as much time with your family as you can, not to work your ass off for a few pennies while the big boss hangs around in Florida and doesn’t give a toss about you.

They don't. The fact that school costs individuals money in the UK means that the populace as a whole gets to pay lower taxes.

Since tuition fees for universities went up to £9000 per year the VAT also went up to 20% so we are charged more for education and pay more taxes.

As for universal medical care, I do see the value in it, and I believe that it works well in some countries (e.g., France). That said, there is another side here worth mentioning. Why should people be forced to pay taxes to cover the medical expenses of people who live unhealthy lives? For example, why should I have to pay so a drug addict or obese person can get expensive medical care that they wouldn't require had they just been more responsible to begin with?

In socialism there were no drugs like there are now, and if there were drug addicts then there was only a tiny hand full of them in the whole country who didn’t get treatment from hospitals anyway because they would get arrested as a result, alcoholism yes, there was alcoholism but we also have to keep in mind that we don’t know what brought the person in to it, alcoholism is usually a result of a very rough and sad life so the least we can do as a society is to give a few pennies to those in need so they can have another chance, you never know, it might happen to you at some point in your life after all. Altough I agree that paying for people who just drink and take drugs because they like to is a waste of money and they shouldn't be able tor ecieve free care over and over again, but rather recieve it once or twice and if they don't fix up then make them pay for it.

But let me ask you this: How about when a person has a car crash or some kind of accident but doesn’t have the money to pay for treatment which isn’t their fault at all, of what if someone has a tooth ache but doesn’t have money to go to a private dentist, or a man that has young kids but needs an operation to save his life which he can’t afford, is it fair to let people in need suffer and kids stay without a dad because society is so greedy that they overlook suffering in favour of a pew pennies which they end up wasting later on anyway?

I think that giving tax money for free health care is one of the best causes that it can go to and I’m very proud that in the UK there is a national health service, no matter how crap is has become from years of neglect it still gives the people who are least in society a chance to relieve themselves from pain.

I would argue that the more prominent pattern here is that Western Europeans embraced capitalism while those in the Eastern Bloc were (somewhat forcibly) subjected to a communist system. As a result, economies in the West thrived and economies in the East became stagnant. This pattern was consistent throughout Europe.

I would argue more that Western economies prospered more than Eastern ones because of the financial injection that they received from America where as Eastern Bloc countries were left to fend on their own, pointlessly spending money which they didn’t have enough of after ww2 on the military, Cuba and Vietnam because of the stupid cold war arms race depriving the hard working people of the “luxuries†that people in the West had.

I will always defend our Socialist revolution and its cause but I won’t defend the actions of party leaders and members after world war 2 who instead of attempting to show the world that we don’t want to repeat history reacted by adding more fuel to the arms race and erecting the iron curtain, I can guarantee that if the iron curtain wasn’t put in place and people could freely travel to the West, socialism would still be here and would prosper more than ever before, because people wouldn’t dream of a illusion of paradise in the West but they would see how it really is and appreciate what they have in socialism. With the erection of the iron curtain and all the money that went in to the arms race socialism was bound to self destruct because as they say “the forbidden apple tastes the best†but people never think of the consequences of the forbidden apple.

Stalin was a disaster for us and for the world, as were most of the post ww2 leaders who did not serve the country but served only themselves and their friends and still do now, in the clothes of democrats. The leaders after ww2 were a disgrace and because of them the CIA was able to lie to us while they wasted money promoting socialism in other nations instead of worrying about our own problems. The real socialists were in Lenin’s time and died with him.

and a rise in the average quality of life never before seen in this part of the world (according to the data, anyway).

This is not true, but I can’t blame you for getting it wrong because you’re not from Eastern Europe. It’s true that in recent history people in some parts of Eastern Europe were poor, for example Russia because of the capitalist Tsarist system which starved and tortured people to the point when they made a revolution to overthrow the Tsar which lead to Socialism.

So you see, it’s capitalism that brought socialism in to Eastern Europe, and if capitalism didn’t work for us before it’s not going to work today and it’s not going to work tomorrow. Eastern Europeans are just different people with different beliefs and different social values so even if capitalism works for Americans because they have different values then us, it doesn’t mean that it’s going to work for us.

These things really aren't so easily provided. People are starving to death at various places throughout the world as I type this. The reason these things appear to be easily provided is because you and I both live in developed nations where wealth is plentiful. But most of the world isn't like this, and the places that are got there through a system of free enterprise and trade (i.e., capitalism).

Eastern Europe is one of the most developed areas on the planet, just like Western Europe and America, although now in decay thanks to years of abuse and neglect by a system of free enterprise and trade (i.e., capitalism). However that still doesn’t mean that housing can’t be built, with some financial help factories could be restarted, workers hired and everything that needs to be done would get done if people are in charge that actually want to get it done.

As for developing nations with poverty and food shortages with proper financial help from developed countries like the West and former Eastern bock curtail things like water sterilisation plants and wells could be built. Some kind of very cheap housing from recycled containers or materials could be built and transported there for people to live in (it’s not the best but at least its better then a hut made form sticks) after that factories could be built there to continue mass producing this cheap housing and producing other things to fully electrify the country for example, schools could be built and soon you would have an emerging nation. (I’m not saying that this is the best solution, it’s just a rough example of my thoughts but if we were to look deeply in to it we could find a feasible and sustainable answer to most of these problems).

Too bad this will never happen and nobody will provide such a giant amount of financial help, instead the money will be used on making bombs and guns

I would do so much to improve the living standard in the world if I was to run it that you guys wouldn’t recognise it after a few years.

Perhaps it would even be possible for you to return home now? The economy of the Czech Republic is apparently quite strong these days. What's your take on the current (not 1989) situation of your home country?

Heh I wish I could, I go there every summer for holiday and it just keeps getting worse and worse, only a few thieves prosper while the majority just keep getting more miserable, food and energy prices sky rocket while wages stay frozen, as a matter of fact, this year prices in the Czech Republic have increased by 100% :butbut: Its imposable to live there while being able to afford a car or holiday like I can in the UK, only a few people who got property back after the revolution and sold it or made their own shops can live a bit better than the rest, but even so big supermarket chains force small shops to close while they stay empty themselves because nobody has the money to do shopping like they can here. You have to buy the cheapest food you can find to afford anything else. Just because the economy is growing doesn’t mean anything to anyone, now the government even wants to make people pay more for healthcare and even for dentists.

Look at this CPI, look at the prices in socialist times and how they jumped after 1989, the CPI today is now probably 50x that of what it was in 1992 because back then even with the sharp rise food was still cheap, now food is a luxury:

Year CPI

1980 2.9

1981 0.8

1982 5.1

1983 0.9

1984 0.5

1985 2.7

1986 0.5

1987 0.1

1988 0.2

1989 1.4

1990 10.0

1991 57.9

1992 11.0

You got money man, you prosper in America so why don’t you buy a ticket and fly down to Eastern Europe to check it out for yourself, you’re more than welcome, the iron wall doesn’t exist anymore, you can make a nice holiday for you self and see how reality is compared to the stats :smile:

Edited June 10, 2011 by -Martin-

[Wolfrug 0]

Why should you be able to slack off at work without fear of losing your job? If someone else can do your job better than you, then they should get it instead. This is how society advances, by allowing excellent people to excel.

Well done, Ayn Rand. Why don't you go build an Objectivist paradise somewhere under the Atlantic ocean and see how well that works out :P

In all seriousness, debates like these clarify the one overriding difference between the two systems currently being debated: the value of a human life. On one hand, we have the ones who think all lives are equally, intrinsically valuable, no matter if you're "hard working" or not. That's quite clearly what both vilas and -Martin- are rooting for, whereas ST_Dux and Hans Ludwig consider the individual properties of each person to be more important than humanity as a whole. To paraphrase Andrew Ryan (har har), "Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?": that kind of seems to be the idea.

In a sense it's funny, though. The only argument you wannabe objectivists (no, really - you guys should focus on other things than your goddamned "only hard-working people deserve a chance at life!" argument if you want to be called something else) provide when asked about things like caring for disabled people (for instance) is that such things can be taken care of by charity. You assume, somehow, that the human capacity for charity is enough to take care of an entire populace of down-and-out people? Whereas the left way of thinking assumes that no - if people are left to their own devices, they'll do exactly what you people want to do, which is leave the poor in the ditch, which means we have to do it FOR you. A humane state, an inhumane populace. Curious business.

In the end, if everyone was nice to one another, we wouldn't need economical systems or government. But people aren't. I'd rather force you selfish pricks to pay some of your "hard earned" money to the state where they can keep also the roads you don't happen to be using daily in good repair, instead of living in the (frankly) medieval world you're espousing.

Regards,

Wolfrug

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I may be reading this the wrong way; but to clarify; you're addressing this to -Martin- who is from the Czech Republic?

If so, "ex-USSR" and "non-nation" seem to bit out of place here, if not even arrogant and somewhat insulting. Well, at least I would see it this way if Poland was meant.

It may be the easiest way to do; but you're doing it wrong by putting such labels on countries with rich, over 1000 years old history.

Implying that a group of people should have better been "wiped out" by the Soviets (!) is too primitive to be commented, sorry (or I don't get the humor or whatever's behind)

Not the people of Poland, or CZ, or the Chechens - nationality per se should've been gone. Do you know of Ottoman empire? Habsburgs?

Soviets knew jack shit about empire-building: does the world need 3 different languages in 3 similar Baltic states, totaling around 9 million people? And now you get a lot of problems stemming from this new-found nationalism, similar to the precursor of wars back in the XX century.

topas, you shouldn't be offended by my words, but rather by the EU, because what I'm suggesting, the Union is implementing. :)

P.S. It's your choice to cling to whatever you were taught by your communities, schools, friends, but having no flag, no nationality, no banner is liberating, compared to the old ways of thought: I can travel almost anywhere on this planet, while respecting other cultures, but at the same time being superior to said cultures, because I'm not restricted by petty traditions & superstitions, and am able to loot whole countries, and then move into another one. That's an analogy for the international bankers, by the way. ;)

One planet is not enough for me, I wish I could go skiing on Mars. :(

Edited June 10, 2011 by Iroquois Pliskin

[topas 1]

I was not offended. I just wanted to know if I'm reading this the wrong way or not. Thx for clarification. ;)

[mrcash2009 0]

Ref Irelands situation

RZ0cws39vHw

[-martin- 10]

Do you know of Ottoman empire?

You mean the Turks who invaded Yugoslavia, forced their culture and religion on to the inhabitants while destroying ours and inserted bamboo sticks in to peoples anuses and left them to grow until their died? (This is a form of impalement)

Sure I know them, and I'm quite glad that we got rid of them. If I understood you correctly, that your standing up for the Ottoman empire then I really doubt that you're from Eastern Europe, because there would be no way that you would stand up for this if you were, and if you are I really doubt that you’re a Slav, and if you are, you should be ashamed of yourself.

while respecting other cultures, but at the same time being superior to said cultures

What gives you the right to feel superior to said cultures or to judge other cultures? No man has this right because no man is perfect, including you.

because I'm not restricted by petty traditions & superstitions, and am able to loot whole countries, and then move into another one. That's an analogy for the international bankers, by the way.

What gives you the right to loot countries? Bankers are thieves and I would send them all to the Gulag. Btw, How can you as a simple man loot countries, just because bankers do it doesn't mean you get any slice of the profit, you still pay taxes, you don't get invited to parties, you still work the same, I'm really interested in this point of view, maybe you can explain it in more detail?

no nationality, no banner is liberating, compared to the old ways of thought: I can travel almost anywhere on this planet, while respecting other cultures

Ermmm and how is having my own flag and country exactly preventing me from travelling and respecting other cultures? And where exactly do you live that you feel that you have no country?

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

What gives you the right to feel superior to said cultures or to judge other cultures? No man has this right because no man is perfect, including you.

No being gave me, or anyone else "the rights", because no one could, because! Rights start at the end of a barrel of a gun. Get it? Strong are victorious in every way.

What gives you the right to loot countries? Bankers are thieves and I would send them all to the Gulag. Btw, How can you as a simple man loot countries, just because bankers do it doesn't mean you get any slice of the profit, you still pay taxes, you don't get invited to parties, you still work the same, I'm really interested in this point of view, maybe you can explain it in more detail?

I don't 'work' in a normal sense of manual labour, as for taxes - there are a thousand ways to avoid them, legally.

Ermmm and how is having my own flag and country exactly preventing me from travelling and respecting other cultures? And where exactly do you live that you feel that you have no country?

Flag waiving turns into gun waiving at one point, and who the fuck do you think allowed YOU to travel around the world? Your government, your nation, your people? It was the international elite, who had RE-built this world post World War II.

Returning to the topic of looting: it's not about money, or gold, for when you collapse a country, you ensure it stays loyal to the plans you have in mind for it and the whole region, i.e. South America.

One world government is the ultimate goal here: every Human being a self-sufficient, virtuous self, who has known what DIGNITY tastes like, who doesn't have any second back-thoughts about the people he meets, on the decisions he makes, which would be impossible in our current predicament, like leaving your property outside on the street of any city, and for it not to be stolen. Is it much to ask? Apparently it is, so enjoy your microchip, because it's inevitable.

P.S. I live anywhere I like, provided there's a legally binding agreement between me and the other party. I try to avoid visas, though.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Iroquois Pliskin

[st_dux 26]

Sorry it's taken me so long to reply, Martin, but here it goes:

So I want your opinion: What’s better, to work for minimum wage like a donkey, come how tired, depressed, pissed off and miserable or to work for minimum wage and go to work to do your bit to get the job done, relax, have a chat with your friends and then go home and still be able to do your hobbies or spend some time with the family rather than coming home and falling in to bed with no energy? (it’s hard to believe but it really was like that)

I think this is a false dichotomy. You may start with a minimum wage position, but most people will advance beyond that in a modern capitalist society; it's hardly the only option. There are many opportunities for workers to advance, and with a little vision and decent credit, you might even be able to become an owner yourself. Anyone is allowed to do it.

It seems to me that a communist system holds back exceptional people by forcing them to work below their potential. This, in turn, holds back the advancement of society at large. I do see how it could seem appealing to live in a society where everyone is guaranteed a job, but the cost to overall economic and social development seems too high to me. I mean, the fact that a job that five people used to do is now done by one shows rather conclusively that things used to be running very inefficiently.

Since tuition fees for universities went up to £9000 per year the VAT also went up to 20% so we are charged more for education and pay more taxes.

There are innumerable factors that go into calculating a tax rate, so it's perfectly feasible that the overall rate might rise even though certain aspects of it were dropped. The only point I was trying to make is that the cost of education needs to be paid by someone; it cannot come out of thin air. All other things being equal (important caveat here), privatized education must result in a lower tax rate.

But let me ask you this: How about when a person has a car crash or some kind of accident but doesn’t have the money to pay for treatment which isn’t their fault at all, of what if someone has a tooth ache but doesn’t have money to go to a private dentist, or a man that has young kids but needs an operation to save his life which he can’t afford, is it fair to let people in need suffer and kids stay without a dad because society is so greedy that they overlook suffering in favour of a pew pennies which they end up wasting later on anyway?

To be fair, even in the big bad United States we don't just let people who are in critical condition die for lack of money or insurance. It is illegal for a hospital to turn down anyone with an emergency, regardless of their ability to pay. The massive bill that a patient would get hit with afterward would likely destroy his credit, but that's basically all that would happen. He would never be forced to pay (since it would be impossible), and then the hospital would just have to take the loss (they budget for this kind of thing as it happens quite often).

Eastern Europe is one of the most developed areas on the planet, just like Western Europe and America, although now in decay thanks to years of abuse and neglect by a system of free enterprise and trade (i.e., capitalism).

Are all of the numbers really that far off? According to every piece of data that I can find, countries in Eastern Europe are wealthier now than they ever have been in the past, and their economies continue to grow. Perhaps it is the distribution of wealth that keeps changing? I'll have to look into this.

You got money man, you prosper in America so why don’t you buy a ticket and fly down to Eastern Europe to check it out for yourself, you’re more than welcome, the iron wall doesn’t exist anymore, you can make a nice holiday for you self and see how reality is compared to the stats

Actually, I'd really like to one day. I can't afford a trip to Europe right now, but next time I am able to, I would definitely like to visit Eastern Europe, particularly the Czech Republic. I've heard a lot of wonderful things about Prague.

@Wolfrung:

I don't expect private charity to be able to take care of every single "down-and-out" person, but I also expect it to work about as well if not better than any government entity could. Moreover, I see government intervention in this regard as being harmful to free enterprise in general, and I see free enterprise in general as being the single-most effective tool in raising the over standard of living for a large group of people. In the long run, allowing those "selfish pricks" to be selfish (which is what everyone tends to do anyway) leads to more prosperity for more people than does any other approach. You probably don't agree with that, but I think the historical evidence is clear enough.

Edited June 13, 2011 by ST_Dux

[-martin- 10]

Flag waiving turns into gun waiving at one point, and who the fuck do you think allowed YOU to travel around the world? Your government, your nation, your people? It was the international elite, who had RE-built this world post World War II.

Yeah... sure... but it was also the “international elite†that divided Europe up after ww2, built the Berlin wall and stopped me form travelling in the first place, and now I should be thankful to them for fucking up my country and allowing me to run away? pffff :bored:

Sorry it's taken me so long to reply, Martin, but here it goes:

No problem

I think this is a false dichotomy. You may start with a minimum wage position, but most people will advance beyond that in a modern capitalist society; it's hardly the only option. There are many opportunities for workers to advance, and with a little vision and decent credit, you might even be able to become an owner yourself. Anyone is allowed to do it.

I wish it was like that, unfortunately most people in London and the Czech Republic end up working in the same position for decades, happy that they even have that.

I remember when my mom was still working, she worked in fast food shop but after 10 years never got promoted to a manager or assistant manager and got a pay prise of 20 cents... Companies prefers to hire managers from the outside and not to transfer people already working in the company for some reason.

Are all of the numbers really that far off? According to every piece of data that I can find, countries in Eastern Europe are wealthier now than they ever have been in the past, and their economies continue to grow. Perhaps it is the distribution of wealth that keeps changing? I'll have to look into this.

Well the numbers aren’t far off, but the explanation to them is quite different and it’s the curtail piece that your missing to understanding why the stats suggest that Eastern Europe is now “richer than ever†and yet you hear what you hear from us and you see gangs, skin heads, drugs, prostitution, corruption and poverty on TV.

To explain this best I better break it down in to a few points:

1) Although Eastern Europe now has goods equivalent to the West in terms of quantity and availability, the prices of the goods are also equivalent to the West while the wages of average working people are still low just like they were in Socialist times when food was cheap.

Hence when you go to a supermarket in the UK you have a wide selection of TV’s for example, with different price ranges, you get cheap ones for £400, more expensive ones and so forth... But in the UK your minimum wage is also around £900, so even if you are working for minimum wage with your wife you make about £1800 every month and you can afford to buy that TV and all the food and stuff that you need.

But in the Czech Republic for example when you work for minimum wage you get 8000 CZK per month which is around £280, now if you also have a wife that’s lucky enough to make the same amount as you, you got £560 together. So if the same TV costs £400 in the Czech Republic too how is it that you can afford to buy it with £560 but still be able to afford food and all the otherthing you need if they cost the same as in the UK but there you got £1800 to cover it? The answer is simple, you can’t, you have to save money for months or years be able to afford something like that TV because your priority is getting food to feed yourself.

So as my great grandfather who lived before ww1 said “Don’t look forward to capitalism because one day this will be gone and you will walk around shops filled with things but you won’t be able to buy themâ€

Note: There is nothing I can blame companies like LG or Sony for their prices, it wouldn’t be fair on people in the West if we had the same products for quarter the price, plus Westerners would rush in to buy everything from Eastern Europe.

2) The “growing economy“ which basically means that Western companies buy and build factories in the Czech Republic has absolutely no impact on average people, the only people that prosper are a tiny amount of thieves and corrupt politicians that live by sucking average people.

You see, all the factories in the Czech Republic that once belonged to us are now owned by different countries, Skoda Auto is a perfect example of this. Volkswagen bought the factory and all the money made by it goes to Germany, the only money that stays in the Czech Republic are taxes and wages, a tiny amount of the profit. So even if the economy does grow, the money doesn’t stay in the country, so it’s Germany that benefits for example, not us.

3) I blame the Czech government which is more interested in building their own companies from EU funds meant for infrastructure improvement and being clever about issues such as China, Iran and Afghanistan that they cannot see in to and have nothing to do with at all. I also blame Western companies for ripping off workers by hiring illegal immigrants, you know it’s not the Czechs that work in most factories but illegal immigrants from Ukraine and Asia because they don’t have to get paid minimum wage no matter how low it is and no taxes or insurance has to be paid for them.

l blame the Czech government for not raising the minimum wage and for not cracking down on companies that employ illegal workers and for not improving human rights for working people. But why would they? They’ve been bribed by the big companies so they turn a blind eye to everything that goes on.

Actually, I'd really like to one day. I can't afford a trip to Europe right now, but next time I am able to, I would definitely like to visit Eastern Europe, particularly the Czech Republic. I've heard a lot of wonderful things about Prague.

Please do, Prague is a beautiful city and there is so much more to see then Prague, but when you go there let’s say for a week, I want you to leave your dollars in the bank and take out only 1500 crowns ($89, I subtracted 1000CZK that people would pay for their apartment providing they own one since you won’t be paying that on holiday), this is what an average man lives on for a week there and I want you to go shopping and do whatever you need to do and then you will see how long that money lasts you (not long judging by the price of a bottle of water ~30CZK now) and what you can get for it. Then I guarantee you will see the life of ordinary people compared to the stats, because it’s easy to go there, pull out $5000 dollars and say “yeah it was awesome the country is making real progressâ€.

- Martin :smile:

Edited June 14, 2011 by -Martin-

[vilas 477]

in Poland minimum wage is smaller than in Czech , i heard that Poles go to work to Czech because they can earn there more money than in bigger Poland (Skoda, Whirlpool, mining etc.)

it is ca. 300 EU not Pounds

Please do, Prague is a beautiful city and there is so much more to see then Prague, but when you go there let’s say for a week, I want you to leave your dollars in the bank and take out only 1500 crowns ($89, I subtracted 1000CZK that people would pay for their apartment providing they own one since you won’t be paying that on holiday), this is what an average man lives on for a week there and I want you to go shopping and do whatever you need to do and then you will see how long that money lasts you (not long judging by the price of a bottle of water ~30CZK now) and what you can get for it. Then I guarantee you will see the life of ordinary people compared to the stats, because it’s easy to go there, pull out $5000 dollars and say “yeah it was awesome the country is making real progressâ€.

with the Warsaw too

try live month for 1600 PLN = 400 EU (average Polish payment)

hire flat, let's say 1 room flat for 300 EU and try to live MONTH for 100 EU :] you will understand "progress and succes" better

but tourists do not understand it , cause they visit our countries having 10000 USD on accounts, let they visit it having 100 USD , soon they will be sleeping on train station or have to steal food from shops

sleep in cheapest hostel , eat not fresh meat from supermarket, meet real country, not from windows of most expensive hotels in city

and imagine that for example you must work for 48 hours per week not 36 like French or German

etc.

2002 after studies i had to go to first work, record was from 7 AM till 9 PM as warehouse co-manager in printing house (private company) for 200 EU !!! noone worked so long before 1989, unemployment rate was over 20%, i run as fast as i could from there to "state job"

Edited June 14, 2011 by vilas

[st_dux 26]

@-Martin-:

Thanks for the explanation. After reading your post, I took a look at some salary statistics for Europe, and the difference between East and West is really quite staggering. I can't imagine trying to live off of roughly $11,000 per year in the United States.

I still don't understand one thing, though. If the average person in Eastern Europe is making much less money than the average person in Western Europe, then how is it that shops and such can sell things for the same price and still make a profit? I mean, if the customer base can't afford much, it doesn't seem to make any sense that the price would be so high. Price is just the result of supply and demand, and demand can't be high in a market where no one can afford the product or service being offered. What keeps the prices high?

[abs 2]

Have you checked out the debt levels of households?

Abs

[vilas 477]

@-Martin-:

Thanks for the explanation. After reading your post, I took a look at some salary statistics for Europe, and the difference between East and West is really quite staggering. I can't imagine trying to live off of roughly $11,000 per year in the United States.

remember that in US you have lower prices (lower VAT, lower fuel cost)

in US electronics is cheaper for 20 %

check yourself US price of Canon EOS 7D BODY (without LENS)

in PL it costs 1800-2000 USD

in US for the same price you have it with 18-135 lens or 15-85 mm lens

I still don't understand one thing, though. If the average person in Eastern Europe is making much less money than the average person in Western Europe, then how is it that shops and such can sell things for the same price and still make a profit? I mean, if the customer base can't afford much, it doesn't seem to make any sense that the price would be so high. Price is just the result of supply and demand, and demand can't be high in a market where no one can afford the product or service being offered. What keeps the prices high?

how ?

low group of very rich is one thing (best Ferrari cars options in saloon for 0.001% of Poles)

plus rest MUST EAT, so MUST buy food, must buy some things

simply WE SAVE money for year to buy SHOES every 2-3 years

i buy shoes and they MUST be hold for 2-4 years !!!

and everywhere west supermarkets, cause our local shops bancrupted or have only bread, beer, cheapes chees, onion, potatoes etc.

thats why at the moment TV says about storm on parliament in Athens

imagine yourself you buy pair of shoes for 2-3 years

imagine you have 3-4 pair of cheap Chinese trousers

imagine yourself eating only pasta without meat when you went on holidays

imagine yourself collecting money and taking credit to buy Freezer or Washingmachine

now you have your answer why we hate our situation , when you count yourself costs of living for 11 000 USD per year

how much for you is BIG pizza ?

for me it is 13 USD

how much is BigMac in McD ? for us 4 USD

i bought myself US shoes, Beleville , how much it cost for you ? 100 USD, in our shop it cost 150 !!! the same model of shoes on EBAY and in Polish shop (because of taxes, fuel cost, wholesaler etc)

Edited June 15, 2011 by vilas

[krycek 349]

Unfortunately I know damn well what Martin and Vilas are saying and the exact situation that happened in their countries also happened in mine(disturbingly same when I read about theirs).

I wouldn't lay blame on EU 100% though,its more like 50% corrupt government and authorities and 50 % western businessmen or big interest groups who wanted to make a quick and easy buck.This is how our industry got scraped and sold for nothing or how we started to import vegetables and fruits from Western Europe even though we had&have some of the best land for agriculture.

When compared to the West EU it surely seems like Eastern Europe got the short end of the stick.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Krycek

[st_dux 26]

@vilas:

Prices here are similar here if not a little lower. Of course, it varies widely based on which part of the country you are in. In New York City, for example, prices are much higher.

What keeps the prices this high? Foreign trade? Government intervention?