albania

I don't particularly disagree that in most cases this is true. But, this has more to do with individuals being selfish than it has to do with any flaw in capitalism. Although, the argument can be made(successfully) that capitalism(really the economic theory of a free market) only works because people are selfish. However, this misses the point, because in a capitalistic society no one forces you to be selfish. On the other hand, whether I want to or not a socialist government in theory takes money that I've earned fairly and reorganizes it to benefit society. I think it is not just for the government to tell me how to live my life, even if in the end it’s for the greater benefit of society.

Willravel

Socialism seeks to fix the inequality of opportunism. It's not the government forcing their opinion of how to live life on you, it's more the populace agreeing that not agreeing on helping others means that people will be victimized by others. Socialism is about admitting that not all people are good, and that not all people believe in equality, and more importantly it's about seeking to prevent these selfish people from causing economic harm.

albania

I don't think there is any fault with your logic, at least in so far as I can see, and it seems perfectly plausible to look at it that way. Unfortunately, I see it much differently. To me socialism is about forgoing individual freedoms to uphold an unrealistic standard of morality with respect to the acquisition of property.

Willravel

Ah, but it's not necessarily unrealistic. Various European nations and even Canada operate with recognizable levels of socialism in their government and economy. As for individual freedoms.... socialism is not standing in the way of free speech, free religion, free press, freedom to assemble, freedom to arms, freedom from military quarter, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom from giving self incriminating testimony, freedom to have fair trials, etc. The only real restriction is that you only have multimillionaires instead of multibillionaires with the benefit of no starvation or poverty. I'd hardly call that a loss of freedom. The funny thing is that socialism saves you money. Socialized medicine, police, fire protection, streets, etc. all are shown to be much more expensive when private. Compare the costs of medicine in the UK to the US for proof.

abaya

Yeah, I'm not getting the whole "loss of freedom" thing (except as an ideology). What does that *really* mean? Can someone give me a concrete example of loss of freedom in Canada? Scandinavia? Last I checked, average citizens weren't feeling terribly oppressed here in Iceland. We've got all the freedoms stated above, and we've even got some millionaire/billionaire types floating around (not that I like them, but they have the right to exist and accrue money in this country). It's not as if one country MUST be 100% anything... nor should it. Iceland does fairly well with a balance between socialism and capitalism, I think, though of course it's not perfect.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

albania

As my old high school history teacher used to say reality is definitely not as simple as extremes. For the sake of the discussion, people have presented capitalism and socialism as polar opposites in reality. My responses were fashioned in that light, and I personally just looked at the competing theories and their merit philosophically. In reality no one country is truly capitalistic or socialistic; in fact, there are plenty of socialistic elements in America.

The balance has to do with the evolution of law and new social norms. The real difference between so called socialist countries and capitalist countries is not so great as some would have you believe. Whether it be conservatives trying to scare people or liberals trying to point out the greener grass on our neighbors lawn. What I mean by that is that if we take reality into account the only discussion that can be had is whether you want your country to be more socialistic or more capitalistic. My personal opinion on the matter is that I don’t mind the way America is right now. In this pragmatic perspective there would be no real loss of freedom due to implementing socialistic programs similar to some European countries since the differences between countries is minute anyway.

abaya

Ah yes, but are you poor? I don't mean to be nosy, but I do think that one's socio-economic status (taking into consideration gender, ethnicity, education, income, and parents' class) do affect one's satisfication with the way America is right now.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

albania

I grew up in a third world country for half of my life, maybe I should use the pc term developing country...oh well. Vaguely I know that my parents made less than 1000 dollars a month, even though my mother was a doctor and my father was a dentist (something tells me it was much less, but I won't hazard a guess). In fact before we left our country almost went into a state of anarchy, at that time we had lost all of our life savings and were living in a one room apartment, all five of us. When we came to America my parents with graduate degrees worked menial jobs such as cleaning houses, landscaping work and even delivering newspapers. For the first four years of my life here in the US I lived in the city surrounded by I guess what could be termed impoverished minorities. I suppose that would indeed mean that I grew up poor, but I myself never once thought this. My parents never complain about conditions in America, all I ever hear is how good we have it here.

Willravel

I'd never compare poverty in the US to poverty in places like Somalia. It's really apples to oranges. Still, some people in the US go wanting of basic human necessities like shelter, food, water, medicine, and clothing. It's their cause I champion as much as anyone when I talk about less privatization and more socialization in the US.

abaya

Albania... okay, good to know your history. Are you actually from Albania, then?... perhaps it was naive of me to not know that, but people have all kinds of random names here, so I try not to make any assumptions as to what they mean. I will say that being a 1.5/2nd-generation immigrant of educated, European parents is a strong predictor of success (however you define that), even if your parents were forced to work menial jobs (which really sucks, btw). Did you/they speak English when you arrived? Did they come legally (you don't have to answer that, but it's an important question)? If so, those are other key variables that help, at least in sociological/anthropological studies of immigrant integration.

See, if you ask me, just about anyone CAN have the American dream... if they have the right combination of helpful variables working for them, and the right context of reception when they arrive (community, especially of other immigrants). For others who are not so lucky... particularly if they have darker skin, are uneducated, came illegally, don't speak English... it *can* take several generations for them to fully integrate and be in a position to reap the rewards of living in the US (not always, but it happens). Some of them have never integrated, especially when deep racism is involved.

Some people will say it's those people's own fault for being stuck at the bottom of the pile; others will say it's entirely the government's fault. Of course, it's a little of everything... that's what makes this kind of discussion so complicated. But having lived in a successful social democracy here in Iceland, I'd have to say that the US could still stand to learn from what other countries are doing to take care of the people within their borders.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

albania

Neither would I, but my own perspective has colored my view which is what I was trying to get across.

I was born in Albania, and lived there until I was ten.

The question of helping the less fortunate especially immigrants is one that I too take to heart. However, my own experiences tell me that government should not be the one to take the lead. I am much more a believer in people being given the widest autonomy and proving to themselves that they don't need laws and public officials to make them help their fellow man. I guess therein lies my ideological qualm about socialism.

Necrosis

If you can provide evidence that ALL capitalism is motivated by profit alone, you can get away with this statement.

If not, especially if anyone cares to post an altruistic act by a capitalist, your statement is reduced to naivete at best. And that's being kind.

Here is a starting point for you to refute:

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm

Willravel

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/CAPITAL.HTM

This is really basic capitalism. I mean I've only taken a handful of classes on economics and government, but it's been covered. If you can get past the fact that most idiot professors have been brain washed into thinking that capitalism is the solution to every problem (professors are people, too), it's really plain as plain can be.

As for the Gates Foundation... well the organization is plainly and blatantly not capitalist. Explore the business model. Where is the productive labor for profit?

Ustwo

Socialism is a lie.

While it presents itself as an 'advanced' type of society, its appeal is to the most basic nature of man, and that is sloth and jealousy.

It is very appealing to lazy intellectuals who are jealous of wealth they don't poses but feel they deserve. Being very smart in a job that pays poorly is irksome when you feel superior to those who's pursuits earn them wealth. Undoubtedly this is a contributing factor to the number of college professors who seem to rally around the socialist banner. Wealth being relative, they would rather someone else doesn't have it and that it was 'fairly distributed'.

It is likewise appealing to some members of the mega-rich. These people have more wealth than they can spend in several life times. There is some guilt involved, and there is some dark self serving nature too, with socialism making it harder for new people to join their club. The classic example of this is a limousine liberal like Barbara Streisand.

Joining the ranks would be the ‘bleeding hearts’. These are people who think you need to give a man a fish, and when he fails to fish for his own meal, give him another fish. They seriously want to help their fellow man (with other peoples money) and don’t seem to grasp that hand outs are a poor investment in the future.

Then there are the prols. Socialism is just, on paper to them, free money. Its a self serving system. I'm poor so you pay for me. They are fueled in part by politicians who convince them that society owes them something just for breathing.

Finally you have the politicians. Socialism is their tool to power. It can be a powerful coalition with a very large voter base in the prols and more than a good share of the intellectual effete. They create vote plantations among the poor with welfare type systems, while pretending its about compassion or fairness. Its just vote buying.

This is opposed by the middle class (minus bleeding hearts), the working rich, and more libertarian oriented thinkers.

Socialism is a self defeating system in the end, which creates a highly stratified society. It can only maintain itself for so long off the production of the middle and upper class before the incentive to put the kind of effort it takes to be in the middle class is lost. As more and more people take, and there is less to take, the services provided start to shrink. This has already been happening with the European socialist model, and it will continue to do so with time.

There is of course a sustainable level of socialism, much like a parasite that doesn’t kill its host, socialism can exist if it allows enough economic freedom to justify the effort it takes to generate new wealth. The problem is that in a democratic system, where the public knows it can vote itself money from the treasury, human nature takes sway.

Socialism could work in a sort of benign dictatorship situation, but that too only would work in theory, as we all know what the end result of such systems appears to be with millions upon millions killed by their own socialist governments in the name of progress.

In the end though, socialism will always be around, its emotional appeal is too strong, too easy to fool people into thinking that they are helping, to easy to get people to think they are getting something for nothing, to easy to make college students in the coffee shop who think they are superior to most men yet are less productive in society than the waitress serving them, that THIS time, it will work.

And oh yes….

I’m back.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Hey! Welcome back!

And capitalism is an appeal to greed and envy. A dictatorship is an appeal to pride and... I can't fit lust into this.
Maybe we can ask some of the professors around here instead of having to guess why some of them are socialist leaning. Being smart in a job that pays poorly is simply one way in which capitalism can be a broken system.
Well some rich people are idiots, and that's bound to happen. I suspect that even Barbera has some altruistim behind her wish to give some of her wealth to those who need it. It's really about a belief in equality and a willingness to admit that while life isn't fair, it's not a bad thing to try and make it more fair. I'm sure that those people I help out financially appreciate it and don't take it for granted. How do I know this? They're starving.
Ah, but it's not other people's money. In a socialist system, everyone pays a little. Even me. Also, you're looking at this from the perspective of capitalism still. Giving to the poor or needy isn't about an investment that you'll see a necessary return on. It's about doing the right thing.
The poor pay into the system too, just not as much.
I'd say proper socialism happens in the context of a free state, or a state that has representation of the people and has a constitution and body of laws to prevent the state from being controlled from the top.
It's easy to say that socialism is self defeating in theory, but in practice the economies of Europe are thriving and the US dollar is at an all time low and show no signs of gaining worth in the near future. Frankly, we're an excellent example of how capitalism and privatization really isn't the way to go. NHS, while not perfect, is amazing compared to the private systems in the US. They pay less and get more. I'd call that a good deal.
I'd be careful calling things like firefighting and police work parasitic. Had those systems been privatized, we'd be paying hundreds of dollars a month for firefighter and police insurance, just like we do for medicine.
Pure socialism works best in a tribal organization. Not even I would promote pure socialism in our current world, though. There are way too many people. Socialist systems working along side other systems, though, is optimal. BTW, I don't see millions killed by the French government, which is pretty socialist.
I suspect if you ask the people I help through donations of time and money, they'd explain to yo how I was helping. Not only that, but people in Europe are baffled by our medical system. I also suspect they'd admit that they are being helped by their medical systems.

abaya

Holy shit... Ustwo is back. That's all I have to say at this moment. It's about time!

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Cynthetiq

does this imply that artists who are smart or grocery baggers who are smart show one way in which capitalism can be a broken system?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

That depends on the case. A 50 year old bagger who was laid off from a successful company because his job is being filled by an Indian who is willing to work for pennies on the dollar so the CEO can buy that fifth home? Yeah, I'd say so.

If we're talking about a kid fresh out of high school who is working his way through college? Nah. He or she would be doing well in my opinion.

Cynthetiq

so discrimination by age.... still don't want to live in your world.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

We're talking about the reality that You're not born a college graduate with a resume. That's not ageism, it's reality.

Cynthetiq

no and there are many college graduates that don't deserve the salaries they get. just like there are many college drop outs who have the smarts and the potential but cannot get financial backing for their ideas. You've just given their "funding" to the 50 year old for no apparent reason but blind luck.

the reality is that the 50 year old probably didn't retrain or retool themselves for the evolving market. and shouldn't get paid more than the market should bear for the job the enjoin.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

As a caucasian male living in America, I would find it difficult to become a 21 year old Indian man who can easily live on $17k a year. In order for my first hypothetical worker to adapt, he'd need to move to a third world country or take a pay cut of 2/3 or more.

Charlatan

equality vs. liberty

That is the constant struggle between these two ideologies. As a few have pointed out here, happiness lies in the balance between the two.

Too much of either is a recipe for disaster.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Ustwo

If you are still a 'bagger' at age 50, perhaps the problem isn't the company you are working for.

If half a century of knowledge and experience gives you only the skills to put things in a bag, you had better be mentally retarded.

Personally I'm a big fan of self check out

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

I know several men who have been laid off in favor of cheap Indian work and who've started their own handyman service while they look for other work. They are qualified to do a great deal and are more than capable, but that hardly means they'll get work. Do you know how much they make currently? I'd guess around $30k a year each. Do you know how much they made previously? I'd guess over $80k a year. It has nothing to do with skill. It has to do with the price of the work to the company. As a capitalist, who would you want doing work for you: an American who you'd need to pay $50k a year or an Indian who you'd need to pay $20k a year? The answer is simple.

Charlatan

Will the point being made isn't about outsourcing but rather that if you are a skilled person and you settle for a job bagging groceries that's not a good thing. I know that if I was to lose my job I could always get a job selling clothing at the Gap or being a bike courier (both jobs I have held in the past). I would be making a lot less than I am now but I would be making money.

The thing is, it would be a stop gap. I would be working hard to get another job (and not necessarily the one I used to have). Socialism isn't going to solve outsourcing.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Willravel

Well of course it's a stop gap, hopefully, but with whole personnel markets drying up it's not always easy to get back on your feet.

Also, socialism is about preventing business from acting unethically. Profit is not the only motivation a business can have.

Cynthetiq

will the person making 80k a year for a company also is probably working for a company that would have given a decenct severance package to that individual. At least a few months at the minimum, and again, if you settle on bagging groceries, it's my fault that they didn't strive for more?

that's a bunch of bullshit right there.

if you are going to pay that individual more because he made more to begin with then shit I'll quit my job now and go be a bagger. Why strive for higher if the bar will just lower with me?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Not necessarily. Sure, hypothetically there could be severance that could last a bit, but if the market is no longer available for people of his skill he has to go back to school. That could take years. In those years he has to make money. OBVIOUSLY, no one is "settling" with bagging. He would be trying to make his way back into a better paying job market.
How about you calm down and show me some respect?
We're allowing that person to stay alive and have the necessities: food, water, shelter, health. I don't know where everyone gets the idea that everyone will be given a very comfortable lifestyle without working. It's not like we're buying the bag boy a Porsche. That's not socialism.

Cynthetiq

there's no disrespect in stating that two different ages getting two different salaries because someone is older and "deserves" it is a bunch of bullshit.

As a youth I had jobs where I ran circles around older people who had families and mortages to support yet I got very much less than they did. That is age discrimination right there.

Well then what salary does this person get form the 80k? Because as you've explained it, the capitalist system is shown as broken and then you say they deserve to be paid more. So what is this more? 60k? and what is the disparity for the younger person in the same job?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

I suspect many members have similar stories, I certainly do.
The idea would be that the person who is capable, rained, and with experience won't lose his job to an Indian kid. It has a lot more to do with the market being monitored so as to protect workers from bosses who would drop even good, productive workers to save a buck. Socialism means that these things can be monitored and even prevented more. It's about sharing economic responsibility between the government and the companies. In a free market, no one can prevent outsourcing, really.

I'm not sure where younger people entered the equation, but if an employee can prove him or herself, the company should be loyal to them, regardless of age.

Cynthetiq

In some cases what you describe already happens vis a vie the Union models. That form of labor is quite expensive and costs alot to the union member as well. But they are protected from many things that non-union members are not like layoffs, summary dismissals, etc. But there, people pay into a system, they have tiers for tenure.

Now in that system, I don't see them working their asses off, they walk slower, they react slower, they move with little desire. All because they know they are protected and that there is due process to remove them and/or their position.

For me to get a worker reduction in my building I have to petition the Union in order to do so, it can take years to do it and at considerable cost. Unfair I say in the capitalist model that is elsewhere. We have need for a workforce reduction and you just do it.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Productivity is high in Europe, which is far more socialist than the US. And look at their currency. Jeez. Instead of scaring the people into working (see Office Space: that makes you work just hard enough not to get fired), you give them positive reinforcement. As a psych person, I know that positive reinforcement is usually better than negative reinforcement in the work environment.

Cynthetiq

France doesn't have high productivity. They are screaming for more workers to work longer hours to become more productive to compete and are being blocked by the unions.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

The industrial base is very strong (telecom, defense, electronics, engineering, chemicals, aerospace, and cars), clean and powerful nuclear power which helps with foreign oil issues, agriculture, tourism, and trade are all strong right now. Unemployment is high, and the federal budget is in a bit of trouble (nothing compared to the US, though), though.

abaya

Eh, France may be having a rough time at the moment, but Iceland's exploding... and we're all unionized up here, as well. And we still get 5 weeks' vacation annually!

So Cyn, I'm still rather curious. I know you like Iceland. But do you disapprove of the way things are done here? Did you perceive that Icelanders were unhappy with the system?

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Cynthetiq

Unions are a diffferent problem all together.

There are strict regulations as to being able to fire someone "at will", since most everyone is contracted.

One of the things that I don't know about Iceland, is are the food service workers also "union"? (this includes the new Subway franchises from the past several years, and the rest of the lower waged tiers such as cashiers at the mall.) I think that that cashiers like Hagkaup and Bonus are unionized, but the owner of the little general store/video rental place in the small town of <1000 I don't think is. From this I gather that the Unionized people are well protected and get protected salaries. Those that are let go "at will" are purchased out of their contracts or the contract has terms for dismissal and severance typically 6 months salary even if tenure is <1 year. This creates some interesting hardships for the employer and can sometimes favor outside the unionized labor pool for a couple of reasons. First because "outside" must be better an interesting fallacy since there is such a good joke about Icelanders being xenophobic. Secondly, employers have the burden of paying an employee that isn't providing labor, so my friend worked without contract for several months probationary, so this "union" protection doesn't happen. Here in the US the union hall knows of the jobs and assists in the tooling and training, I don't think that happens in Iceland that I know of.

Offesetting this I union system believe (again from anecdotal observation and discussions) is the socialized governement programs from the Icelandic government. If you never get gainfully employed or work a unionized job, you still enjoy some protections from the social systems in place. I know this works for the original Icelanders and I believe is fair to them. I don't know how this affects the influx of people emmigrating to Iceland as temporary workers since no government wants the burden of more people using services than needed.

But a couple of things to note, Iceland only has c. 300,000 Icelanders. Each of those people have fish stocks as part of their natural birthright. The country and people utilizes those stocks since there is a value to the community. So while they may not be doing any physical labor, just by birth they are allocated X amount of fish. I'm not sure where this original allocation comes from, what treaty, conservation, etc. Taking care of 300,000 people doesn't have the same ramifications of taking care of millions.

In some ways I know that if I lived there I would always be jealous of natural born Icelanders since they always have a safety net that catches them. As an outsider, I don't believe I am afforded those same protections, unless I'm married to an Icelander.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

abaya

Just addressing this part for the moment... well, even Icelandic citizens lose rights to the health care system if they have changed their residence to another country, and then moved back home. They have to reside back in Iceland for 6 months before those benes kick in, just like foreign residents and workers. When ktspktsp and I moved here, we both had to purchase short-term insurance to cover our asses in case one of us got hit by a truck or something (the deductible is pretty high) in our first 6 months here... I'm a citizen, he isn't. As of Sept 1, we'll finally be able to go to the doctor, yay!

Now, if you moved here legally (obviously without being married to an Icelander), that would mean you would have a work permit issued from an employer (like an H1-B in the US). This also goes along with a residence permit to allow you to live in the country legally, which means you would have access to the health care system after 6 months here, as well. And, if you so desired, after 7 years living in Iceland you could become a citizen. And then there would be absolutely no difference between you and "natural born Icelanders." Citizenship confers rights of nativity. That's the whole idea. Hell, I was not born here, only got my citizenship in my 20s... but I have all the same rights as those who were born here. Ktspktsp is allowed to get his citizenship here after 3 years, due to being married to me... and he would also obtain all the same rights as a native. There would be nothing to be jealous of.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Cynthetiq

Agreed that is the purpose of naturalization. You are born of Icelandic heritage directly, unlike West Icelanders those that emigrated out to Canada and have been there for many generations. While their roots are Icelandic, they don't contribute to the Icelandic taxation and social systems. It makes sense of course to not care for those that don't contribute for a period of time.

Again, though these "costs" are off set in some manner by the fish stocks that each "original" Icelander "owns".

The Icelandic news I get here of course is extremely filtered and the only direct conversations I have are of course limited to my small pool of friends. I do know that even the Unions don't have enough resources to benefit all their workers. It has been suggested to me several times to purchase a summer house and rent it out to the Union who in turn gives it out to their members.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

abaya

I must admit that I have not heard about these common fish stocks. I know there are set quotas for each fishery/boat/region in Iceland, and these can be traded around the island and sold off to corporations if wanted... and they diminish each year, as the cod stocks diminish and the environmental ministry tries to protect them from depletion. But I am not sure how that is related to health care and benefits?

As far as I know, the "costs" of providing benefits to residents and citizens comes straight from our own pockets... that 40% income tax and 25% sales tax, among many other costs ($7.50/gallon for gas, yippee!). At least, I HOPE that money is going into the health care/education system, otherwise I'm going to be very upset!

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran