PDA

View Full Version : Interesting yet disturbing data.



PotshotPolka
9 Apr 2009, 08:27am
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism

Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism


Thursday, April 09, 2009


Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism#) survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.
Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.
Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.
There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.
(Want a free daily e-mail update (http://visitor.constantcontact.com/manage/optin/ea?v=001XWTM8Vlkw3Zg_dO7PWxw0Q%3D%3D)? If it's in the news, it's in our polls.) Rasmussen Reports updates also available on Twitter (http://twitter.com/RasmussenPoll).
The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism
It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/voters_champion_free_market_but_want_more_regulati on). The fact that a “free-market economy” attracts substantially more support than “capitalism” may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism#).
Other survey data supports that notion. Rather than seeing large corporations as committed to free markets, two-out-of-three Americans believe that big government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/ideology/55_of_americans_are_populist_7_support_the_politic al_class).
Fifteen percent (15%) of Americans say they prefer a government-managed economy, similar to the 20% support for socialism. Just 14% believe the federal government would do a better job running auto companies (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/auto_industry/just_14_say_federal_government_will_run_big_three_ better), and even fewer believe government would do a better job running financial firms (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/just_11_say_government_can_run_financial_instituti ons_better).
Most Americans today hold views that can generally be defined as populist while only seven percent (7%) share the elitist views of the Political Class (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/ideology/55_of_americans_are_populist_7_support_the_politic al_class).

:oh:

Italian Jew
9 Apr 2009, 09:04am
More people said they were not sure rather than claim Capitalism was better than Socialism. It also depends on whether people viewed things as purely capitalistic (which we haven't been) and purely socialist (which large governments haven't been) or if they took into consideration size restraints to each theory (small communities-socialism works well, large communities-socialism not so well unless COMPLETE cooperation).

Phone surveys are also poor mediums to obtain good statistical data because opinionated people take the time to actually participate, so you could have a larger margin of one over the other.

There would probably be a shift away from "capitalism" with the current economic climate, but if you gave people more choices than the two extremes, you would probably see them shying away from what you would consider full blown socialism.

PotshotPolka
9 Apr 2009, 09:27am
More people said they were not sure rather than claim Capitalism was better than Socialism. It also depends on whether people viewed things as purely capitalistic (which we haven't been) and purely socialist (which large governments haven't been) or if they took into consideration size restraints to each theory (small communities-socialism works well, large communities-socialism not so well unless COMPLETE cooperation).

Phone surveys are also poor mediums to obtain good statistical data because opinionated people take the time to actually participate, so you could have a larger margin of one over the other.

There would probably be a shift away from "capitalism" with the current economic climate, but if you gave people more choices than the two extremes, you would probably see them shying away from what you would consider full blown socialism.

That's more or less what I got out of this, but concerning socialism period, its wholly unapplicable on any major scale. Small towns? Sure, because there are few enough factors to be weighed by the planners accurately. Even in the Soviet Union and in the PRC their governments admit that they only have managed to make it to the "transitional" stage.

The sad thing is that socialism and capitalism truly do not mix well. If you want proof, go look at the best example of the USSR and Perestroika, a similar, but better managed and controlled system is in place in China in the form of SEZs, which are pumping capitalist funding into China. It is of course, according to the Chineses government only for the time being.

On a less intense scale, government spending, monetary policy by the FED, and fiscal policy DOES damage the economy. If I have time or if someone else wants I'll expand further on this.

LegalSmash
9 Apr 2009, 10:10am
I think people want to reap the benefits of capitalism, while having to do the work in socialism. Capitalist profits, financial incentives, and focus on independence of the individual is attractive to almost anyone, however, the whole hard work that may not pay off thing is not. People do not like being made aware that they are working and they suck at it, or that they are not getting anywhere... socialism in theory cushions such a blow with an "everyone is equal" message.

Slavic
9 Apr 2009, 10:59am
A telephone poll of only a 1000 people in which the questions being asked are blunt and extreme does not seem to be a very accurate set of data to compare to the US population. A much more interesting poll would be to ask these people to explain what socialism is and what capitalism is. If you get either wrong, then you are categorized in the Dumb Shit category. If you get both right, then you are categorized in the Possible Junior Highschool Graduate category.

PotshotPolka
9 Apr 2009, 11:14am
A telephone poll of only a 1000 people in which the questions being asked are blunt and extreme does not seem to be a very accurate set of data to compare to the US population. A much more interesting poll would be to ask these people to explain what socialism is and what capitalism is. If you get either wrong, then you are categorized in the Dumb Shit category. If you get both right, then you are categorized in the Possible Junior Highschool Graduate category.

I'm actually writing an economics paper with some scholarly sources that may hold some of the figures you're asking for, if I see something I'll post it up here, I just happened to see that poll on Drudge when I scrolled through it.

PotshotPolka
9 Apr 2009, 01:52pm
Neither have ever been proven to work well (depending on how far left you define socialism).

Whatever anyone does, there'll always be economic upturns and downturns. And, as is proven in history, in the upturns people like ideas and systems that make them more money (even if it is at the expense of others) and in the downturns extremism isn't quite so...extreme.


Good economy:

Rich getting richer > The needs of others.


Bad economy:

Strong leader(s) > Whether things will actually work a few years down the line.

Good and bad are normative terms requiring a valued judgement.

And that model isn't really accurate.

PotshotPolka
9 Apr 2009, 02:00pm
Judging what?

Good and bad are personal values, what you think is good someone else may view as bad.

If you really want to try understand the economy, its best to try and be neutral about it.

PotshotPolka
9 Apr 2009, 02:31pm
Yes, but good and bad what?

I don't know what you're referring to.

The economy, stupid :cheesy:.


No really, if you view it from say, Ronald Reagan's standpoint.

Capitalism: "Mmmmm Capitalism."

Communism "DIAF"


Neutral standpoint based upon years of data and research (wholly ignored by most politicians)

Capitalism: More efficient allocation of resources, but without a means of regulating damaging effects caused by externalities (such as DDTs, testing products on Angolan children, etc.)

Socialism: Less efficient, since there is at some level a central command structure saying what can and cannot be done, based upon whether or not the said operations are good or bad. (Child labor and pollution are "bad" because they create negative, long lasting effects, and it should not be allowed. Or, bank CEOs are dumbasses and should get the boot at the whims of the government.)

I've never said Capitalism is better. Personally, I prefer it though, because it leaves the right to decide in the individual.

PotshotPolka
9 Apr 2009, 02:44pm
I didn't say either were good or bad.

They both suck, and balance is needed.

Nein, its one or the other, there are no in betweens, and anyone that tells you so is a liar.

Lux
9 Apr 2009, 02:48pm
I didn't say either were good or bad.

They both suck, and balance is needed.

Depends, I don't really like having to pay for other peoples needs. Ok taxes are needed public stuff I'm going to use, but otherwise I shouldn't have to pay for it. Whatever the "bad" effects are of letting people pay for whatever they need to use, I'd prefer it to say, paying for the homes of lazy immigrants, or paying for stupid peoples pensions who spent all their savings on cigs.

zero
9 Apr 2009, 02:58pm
There seems to be a misunderstanding as to what socialism and capitalism truly are. From the debates I've had with various people in regards to these two, people seem to equate socialism to helping people and capitalism to greed. At least that's been my experience.

PotshotPolka
9 Apr 2009, 02:58pm
I realise that the post I made makes no sense, by the way, it's just I couldn't be bothered to minimize Empire again to edit it.

What I meant was, even though it was down to personal opinions, etc., both are systems in which people deliberately and knowledgefully act to inflict suffering on people.

Capitalism and Socialism are both guilty of it, therefore neither should have to be a choice.

I mean, it's my opinion that they both suck, but at least with a decent centrist system you don't have people disappearing off the streets or massive corporations able to lobby the government against doing good.

You think this, (and take this part with a grain of salt, because it took me the better of a decade to work my own head around it) but you've been trained to think this. That may sound like a load of conspiracy theory bullshit, but its really true in the U.S., and probably the same or more so in the more socialized Euro states. School textbooks, even advanced highschool level ones do not even mention the beneficial sides of capitalism, or the costs of socialism. Economics books mention the different systems, but make no real effort to inform about the the true principles behind them.

It is a fact, that there is a point in which one can only make more profit at the cost of another. But in a truly free market, this would usually be avoided.

PotshotPolka
9 Apr 2009, 03:08pm
I don't read textbooks about the economy. I know capitalism has benefits, and I know socialism (or extreme socialism - as socialism is anything from centrist-left up to communism) has costs.


I'd suggest reading something then, preferably try something by the name of a guy named Laffer, instead of Marx.

PotshotPolka
9 Apr 2009, 03:13pm
The last informative book I read was about oil dependency and OPEC and all that stuff, and that bored me to hell. It was good, but it was like an essay in book form.

I think my aunt in America sent me that, so there's no chance I'd buy a book or anything about it.

Word of advice, if the writer includes anything that is opinionated without warning that it is a personal opinion, then its probably a crappy book.

Slavic
9 Apr 2009, 03:13pm
I mean, it's my opinion that they both suck, but at least with a decent centrist system you don't have people disappearing off the streets or massive corporations able to lobby the government against doing good.

What usualy is causing those kind of extremities found in capitalism and socialism are typically how the government itself is set up.

Most if not all of profoundly corrupt socialist states have been oligarchies and thus the sytem can be bent for the bidding of the state which complements socialism well.

The ecconomic problems you see in capitalist societies in ones like our own can be attributed to democracies. Democracies allow such groups as lobbiests and special interests groups to mannuver legistaltion at the benifit of corportations and expense of who ever they are screwing.

A proper ecconomy, whether it be leftest or rightest, would survive better and produce more positive outcomes if it was embedded in a proper republic that values individual rights. A proper republic with a non-political judiciary system will see to it that corruption and greed are kept at a minimum in both societies.

PotshotPolka
9 Apr 2009, 03:23pm
Very well put, but a true republic probably could not be socialist, simply because of the methods a socialist government operates and its influence on society.

Lux
9 Apr 2009, 03:26pm
You think this, (and take this part with a grain of salt, because it took me the better of a decade to work my own head around it) but you've been trained to think this. That may sound like a load of conspiracy theory bullshit, but its really true in the U.S., and probably the same or more so in the more socialized Euro states. School textbooks, even advanced highschool level ones do not even mention the beneficial sides of capitalism, or the costs of socialism. Economics books mention the different systems, but make no real effort to inform about the the true principles behind them.


I can't really say that, the books I have for AS Level economics talk about capital and socialist economies, and whilst its only a small feature of what we need to know, because generally we don't need to know much about socialism, but you do learn the positives and negatives.



And I agree about taxes. I shouldn't have to pay for someone's umpteenth bottle of cider or cigarette or another pram for a teenage mother, but I would much rather have the NHS than privatised healthcare.

It needs to be seriously looked at and fixed. Starting with benefits.

I'd rather have private healthcare, because other peoples health are not my responsibility. If there was any NHS healthcare, it would have to be narrowed down a lot so that it would only fund disesases/illnesses/etc which were not the fault of the person injured/etc. Bad thing about that is the massive court cases that would come every 10 seconds because apparently its McDonald's fault that you eat 3 meals there a day.

I like Slavic's idea, but the thing is can the public be trusted to make the right decisions? In some cases no, but generally do I trust politicians to make the right decisions? No aswell. When Norway were asked whether they wanted to join the EU or not, they voted no and got what they wanted. What is so wrong with that? Why does Gordon Brown say we can have a vote and then tell us that we can't after hes in. It just shows how bad these politicians are, overall its as if they do everything I DON'T want them to do.

Slavic
9 Apr 2009, 03:27pm
The trouble is a republic gives a head of state too much power to be influenced by religion.

Even thought we're Protestant the Queen wouldn't stop a law going through Commons or Lords just because it was in a grey-area with religion.

The good thing is about having a constitutional monarchy is that the head of state isn't only pretty much religious unbiased, by politically too.

Religion has screwed the world up enough already.

Who says that the heads of state would be influence by religion? If your constitution states that church and state will be kept seperate, a proper Republic must ablidge by its own laws.

If we were living in the Republic of Sudan, then I think your arguement would have more weight.

PotshotPolka
9 Apr 2009, 03:37pm
....on a side note, I've noticed this is like the first real discussion that hasn't been poisoned by image macros or retarded speculation, GG so far.


I like Slavic's idea, but the thing is can the public be trusted to make the right decisions? In some cases no, but generally do I trust politicians to make the right decisions? No aswell. When Norway were asked whether they wanted to join the EU or not, they voted no and got what they wanted. What is so wrong with that? Why does Gordon Brown say we can have a vote and then tell us that we can't after hes in. It just shows how bad these politicians are, overall its as if they do everything I DON'T want them to do.
That's the problem. Most states aren't really republics, they are "Representative Democracies".

Originally in the US (until this racist POS basterd named Andrew Jackson showed up) The President was elected via caucuses, who were eventually to be elected by the voters. This may not seem right, but by having fewer people voting for the President (I believe also citizens voted in the House, which in turn voted in the Senate?) allowed for more transparency, and if the said politicians did something the people below them didn't like, they would be removed in the next row of elections.

Lux
9 Apr 2009, 07:06pm
....on a side note, I've noticed this is like the first real discussion that hasn't been poisoned by image macros or retarded speculation, GG so far.

I heard that America is becoming communist :wave:

To make sure the switch goes smoothly, America will become a state of Russia and new Russian defense centres will be based all across America.

RedOctober
9 Apr 2009, 08:41pm
I heard that America is becoming communist :wave:

To make sure the switch goes smoothly, America will become a state of Russia and new Russian defense centres will be based all across America.


were not becoming communist..... just more socialist! YAY

done believe me, just ask Obama if the GM CEO should stand down.....!?


either way were screwed. im moving to Italy. i may be just as screwed there with the horrible labor force and the high taxes but at least the food is good.

Lux
10 Apr 2009, 04:45pm
either way were screwed. im moving to Italy. i may be just as screwed there with the horrible labor force and the high taxes but at least the food is good.

Yeah I was thinking of moving to Spain to avoid the disaster that is England. Whether that happens I will have to see.

Slavic
10 Apr 2009, 09:10pm
Yeah I was thinking of moving to Spain to avoid the disaster that is England. Whether that happens I will have to see.

umm if I'm not mistaken Spain is way more socialist then England and is currently in quite the economic rut compared to most West European nations.

Farmer Mick
11 Apr 2009, 03:54am
erm fail

Lux
11 Apr 2009, 06:44am
umm if I'm not mistaken Spain is way more socialist then England and is currently in quite the economic rut compared to most West European nations.

I didn't have the socialist/capitalist view in mind, but in general I'd rather just be there. I'd have to be careful about settling in though, seen how some English people have been fucked over by estate agents.

PotshotPolka
11 Apr 2009, 09:59am
Spanish nude beaches man.

Lux
11 Apr 2009, 02:48pm
Why, if you don't mind me asking?

Better lifestyle? I hate living in London its shit, and would anywhere else in England be better? Maybe, but with Spain you have the great weather, and beyond that its plain sailing. The main two barriers would be not knowing Spanish (although most speak English and theres so many other English over there already), and finding a job which is mainly why I'll probably not end up there. Whenever I go on holiday I feel so much better, and then I come home and suddenly I become ill and lazy etc. Doesn't seem like a lot of difference because both England and Spain has their advantages, but the most simple factors are the most important to me.

I also would like to move to Switzerland or Canada/America, but these are just dreams.......it would be GREAT if I could make these happen but I don't know where life will take me.

Its all down to opinion really, I'm just the kind of guy who doesn't fit into London, at all.

RedOctober
12 Apr 2009, 09:56am
Better lifestyle? I hate living in London its shit, and would anywhere else in England be better? Maybe, but with Spain you have the great weather, and beyond that its plain sailing. The main two barriers would be not knowing Spanish (although most speak English and theres so many other English over there already), and finding a job which is mainly why I'll probably not end up there. Whenever I go on holiday I feel so much better, and then I come home and suddenly I become ill and lazy etc. Doesn't seem like a lot of difference because both England and Spain has their advantages, but the most simple factors are the most important to me.

I also would like to move to Switzerland or Canada/America, but these are just dreams.......it would be GREAT if I could make these happen but I don't know where life will take me.

Its all down to opinion really, I'm just the kind of guy who doesn't fit into London, at all.


that sucks that u don't like living in England.... but doesn't life always feel better when your on holiday?

i haven't been to Europe so i can not input a valid argument here but why is London so shitty? it was always on my list of places to visit one day...

Lux
12 Apr 2009, 10:44am
that sucks that u don't like living in England.... but doesn't life always feel better when your on holiday?

i haven't been to Europe so i can not input a valid argument here but why is London so shitty? it was always on my list of places to visit one day...

It has some ok places, but really I don't like the variety of cultures. Its not that cultures themselves mostly, but the ways in which you have loads of different gangs and hatred just because of it is beyond frustrating. I don't like the pollution, and to add to that the weather. I'm not the tourist kind of guy so I don't really know how appealing London is, but I don't find a London eye 1 hour boring trip fun, and most of the other stuff around here isn't unique or exciting at all. If I go into inner London it'd be to go to the Trocadero, a massive arcade....or to watch a concert. It doesn't really stick out compared to the things you could do in so many other places in the world, the only thing that attracts people to London is money, fact.

Delirium
13 Apr 2009, 04:29am
Command economy all the way...to hell with both the others

PotshotPolka
13 Apr 2009, 09:10am
Command economy all the way...to hell with both the others
diaf.

Delirium
14 Apr 2009, 07:30am
diaf.

I Refuse. All of our problems would be fixed though

Haha ironic i said fixed.. like our incomes would be.

VirDeBello
14 Apr 2009, 09:02am
What does diaf mean?

Gumpy
14 Apr 2009, 09:36am
Die
In
A
Fire

PotshotPolka
14 Apr 2009, 01:08pm
I Refuse. All of our problems would be fixed though

Haha ironic i said fixed.. like our incomes would be.

Nein. Go study the effects of Keynesian policy on the U.S.

RedOctober
14 Apr 2009, 07:37pm
It has some ok places, but really I don't like the variety of cultures. Its not that cultures themselves mostly, but the ways in which you have loads of different gangs and hatred just because of it is beyond frustrating. I don't like the pollution, and to add to that the weather. I'm not the tourist kind of guy so I don't really know how appealing London is, but I don't find a London eye 1 hour boring trip fun, and most of the other stuff around here isn't unique or exciting at all. If I go into inner London it'd be to go to the Trocadero, a massive arcade....or to watch a concert. It doesn't really stick out compared to the things you could do in so many other places in the world, the only thing that attracts people to London is money, fact.

ha doesn't sound to different from the big cities in America. especially new york or DC....

any time you have a large population of suppressed underprivileged minorities confined into a city like that there is bound to be trouble. at least our cops can shoot people though.

PotshotPolka
14 Apr 2009, 08:05pm
ha doesn't sound to different from the big cities in America. especially new york or DC....

any time you have a large population of suppressed underprivileged minorities confined into a city like that there is bound to be trouble. at least our cops can shoot people though.

Our "suppressed underpriveleged minorities" can do the same.

phatman76
16 Apr 2009, 03:23am
I feel like taking a philosophical shit on the conversation here...

The majority of Americans are blind to the fact that we are not going to be a Capitalist nation for much longer the way trends are going. Tellingly, F.A. Hayek said in 1944 that "If it is no longer fashionable to emphasize that 'we are all socialists now,' this is so merely because the fact is too obvious." A Newsweek cover a few months ago splayed across the cover "We are all Socialists Now." The fact is obvious, we are simply ignoring it.

Barrack Obama said in a speech earlier today that he still believes "home-ownership" is a key component to the American Dream. It is this logic that has poisoned our lending institutions, investment firms and people into making unwise purchases on a nation-wide scale. The government already has de jure control of the banking industry, and de facto control of the automobile industry as well. It is only a matter of time until other corporations are folded in to Uncle Sam. Within 3 months, Obama has shattered the standard for government spending. Within the year, I wager that all the gains made by fiscal conservatives in the last three decades will have been completely wiped out.

There has been a fundamental shift to the left in this country since the early 20th century, but Obama has thrown us off the cliff and into a headlong spin towards collectivism. Turning back the precedents and foolish commitments the President has already set will take a long time, and it may indeed be impossible in the end to fix what he has broken. 250 years of economic liberty, 150 of them regulated, 80 of them subsidized, and now at least 4 of them as a wholly owned subsidiary of the U.S. Government. We are reaching the bottom of the slippery slope here, seizing the banks from private control is the first step to creating not only a welfare state, but a communo-fascist one as well.

We know that what Obama is doing will fail to show success in the long run, and it is tempting as a conservative to sit back and watch him drive us into the ground for a while so we can take back power later. But, a slip into a European-style welfare state may create a voter apathy from which there is no return. It is critical that we hit back hard and fast. The GOP must unite its wayward and scattered followers under the banner of fiscal sense and economic liberty. Obama's spending plans will not produce verifiable results by 2010, the GOP can definitely stop losses in Congress by then, and maybe even retake some old strongholds. As for 2012, I have my hopes on Petraeus running against a president who has displayed four years of ham-handed domestic policy (A wild card, I know, but he could be this generation's Eisenhower).

PotshotPolka
16 Apr 2009, 05:35am
To clarify

Keynesian policies aren't truly Socialist, but the collective Medicare/Medicaid and SS system are.

Even when Reagan championed supply-side economics he didn't have enough time or support to dismantle these programs, and I doubt Obama would be left standing after the shitstorm that would come his way if he tried.

I almost feel like going conspiracy-theorist and proposing that they're charging towards national bankruptcy and government default on purpose, since that's become the only politically "acceptable" manner to put the healthcare system to bed with. Sickening thought.

Delirium
16 Apr 2009, 12:35pm
Also to clarify... i truly don't belive in A command economy. i was just stating it because everyone gets worked up about america going socialist to point out that it could be worse.

PotshotPolka
16 Apr 2009, 12:49pm
Also to clarify... i truly don't belive in A command economy. i was just stating it because everyone gets worked up about america going socialist to point out that it could be worse.

It is getting worse. Why settle for "meh" when you could invest in a productive system?

Socialism does not equate to red banners flying over government buildings and total oppression, but it does equate to an inefficient, and inevitably unsustainable system, especially pertaining to healthcare and fiscal/monetary policies.

And it's more prudent to call Obama a Keynesian rather a Socialist, even if he is an advocate of social programs.

Delirium
17 Apr 2009, 12:35pm
It is getting worse. Why settle for "meh" when you could invest in a productive system?

Socialism does not equate to red banners flying over government buildings and total oppression, but it does equate to an inefficient, and inevitably unsustainable system, especially pertaining to healthcare and fiscal/monetary policies.

And it's more prudent to call Obama a Keynesian rather a Socialist, even if he is an advocate of social programs.


I know its getting worse. but its not rock bottom, and when we hit that most americans will wake up from there labotamized state and do something about it, the fact is our Government has become VERY inefficient.

Italian Jew
17 Apr 2009, 02:36pm
I know its getting worse. but its not rock bottom, and when we hit that most americans will wake up from there labotamized state and do something about it, the fact is our Government has become VERY inefficient.

It became inefficient a long time ago. The bigger the country, the more inefficient the government is.

Nothing new there.

PotshotPolka
17 Apr 2009, 05:05pm
It became inefficient a long time ago. The bigger the government, the more inefficient the country is.

Nothing new there.

Fixed :cheesy: