|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 27 2013 06:38 Shiori wrote:Name a (large-scale i.e. operating over a large jurisdiction rather than 5 houses or something) government in the history of forever that was both efficient and not shitty. I'll just tell you in advance that no such government exists (or has existed) because, if one did, it would be really fucking obvious that it was amazing and nobody would have ever wanted it gone. Seriously, if you went up to someone and were like "hey, how would you like a government that's really ethical and is also really efficient?" why would anyone say "no" to such a hypothetical let alone stage a revolt against one or actively try to get rid of one? I suspect that the problem here is that your caveat of non-shittiness is really just question begging. What is a "non shitty" government? Are there any governments that aren't shitty? What do they look like? Why did nobody under those governments seem to realize how utopian their society was (given that they voted out or revolted against these non-shitty gov'ts)? I mean, if your point is that no non-shitty+efficient big governments exist, then yeah, that's possibly true, but it's equally true that there are no non-shitty governments in general, big, small, or bite-sized. Everyone hates them. Everyone has always hated them. That's why they aren't still here today.
I am right there with you. Now just follow through on this thought. If a certain aspect of all our lives is inefficient and shitty ... then ... do you want more of it? Or less? Do you want to continue to expand its scope and power? Or do you want to curtail it?
|
On July 27 2013 11:02 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 06:38 Shiori wrote:Name a big government that is not shitty and efficient.
You can't. Name a (large-scale i.e. operating over a large jurisdiction rather than 5 houses or something) government in the history of forever that was both efficient and not shitty. I'll just tell you in advance that no such government exists (or has existed) because, if one did, it would be really fucking obvious that it was amazing and nobody would have ever wanted it gone. Seriously, if you went up to someone and were like "hey, how would you like a government that's really ethical and is also really efficient?" why would anyone say "no" to such a hypothetical let alone stage a revolt against one or actively try to get rid of one? I suspect that the problem here is that your caveat of non-shittiness is really just question begging. What is a "non shitty" government? Are there any governments that aren't shitty? What do they look like? Why did nobody under those governments seem to realize how utopian their society was (given that they voted out or revolted against these non-shitty gov'ts)? I mean, if your point is that no non-shitty+efficient big governments exist, then yeah, that's possibly true, but it's equally true that there are no non-shitty governments in general, big, small, or bite-sized. Everyone hates them. Everyone has always hated them. That's why they aren't still here today. I am right there with you. Now just follow through on this thought. If a certain aspect of all our lives is inefficient and shitty ... then ... do you want more of it? Or less? Do you want to continue to expand its scope and power? Or do you want to curtail it?
Sometimes a certain aspect of our lives is inefficient and shitty, but it is the only means through which solve relevant problems. Cost-benefit analysis apply, but it is determined by how bad you consider the problem and how shitty and inefficient said aspect is. Usually doesn't end up being black and white.
|
Your medical plans are going up (and they are), but they aren't killing you as much as the CBO predicted, so let's jump for joy.
I think we'll all see how much is actually will cost later on, and it won't always be in the price of the policy. Some of that burden is shifted.Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) and his administration have wholeheartedly embraced Obamacare implementation, in stark contrast to the the 34 states, mostly with Republican governors, that left the federal government to erect the health insurance exchanges that will be used by residents who don't get health benefits at work or are employed by small businesses. Maryland also exercised its regulatory authority to force health plans to curb rate increases for next year, such as the 25 percent hike initially requested by CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield in April.
Health insurance is gonna cost less (actually cost less!!)
>>Psst we need an incredibly unpopular rate increase because we love shooting ourselves in the foot our increased costs gotta be recouped somewhere.
Price controls of any form rock, so you just can't charge that much. Cuz I say it's cheaper because of ACA. And I have the power of regulation!
That article was rich, thanks for the link {CC}StealthBlue.
|
A government that is big and not inefficient?
This is a loaded question, because inefficiency is a matter of degree, after all. There have been horribly corrupt governments throughout history that have been incredibly inefficient. Where police officers are constantly paid off and there's nepotism everywhere. We certainly aren't that bad, even with the whole Citizen's United thing. The amount of inefficiency that will be acceptable to you will inevitably go down as life gets better. Another way to say it is that we expect more from our governments as our lives get better. There's nothing wrong with this.
The fact is that not many people really care about the "size" of government. What they care about is the protection of their rights, and whether the government gets shit done that needs to get done. People are generally pragmatic about this stuff. The rhetoric against "big government" is hollow nonsense that people really don't buy into that much.
Not to mention that "small government" usually just refers to hiring government contractors. Most conservatives don't actually realize that (or are being deceptive). Because again, people care more about the job getting done, than "big government" and "small government."
|
I am right there with you. Now just follow through on this thought. If a certain aspect of all our lives is inefficient and shitty ... then ... do you want more of it? Or less? Do you want to continue to expand its scope and power? Or do you want to curtail it?
Except this is too black and white. The point I was trying to make is that every government has negative aspects and inefficient components. That doesn't mean we should just cut our losses and minimize government as much as possible in order to save ourselves from whatever shittiness plagues its current incarnations. History shows that, while all governments are shitty in some regard, some governments are better than others. This seems to suggest that we're making progress. I don't think governments will ever be perfect because I don't think large bodies of anything are ever going to be perfect, as there are simply a myriad of points at which something could go wrong. But that doesn't mean that everything about large scale organization is shitty, or even that most things about it are shitty. I think that, for all the shittiness my current government has going on, it's still a hell of a lot better than it was 50-odd years ago (or even 25 years ago) in many regards, so I'm content to keep pushing for more progress rather than just calling quits on the entire project.
The difference between me and people who are opposed to "big government" is that I see problems in the government as instances of corruption, pragmatic relativism, and/or ignorance, whereas people on the anti-big-government side of things seem to think that "big-government-ness" causes these things by necessity, and that governments are an evil thing which we should try to get rid of in general. In that respect, I prefer to cooperate with the existing structures and attempt to improve them (because I think they make sense conceptually, even if they have flaws in practice) whereas others seem to prefer to actively fight against the institution of government itself.
|
On July 27 2013 22:57 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +I am right there with you. Now just follow through on this thought. If a certain aspect of all our lives is inefficient and shitty ... then ... do you want more of it? Or less? Do you want to continue to expand its scope and power? Or do you want to curtail it? Except this is too black and white. The point I was trying to make is that every government has negative aspects and inefficient components. That doesn't mean we should just cut our losses and minimize government as much as possible in order to save ourselves from whatever shittiness plagues its current incarnations. History shows that, while all governments are shitty in some regard, some governments are better than others. This seems to suggest that we're making progress. I don't think governments will ever be perfect because I don't think large bodies of anything are ever going to be perfect, as there are simply a myriad of points at which something could go wrong. But that doesn't mean that everything about large scale organization is shitty, or even that most things about it are shitty. I think that, for all the shittiness my current government has going on, it's still a hell of a lot better than it was 50-odd years ago (or even 25 years ago) in many regards, so I'm content to keep pushing for more progress rather than just calling quits on the entire project. The difference between me and people who are opposed to "big government" is that I see problems in the government as instances of corruption, pragmatic relativism, and/or ignorance, whereas people on the anti-big-government side of things seem to think that "big-government-ness" causes these things by necessity, and that governments are an evil thing which we should try to get rid of in general. In that respect, I prefer to cooperate with the existing structures and attempt to improve them (because I think they make sense conceptually, even if they have flaws in practice) whereas others seem to prefer to actively fight against the institution of government itself.
This is a great description of the difference between pragmatism and ideology.
I've always thought organizations and governments should be thought of more in evolutionary terms. One can think of evolution as an optimization process (random mutations with natural selection). But there is no such thing as a "optimal organism" just like there is no perfect organization or perfect government. An optimization process without an optimum. Instead we just have slow, uneven progress for a better society. Hopefully.
|
On July 27 2013 23:13 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 22:57 Shiori wrote:I am right there with you. Now just follow through on this thought. If a certain aspect of all our lives is inefficient and shitty ... then ... do you want more of it? Or less? Do you want to continue to expand its scope and power? Or do you want to curtail it? Except this is too black and white. The point I was trying to make is that every government has negative aspects and inefficient components. That doesn't mean we should just cut our losses and minimize government as much as possible in order to save ourselves from whatever shittiness plagues its current incarnations. History shows that, while all governments are shitty in some regard, some governments are better than others. This seems to suggest that we're making progress. I don't think governments will ever be perfect because I don't think large bodies of anything are ever going to be perfect, as there are simply a myriad of points at which something could go wrong. But that doesn't mean that everything about large scale organization is shitty, or even that most things about it are shitty. I think that, for all the shittiness my current government has going on, it's still a hell of a lot better than it was 50-odd years ago (or even 25 years ago) in many regards, so I'm content to keep pushing for more progress rather than just calling quits on the entire project. The difference between me and people who are opposed to "big government" is that I see problems in the government as instances of corruption, pragmatic relativism, and/or ignorance, whereas people on the anti-big-government side of things seem to think that "big-government-ness" causes these things by necessity, and that governments are an evil thing which we should try to get rid of in general. In that respect, I prefer to cooperate with the existing structures and attempt to improve them (because I think they make sense conceptually, even if they have flaws in practice) whereas others seem to prefer to actively fight against the institution of government itself. This is a great description of the difference between pragmatism and ideology. I've always thought organizations and governments should be thought of more in evolutionary terms. One can think of evolution as an optimization process (random mutations with natural selection). But there is no such thing as a "optimal organism" just like there is no perfect organization or perfect government. An optimization process without an optimum. Instead we just have slow, uneven progress for a better society. Hopefully.
Pretty much, yeah. That's not to say that having a political ideology is bad, though. I think it can be done quite healthily, actually, provided one adjusts the details of that ideology according to experience. For example, I consider myself a socialist and find myself sympathetic to communism. That said, it would be utterly absurd for me to preach that Karl Marx was infallible, or that his theory as written requires no changes whatsoever, because this contradicts the knowledge that we've gained in the past century. It doesn't mean that the core of Marx's philosophy was wrong, or that it was invalidated, just that there might be a better way to implement/consider that core idea than the way Marx himself suggested.
To me, discussions about governmental failings often fall into the nirvana fallacy. Just because there isn't some amazing, utopia-creating solution doesn't mean that we should just abandon the entire enterprise.
|
On July 27 2013 23:25 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 23:13 DoubleReed wrote:On July 27 2013 22:57 Shiori wrote:I am right there with you. Now just follow through on this thought. If a certain aspect of all our lives is inefficient and shitty ... then ... do you want more of it? Or less? Do you want to continue to expand its scope and power? Or do you want to curtail it? Except this is too black and white. The point I was trying to make is that every government has negative aspects and inefficient components. That doesn't mean we should just cut our losses and minimize government as much as possible in order to save ourselves from whatever shittiness plagues its current incarnations. History shows that, while all governments are shitty in some regard, some governments are better than others. This seems to suggest that we're making progress. I don't think governments will ever be perfect because I don't think large bodies of anything are ever going to be perfect, as there are simply a myriad of points at which something could go wrong. But that doesn't mean that everything about large scale organization is shitty, or even that most things about it are shitty. I think that, for all the shittiness my current government has going on, it's still a hell of a lot better than it was 50-odd years ago (or even 25 years ago) in many regards, so I'm content to keep pushing for more progress rather than just calling quits on the entire project. The difference between me and people who are opposed to "big government" is that I see problems in the government as instances of corruption, pragmatic relativism, and/or ignorance, whereas people on the anti-big-government side of things seem to think that "big-government-ness" causes these things by necessity, and that governments are an evil thing which we should try to get rid of in general. In that respect, I prefer to cooperate with the existing structures and attempt to improve them (because I think they make sense conceptually, even if they have flaws in practice) whereas others seem to prefer to actively fight against the institution of government itself. This is a great description of the difference between pragmatism and ideology. I've always thought organizations and governments should be thought of more in evolutionary terms. One can think of evolution as an optimization process (random mutations with natural selection). But there is no such thing as a "optimal organism" just like there is no perfect organization or perfect government. An optimization process without an optimum. Instead we just have slow, uneven progress for a better society. Hopefully. Pretty much, yeah. That's not to say that having a political ideology is bad, though. I think it can be done quite healthily, actually, provided one adjusts the details of that ideology according to experience. For example, I consider myself a socialist and find myself sympathetic to communism. That said, it would be utterly absurd for me to preach that Karl Marx was infallible, or that his theory as written requires no changes whatsoever, because this contradicts the knowledge that we've gained in the past century. It doesn't mean that the core of Marx's philosophy was wrong, or that it was invalidated, just that there might be a better way to implement/consider that core idea than the way Marx himself suggested. To me, discussions about governmental failings often fall into the nirvana fallacy. Just because there isn't some amazing, utopia-creating solution doesn't mean that we should just abandon the entire enterprise.
As far as Marxism, I'm more into the teachings of Groucho rather than the teachings of Karl.
But honestly it sounds like Keynesian Economics is considered "socialist" nowadays. And considering that Keynesian Economics is the standard model for capitalism, I have no idea what socialist means anymore.
|
On July 27 2013 23:37 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 23:25 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2013 23:13 DoubleReed wrote:On July 27 2013 22:57 Shiori wrote:I am right there with you. Now just follow through on this thought. If a certain aspect of all our lives is inefficient and shitty ... then ... do you want more of it? Or less? Do you want to continue to expand its scope and power? Or do you want to curtail it? Except this is too black and white. The point I was trying to make is that every government has negative aspects and inefficient components. That doesn't mean we should just cut our losses and minimize government as much as possible in order to save ourselves from whatever shittiness plagues its current incarnations. History shows that, while all governments are shitty in some regard, some governments are better than others. This seems to suggest that we're making progress. I don't think governments will ever be perfect because I don't think large bodies of anything are ever going to be perfect, as there are simply a myriad of points at which something could go wrong. But that doesn't mean that everything about large scale organization is shitty, or even that most things about it are shitty. I think that, for all the shittiness my current government has going on, it's still a hell of a lot better than it was 50-odd years ago (or even 25 years ago) in many regards, so I'm content to keep pushing for more progress rather than just calling quits on the entire project. The difference between me and people who are opposed to "big government" is that I see problems in the government as instances of corruption, pragmatic relativism, and/or ignorance, whereas people on the anti-big-government side of things seem to think that "big-government-ness" causes these things by necessity, and that governments are an evil thing which we should try to get rid of in general. In that respect, I prefer to cooperate with the existing structures and attempt to improve them (because I think they make sense conceptually, even if they have flaws in practice) whereas others seem to prefer to actively fight against the institution of government itself. This is a great description of the difference between pragmatism and ideology. I've always thought organizations and governments should be thought of more in evolutionary terms. One can think of evolution as an optimization process (random mutations with natural selection). But there is no such thing as a "optimal organism" just like there is no perfect organization or perfect government. An optimization process without an optimum. Instead we just have slow, uneven progress for a better society. Hopefully. Pretty much, yeah. That's not to say that having a political ideology is bad, though. I think it can be done quite healthily, actually, provided one adjusts the details of that ideology according to experience. For example, I consider myself a socialist and find myself sympathetic to communism. That said, it would be utterly absurd for me to preach that Karl Marx was infallible, or that his theory as written requires no changes whatsoever, because this contradicts the knowledge that we've gained in the past century. It doesn't mean that the core of Marx's philosophy was wrong, or that it was invalidated, just that there might be a better way to implement/consider that core idea than the way Marx himself suggested. To me, discussions about governmental failings often fall into the nirvana fallacy. Just because there isn't some amazing, utopia-creating solution doesn't mean that we should just abandon the entire enterprise. And considering that Keynesian Economics is the standard model for capitalism, I have no idea what socialist means anymore.
I sometimes feel that it's like
+ Show Spoiler +
Seriously, though, I once read a really nice post which more or less said that socialism = working class owning the means of production and nothing more, and that if anyone ever tries to call anything the government is doing "socialist," you should ask them whether it fits that definition. I thought it was cheeky haha.
|
On July 27 2013 06:27 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 05:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 27 2013 04:51 Danglars wrote:
Denmark, though very socialized, also passes the United States on the WSJ Index of Economic Freedom. Its top corporate tax rate of 25% flies past the average US figure of 39% (OECD again). It scores high on regulatory efficiency and a number of other factors. Far from a previous poster's "Denmark (of all places)," it would appear that Denmark has enough of a pro-business climate to afford its socialized government costs and gain on the mobility of incomes (and if you're talking all incomes, the availability of jobs/unemployment is definitely a factor and not just education) This simply helps my point. "Big government" isn't a problem (despite the Right absolutely refusing to consider anything that expands the size of the government). The problem is "Shitty/inefficient government". Name a big government that is not shitty and efficient. You can't. A country with a smaller population than New York City does not have a big government - the only way such a country could is if it had a huge military, and Denmark, uh, does not - and has little, if anything, applicable to teach a country of 310 million on benefit spending levels. Great job Denmark, you've managed to afford about $20,000 a year worth of welfare benefits per citizen because you only have about 5.6 million citizens. Even for such a small number of people that is not easy to do, or there'd be a lot more small countries that would have achieved it. Somehow I don't think this largesse is achievable with hundreds of millions of people. Look at countries like France and Britain which are only 1/5 the size of the US yet have significantly more and larger problems keeping their economies competitive to pay for their welfare systems, and more and larger problems with the quality of the welfare system than Denmark's. If Denmark is so great, and it is, seriously, go live there. Not being sarcastic. If you want to see that in the US, you are going to be disappointed. It is not something that is achievable in the US. It just isn't. Not even with the smartest, most business-friendly social democrat wonks turning out tax laws and regulatory policy. Those Countries That Are North of Germany That Are Heaven on Earth (Except Wintertime) have a total population of 25 million. I'm pretty sure that America has at least 25 million people doing at least as well as the citizens of Scandiheaven. In creating a moderately pro-financial and very pro-other business policy, and by keeping policy stability, those 25 million are able to produce enough wealth to fund their lavish welfare system that most of them don't even need. Imagine how equal income would be if all the people who didn't need their automatic state benefits didn't take them and that money was redistributed. America has had terrible policy stability (pretty much none at all other than the inevitability of almost non-stop Fed pumping and keeping interest rates very low over the last 13 years). America has consistently failed to reform, both the government and the market. I just don't think it's possible, with 310 million people, and especially with the semi-independent status of US states, for a Scandinavian benefits system to be sustainable here. And while Denmark would never go for American levels of state benefits or want to, Danes are beginning to wonder if maybe they went a little too far: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/business/global/17denmark.html?pagewanted=allhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/world/europe/danes-rethink-a-welfare-state-ample-to-a-fault.html?pagewanted=allResidents of Scandiheaven are more practical about their system than American liberal admirers. And in the mid to late 1990s they all underwent reforms after some mini- and not-so-mini crises. After another crisis they are reforming again. After all, they have to live with the consequences of their decisions. Stratos, you don't.
This is such a chicken-shit cop-out answer. Denmark has significantly less people but also comparably less resources. Furthermore, Denmark is just an example. It's the same case in the rest of Scandinavia as well as several other countries throughout Europe and Asia as well. Also, it's merely an example of what we can strive TOWARDS. While you brought up France/The U.K., you conveniently forgot Germany, which has the largest population in Western Europe, and their economy/people are just as well off as any Scandinavian country. Hell, even Canada is lookin' better than us economically at this point and they're not even supposed to differ from us in a meaningful way economically.
Nothing says we have to go all-out and start taxing people 50% of their income like the Danish. The problem is that we are so far off-base from anything that basically any other developed country does economically that we could learn a thing or two from them and start moving towards what they do in some manner.
Oh, and I'm not going to move to Scandinavia just because they're doing well. I'm going to actually care about and try to make this place better and bring about realistic discussions about what we could improve on instead of just ignoring the problem. If you truly care about something or someone, you will be ready to criticize it/them (and harshly if necessary), in an effort to make it/them improve.
|
The problem is the US is run like a business which never works.
|
On July 28 2013 15:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The problem is the US is run like a business which never works.
Does "running something like a business" never work, or is the US run like a business that is incapable of working?
|
On July 29 2013 00:25 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 15:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The problem is the US is run like a business which never works. Does "running something like a business" never work, or is the US run like a business that is incapable of working?
both
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
a business presumably does not care about those it has no business with, and no use of. but that's not what a civilized state can do.
it's not about being the greatest nation but giving everyone the environment and sometimes nurture and support to succeed.
|
@DeepElemBlues:
Yes you may be right to a certain degree. (although you left out our quite big but surprisingly social country : ) ) But there are certain elements the USA could adopt without a doubt. Healthcare for example. Self-praise stinks , but here in Germany you pay about 100- 300 bucks for full ensurance(either private or public), meaning you get paid all bills , medicine and i think about 50%-75% of most dental stuff.
And it's not like our insurances are broke, they're actually earning quite a lot of profit. And there are still a lot of people who are arguing that pharma-lobbyism is pretty big here and that prices could go down even further.
And it's not like we're living the communist dream over here, just a few limitations on how much medical treatment and medicine actually is allowed to cost is already enough. Everyone's in the healthcare-sector is still earning a good amount of money.
Edit: Also the employer is obliged to cover 50% of the health-insurance of his employees, although i don't know if that doesn't already work the same way in the US.
|
On July 28 2013 14:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 06:27 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 27 2013 05:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 27 2013 04:51 Danglars wrote:
Denmark, though very socialized, also passes the United States on the WSJ Index of Economic Freedom. Its top corporate tax rate of 25% flies past the average US figure of 39% (OECD again). It scores high on regulatory efficiency and a number of other factors. Far from a previous poster's "Denmark (of all places)," it would appear that Denmark has enough of a pro-business climate to afford its socialized government costs and gain on the mobility of incomes (and if you're talking all incomes, the availability of jobs/unemployment is definitely a factor and not just education) This simply helps my point. "Big government" isn't a problem (despite the Right absolutely refusing to consider anything that expands the size of the government). The problem is "Shitty/inefficient government". Name a big government that is not shitty and efficient. You can't. A country with a smaller population than New York City does not have a big government - the only way such a country could is if it had a huge military, and Denmark, uh, does not - and has little, if anything, applicable to teach a country of 310 million on benefit spending levels. Great job Denmark, you've managed to afford about $20,000 a year worth of welfare benefits per citizen because you only have about 5.6 million citizens. Even for such a small number of people that is not easy to do, or there'd be a lot more small countries that would have achieved it. Somehow I don't think this largesse is achievable with hundreds of millions of people. Look at countries like France and Britain which are only 1/5 the size of the US yet have significantly more and larger problems keeping their economies competitive to pay for their welfare systems, and more and larger problems with the quality of the welfare system than Denmark's. If Denmark is so great, and it is, seriously, go live there. Not being sarcastic. If you want to see that in the US, you are going to be disappointed. It is not something that is achievable in the US. It just isn't. Not even with the smartest, most business-friendly social democrat wonks turning out tax laws and regulatory policy. Those Countries That Are North of Germany That Are Heaven on Earth (Except Wintertime) have a total population of 25 million. I'm pretty sure that America has at least 25 million people doing at least as well as the citizens of Scandiheaven. In creating a moderately pro-financial and very pro-other business policy, and by keeping policy stability, those 25 million are able to produce enough wealth to fund their lavish welfare system that most of them don't even need. Imagine how equal income would be if all the people who didn't need their automatic state benefits didn't take them and that money was redistributed. America has had terrible policy stability (pretty much none at all other than the inevitability of almost non-stop Fed pumping and keeping interest rates very low over the last 13 years). America has consistently failed to reform, both the government and the market. I just don't think it's possible, with 310 million people, and especially with the semi-independent status of US states, for a Scandinavian benefits system to be sustainable here. And while Denmark would never go for American levels of state benefits or want to, Danes are beginning to wonder if maybe they went a little too far: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/business/global/17denmark.html?pagewanted=allhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/world/europe/danes-rethink-a-welfare-state-ample-to-a-fault.html?pagewanted=allResidents of Scandiheaven are more practical about their system than American liberal admirers. And in the mid to late 1990s they all underwent reforms after some mini- and not-so-mini crises. After another crisis they are reforming again. After all, they have to live with the consequences of their decisions. Stratos, you don't. This is such a chicken-shit cop-out answer. Denmark has significantly less people but also comparably less resources. Furthermore, Denmark is just an example. It's the same case in the rest of Scandinavia as well as several other countries throughout Europe and Asia as well. Also, it's merely an example of what we can strive TOWARDS. While you brought up France/The U.K., you conveniently forgot Germany, which has the largest population in Western Europe, and their economy/people are just as well off as any Scandinavian country. Hell, even Canada is lookin' better than us economically at this point and they're not even supposed to differ from us in a meaningful way economically. Nothing says we have to go all-out and start taxing people 50% of their income like the Danish. The problem is that we are so far off-base from anything that basically any other developed country does economically that we could learn a thing or two from them and start moving towards what they do in some manner. Oh, and I'm not going to move to Scandinavia just because they're doing well. I'm going to actually care about and try to make this place better and bring about realistic discussions about what we could improve on instead of just ignoring the problem. If you truly care about something or someone, you will be ready to criticize it/them (and harshly if necessary), in an effort to make it/them improve.
Canada's doing well because it exports commodities (same with Norway). Germany is doing well because they instituted labor reforms a decade ago.
I'm all for learning from others, but be careful that you don't over romanticise your comparisons.
|
Which Citizens Are Under More Surveillance, U.S. Or European?
...Stewart Baker, formerly the NSA's general counsel, told the House Judiciary Committee this month that Europeans are more likely to be spied on by their governments than Americans are by theirs. And he had data to back that up.
"According to the Max Planck Institute, you're 100 times more likely to be surveilled by your own government if you live in the Netherlands or you live in Italy," Baker said. "You're 30 to 50 times more likely to be surveilled if you're a French or a German national than in the United States."
Those numbers are generally accurate, says Joris van Hoboken of the Institute for Information Law at the University of Amsterdam. But he points out that many of the surveillance orders are issued by police departments, not by intelligence agencies like the NSA. He cites his own country. ...
Link
It goes on to say that US laws are stricter in limiting what surveillance can be done. The two caveats here are that US law is only restrictive to US citizens on US soil and that the NSA is bigger than any single European counterpart.
|
Nice attempt at redirection. Tobad its was not about who spies more on who's citizen's but about spying on allied governments and illegal spying by the NSA on its own people.
|
On July 29 2013 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:
Nice attempt at redirection. Tobad its was not about who spies more on who's citizen's but about spying on allied governments and illegal spying by the NSA on its own people.
I'm much more concerned with how much surveillance the government is allowed to do. Annoying allies is a distant concern.
|
On July 29 2013 05:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:
Nice attempt at redirection. Tobad its was not about who spies more on who's citizen's but about spying on allied governments and illegal spying by the NSA on its own people. I'm much more concerned with how much surveillance the government is allowed to do. Annoying allies is a distant concern.
But you do notice these "allies" are people right? In case you didn't notice, you are even talking to them right now!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qfu6sLv.png)
