|
"Well by your definition the USA is on the verge of becoming a socialist country.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html"
Try checking a more impartial reference. Federal + state + local government spending generally floats around 30-35% of US GDP. Our federal government accounts for about 20% of GDP.
"The actual socialist countries of the world are: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam..."
No, those are communist states.
"Okay I exaggerated a bit with the 3 jobs (unless you count part time jobs) but the mere fact that trailer parks exist kinda gets the point across..."
I've been to Europe. They have slums too.
"I actually meant wealth not income, don't have any recent statistics but in 2001 the top 1% owned 38% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 40% owned less than 1%."
This is a much more realistic statement and not at all like you stated before. My response to this is "so what"?
I do not feel that people are entitled to anything they do not earn. Period. Taxing me to provide for some one else is aking to slavery.
|
"I noted that I am talking about first world countries, where GDP is for all intents and purposes the same, for more read my previous post in this thread. So no 40000 vs 600. "
You are ignoring the reason I stated this now aren't you? How can you quantify an abstract value? Lets say the bottom 1% in America is worse off but the top 99% are far better off, is it still an inferior system?
This is nothing more than an opinion and can not actually be quantified. No one in a developed nation is truly poor (I have been living in Indonesia for the last 5 years, I know what povery actually is) anyways.
I would not add healthcare because it is not universally beneficial. It retards research and does not contribute to the economy.
Think of it like this, if I contribute to the education of children, those children will be more productive and less likely to be a drain on society. This directly benefits me.
Paying for the health care of others does not. It only benefits me when I am the one in need of the health care. In this intance, I believe personal responsibility should come in to play. I save and invest about 2/3 of my income. I have done so for over a decade now. I do not earn a high income and would only be classed as middle class. Yet, because of my frugal nature, I have amassed a nice little nest egg and could retire now, at the age of 31, and earn about what I earn from working through passive income. In the case of a server injury or medical problem, I am suffeciently able to provide for myself because I have been responsible over the last 10 years. Also, I am careful. I have never had a serious injurty and I do nothing that would put me at risk of serious injury. I take good care of my body and have no health issues. However, UHC generally raises taxes about 15-20%. This would mean if America had UHC, I would have to pay a significantly higher portion of my income. This would cause a even large decrease in my ability to save. I would have to pay this to provide for those who are less careful and less responsible.
I have no problem helping those in need as long as they help themselves. If some one gets injured by no fault of their own and, despite having been responsible with their income, are unable to afford their medical expenses, I would gladly contribute what I could afford (and I do this on a regular basis with many of my wifes relatives here in Indonesia) to help them.
I simply do not agree with the government effectively forcing me to work (which is what taxation is) for others against my will. That is slavery. If the government is able to spend my labor (taxes paid) in a manner that is beneficial to me, then I have no problems.
I am not inherently against socialism. I support some social programs. I simply am against theft.
|
On November 17 2010 00:50 jello_biafra wrote:Another measure that's more accurate than GDP is average wealth per adult. GDP can be artificially inflated and includes money that might be leaving the country. Switzerland: $372,692 Norway: $326,530 Australia: $320,909 Singapore: $255,488 France: $255,156 Sweden: $243,506 United States: $236,213 Luxembourg: $234,972 UK: $229,940 Italy: $226,423 Sorry for double post, mistake 
GDP per capita is not an effective way to measure wealth. Kuwait beats the US but that does not mean Kuwait is a better place to live.
|
On November 17 2010 01:11 Dogsi wrote:"Well by your definition the USA is on the verge of becoming a socialist country. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html"Try checking a more impartial reference. Federal + state + local government spending generally floats around 30-35% of US GDP. Our federal government accounts for about 20% of GDP. "The actual socialist countries of the world are: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam..." No, those are communist states.
Socialism - a government in which the means of planning, producing, and distributing goods is controlled by a central government that theoretically seeks a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor; in actuality, most socialist governments have ended up being no more than dictatorships over workers by a ruling elite. - CIA World Fact Book.
Sounds kinda similar to communism to me.
These countries define themselves as socialist and they are the only countries in the world to do so.
And so what if European governments spend a bit more of the tax money they get from the capitalist economy on their country? It's why Europeans have a higher standard of living, why our infrastructure isn't crumbling etc.
I've been to Europe. They have slums too.
Yeah, in the 19th Century. There are deprived areas but they can't quite be compared to the ghettos and trailer parks of America.
"I actually meant wealth not income, don't have any recent statistics but in 2001 the top 1% owned 38% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 40% owned less than 1%."
This is a much more realistic statement and not at all like you stated before. My response to this is "so what"?
That statistic doesn't seem absurd to you?
On November 17 2010 01:36 reg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 00:50 jello_biafra wrote:Another measure that's more accurate than GDP is average wealth per adult. GDP can be artificially inflated and includes money that might be leaving the country. Switzerland: $372,692 Norway: $326,530 Australia: $320,909 Singapore: $255,488 France: $255,156 Sweden: $243,506 United States: $236,213 Luxembourg: $234,972 UK: $229,940 Italy: $226,423 Sorry for double post, mistake GDP per capita is not an effective way to measure wealth. Kuwait beats the US but that does not mean Kuwait is a better place to live.
I know, that's what I said.
|
A country could be fully state-employed for digging ditches and filling them back up, and have a great GDP. Is that progress?
GDP is a questionable measure for at least that reason.
|
|
|
"That statistic doesn't seem absurd to you?"
Since the richest people generally have wealth built up over generations while the bottom 40% save nothing... nope, sounds about right...
"Yeah, in the 19th Century. There are deprived areas but they can't quite be compared to the ghettos and trailer parks of America."
Try 2004 :-P
"And so what if European governments spend a bit more of the tax money they get from the capitalist economy on their country? It's why Europeans have a higher standard of living, why our infrastructure isn't crumbling etc."
You do not enjoy a higher standard of living, you guys simply claim to. All of the standard of living surveys yet conducted assume the superiority of socialism. As such, you can not use an assumed superiority of socialism to prove the superiority of socialism. As for the UK, where you are listed as from, it is a lot closer to America. The UK is far less socialist (one of the few European countries below 50% government spending although the recession likely put you guys over 50% for a few years) than the Euro zone economies. The UK also enjoys higher income than the other Euro zone areas. I have never been to the UK so I can not really speak of what life is like there, only comment on statistics that I find :-P
Infrastructure is better in some ways. This is mostly due to a significantly higher population density. Hence why mass transit in Germany is good but mass transit in most of France sucks (a lot like America). Germany is a very heavily populated country.
"These countries define themselves as socialist and they are the only countries in the world to do so. "
America doesn't claim to be an agressive country, but it is. Reality is not defined by governments.
|
It's the measure of economic output, nothing more, nothing less.
If you want to measure society's progress (progress towards what?), you need to take other factors into account. A lot of factors in fact.
HDI is a good approximation, only if you understand there is a lot of bogus stuff involved, especially in the case of Cuba.
|
That statistic doesn't seem absurd to you?
People who harp about income inequality are walking dangerously close to class warfare. We should care about the well-being of the poor, but not their relative position to the rich; that is simply absurd. America has some, very, very, extremely rich people (and usually because of entrepreneurial reasons, not aristocratic reasons), but that doesn't necessarily mean everyone else is poor. In fact, everyone in America is pretty damn rich, and even the poorest are still much better off than the rest of the world's poor except for a handful of European countries.
I mean, the UK not very egalitarian either (the highest inequality within OECD countries outside of America), yet the UK is richer than Sweden at all levels.
|
On November 17 2010 02:42 Yurebis wrote:
A country could be fully state-employed for digging ditches and filling them back up, and have a great GDP. Is that progress?
GDP is a questionable measure for at least that reason.
Not unless those ditches were actually valued. Also, how would the state pay them if the entire economy was a single function? Sorry but your hypothetical fails.
|
On November 17 2010 01:11 Dogsi wrote:
"The actual socialist countries of the world are: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam..."
No, those are communist states.
False. Even the USSR was called the union of soviet SOCIALIST republics. There is no communist government, only communist ideologies. In true communism there is no government (just read Marx), and in socialist states the government is huge and controls (almost) everything.
|
On November 17 2010 02:44 GenericTerranPlayer wrote:HDI is a pretty good way to measure progress in general. Includes health, hygine, education, literacy, economic indicators, and a bunch of other intangibles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
EXCEPT, how do you measure and quantify health?
How do you measure and quantify hygene?
How do you measure and quantify education?
How do you measure and quantify literacy?
You need to be more specific so I can ask the same rhetorical questions over and over again.
|
On November 17 2010 02:52 domovoi wrote:I mean, the UK not very egalitarian either (the highest inequality within OECD countries outside of America), yet the UK is richer than Sweden at all levels.
This may be the case, but you have only to go to Sweden to see that, on the whole, everyone there seems to be living happier, healthier lives than in the UK. You rarely see homeless people, everyone has money to take great vacations, travel, everyone is beautiful, well-dressed, friendly, industrious, and interesting. 80% of the workforce is unionized, and you will never work for less that $20/hr, which in Canada is a GOOD wage.
Capitalism is just another way of saying "every man for himself." In such a situation, it's not surprising to find that all the money is being sequestered by fewer and fewer people.
|
On November 17 2010 03:00 barkles wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 01:11 Dogsi wrote:
"The actual socialist countries of the world are: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam..."
No, those are communist states.
False. Even the USSR was called the union of soviet SOCIALIST republics. There is no communist government, only communist ideologies. In true communism there is no government (just read Marx), and in socialist states the government is huge and controls (almost) everything.
So what do you call a country that is 2/3 public spending and 1/3 private spending? It's not remotely accurate to call it capitalist. Not when 2/3 of the economy is controlled by the government.
|
On November 17 2010 03:04 lowercase wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 02:52 domovoi wrote:That statistic doesn't seem absurd to you? I mean, the UK not very egalitarian either (the highest inequality within OECD countries outside of America), yet the UK is richer than Sweden at all levels. This may be the case, but you have only to go to Sweden to see that, on the whole, everyone there seems to be living happier, healthier lives than in the UK. You rarely see homeless people, everyone has money to take great vacations, travel, everyone is beautiful, well-dressed, friendly, industrious, and interesting. 80% of the workforce is unionized, and you will never work for less that $20/hr, which in Canada is a GOOD wage. Capitalism is just another way of saying "every man for himself." In such a situation, it's not surprising to find that all the money is being sequestered by fewer and fewer people.
Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, and Norway do have better quality of life than the US. I would not argue that. They also have combined populations less than the UK. Those are small exception countries.
Now, compare America and the UK to Germany, France, and Italy and you will see a different picture.
|
As a whole, GDP measures the material wealth of a nation, but it does not measure the general outlook of a nation, quality of life, and combating apathy. Numbers on paper really do not apply to human to human contact, nor how satisfied people are with it's nation.
|
On November 17 2010 03:06 Dogsi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 03:00 barkles wrote:On November 17 2010 01:11 Dogsi wrote:
"The actual socialist countries of the world are: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam..."
No, those are communist states.
False. Even the USSR was called the union of soviet SOCIALIST republics. There is no communist government, only communist ideologies. In true communism there is no government (just read Marx), and in socialist states the government is huge and controls (almost) everything. So what do you call a country that is 2/3 public spending and 1/3 private spending? It's not remotely accurate to call it capitalist. Not when 2/3 of the economy is controlled by the government.
I didn't say anything about that. I'm just pointing out that you if you can't even clearly identify a "communist" government from a socialist one, how can we expect you to correctly distinguish between a socialist government and a capitalist one?
Also, it's inaccurate to say that just because (in your hypothetical example) 2/3 of spending is done by the government that 2/3 of the economy is controlled by the government. For example, if the government spending is done in the form of contracts for private companies, and these companies bid on the contracts, the lowest bid wins, and the private company then does whatever labor the contract entails, then this economy actually behaves in a very similar way to a free market country. The economy is "controlled" by the quality and number of firms bidding for these government contracts, even though it gets recorded as government spending.
|
On November 17 2010 03:14 barkles wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 03:06 Dogsi wrote:On November 17 2010 03:00 barkles wrote:On November 17 2010 01:11 Dogsi wrote:
"The actual socialist countries of the world are: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam..."
No, those are communist states.
False. Even the USSR was called the union of soviet SOCIALIST republics. There is no communist government, only communist ideologies. In true communism there is no government (just read Marx), and in socialist states the government is huge and controls (almost) everything. So what do you call a country that is 2/3 public spending and 1/3 private spending? It's not remotely accurate to call it capitalist. Not when 2/3 of the economy is controlled by the government. I didn't say anything about that. I'm just pointing out that you if you can't even clearly identify a "communist" government from a socialist one, how can we expect you to correctly distinguish between a socialist government and a capitalist one? Also, it's inaccurate to say that just because (in your hypothetical example) 2/3 of spending is done by the government that 2/3 of the economy is controlled by the government. For example, if the government spending is done in the form of contracts for private companies, and these companies bid on the contracts, the lowest bid wins, and the private company then does whatever labor the contract entails, then this economy actually behaves in a very similar way to a free market country. The economy is "controlled" by the quality and number of firms bidding for these government contracts, even though it gets recorded as government spending.
Communism is both an economic model and a system of government.
Communist governments are socialist governments. Not all socialist governments are communist. I'm sorry if you can't understand the distinction.
|
On November 17 2010 03:16 Dogsi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 03:14 barkles wrote:On November 17 2010 03:06 Dogsi wrote:On November 17 2010 03:00 barkles wrote:On November 17 2010 01:11 Dogsi wrote:
"The actual socialist countries of the world are: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam..."
No, those are communist states.
False. Even the USSR was called the union of soviet SOCIALIST republics. There is no communist government, only communist ideologies. In true communism there is no government (just read Marx), and in socialist states the government is huge and controls (almost) everything. So what do you call a country that is 2/3 public spending and 1/3 private spending? It's not remotely accurate to call it capitalist. Not when 2/3 of the economy is controlled by the government. I didn't say anything about that. I'm just pointing out that you if you can't even clearly identify a "communist" government from a socialist one, how can we expect you to correctly distinguish between a socialist government and a capitalist one? Also, it's inaccurate to say that just because (in your hypothetical example) 2/3 of spending is done by the government that 2/3 of the economy is controlled by the government. For example, if the government spending is done in the form of contracts for private companies, and these companies bid on the contracts, the lowest bid wins, and the private company then does whatever labor the contract entails, then this economy actually behaves in a very similar way to a free market country. The economy is "controlled" by the quality and number of firms bidding for these government contracts, even though it gets recorded as government spending. Communism is both an economic model and a system of government. Communist governments are socialist governments. Not all socialist governments are communist. I'm sorry if you can't understand the distinction. lol HE can't? 
|
On November 17 2010 03:14 barkles wrote:
Also, it's inaccurate to say that just because (in your hypothetical example) 2/3 of spending is done by the government that 2/3 of the economy is controlled by the government. For example, if the government spending is done in the form of contracts for private companies, and these companies bid on the contracts, the lowest bid wins, and the private company then does whatever labor the contract entails, then this economy actually behaves in a very similar way to a free market country. The economy is "controlled" by the quality and number of firms bidding for these government contracts, even though it gets recorded as government spending.
Especially when you consider the money they're spending is tax money received from the companies that operate in the capitalist system of the country. Europe invented capitalism and we haven't ditched it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
