|
|
On April 20 2012 18:47 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 15:02 Rossen wrote:Wait why is everyone who isent from America wanting Obama to win ? Cant handle someone who isent a socialist ? omg.  . I know he will win, but I'd still vote for Romney if I could. (We dont need american to become as socialistic as EU.) T_T Every 7th american gets food stamps allready... So as it seems theire actually quite socialist  .. But don't tell em, else they might stop lieing to themselevs and start to restructure their welfare system.... ... ... .
I'm jealous of you. In my opinion, Switzerland is the best country in Europe. No EU, high standard of living, democracy, freedom, neutrality, etc. I think the US government should definitely try to learn from Switzerland.
|
Kinda sad there is even a thread liek this on liuid. Lol, Such is evil is being done, to the point where we have to do something, and your still playing along. Voting for----------NO ONE. Because both are evil men!
|
I did not realize that the Republican Party has a nominee yet. Please give me a citation.
|
On April 20 2012 18:54 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 18:47 Velr wrote:On April 20 2012 15:02 Rossen wrote:Wait why is everyone who isent from America wanting Obama to win ? Cant handle someone who isent a socialist ? omg. . I know he will win, but I'd still vote for Romney if I could. (We dont need american to become as socialistic as EU.) T_T Every 7th american gets food stamps allready... So as it seems theire actually quite socialist .. But don't tell em, else they might stop lieing to themselevs and start to restructure their welfare system.... ... ... . I'm jealous of you. In my opinion, Switzerland is the best country in Europe. No EU, high standard of living, democracy, freedom, neutrality, etc. I think the US government should definitely try to learn from Switzerland.
It's already a wealthy country and they attract all the wealthy people from Europe. With this kind of population things are easier.
But their democratic system is really good though, for a small state.
|
On April 20 2012 18:57 AcuWill wrote:
I did not realize that the Republican Party has a nominee yet. Please give me a citation.
You're more than welcome to place bets that Gingrich will win it.
|
On April 20 2012 02:23 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:17 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 02:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:04 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:49 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:47 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:32 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:27 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:23 liberal wrote:
[quote]
This is a moot point though. If I get a credit card and buy new furniture, is my situation better? Of course it is, I have more stuff, I'm more comfortable. When the bill comes in the mail, will I be worse off? Of course, I have less money.
The real question is, "On the whole over time are we experiencing a net benefit or a net loss?" And the answer to that question is predicated on something few people truly grasp: Opportunity cost. The notion of opportunity cost is a microeconomics concept not a macroeconomic concept. If your point is comparing what would happen without the stimulus to what happened with the stimulus, than things are better because stimulus in recessions have fiscal multipliers. See for example: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/Written Version of Effects of Fiscal Policy.pdfFurthermore, we have another baseline for fiscal austerity: Europe and the 20% unemployment rate in Spain and Greece. wrong. opportunity cost is just the same at the macroscopic level. and the opportunity cost is all the WASTE of government they have created with their BS spending schemes. All the scarce resources that have been wasted there. Government spending will ALWAYS, i repeat ALWAYS, by its definition, be wasteful. It is because it is not based on profit and loss, but taxation and spending. No source. What waste? The stimulus created jobs the link shows. Waste is unemployed. Idle labor. People sitting around doing nothing, not contributing the productive economic activities. Stimulus puts these people to work thereby reducing the waste associated with unused human capital. Scarcity doesn't apply when there is high unemployment, i.e. people doing nothing, waiting for and wanting to work. And you have not shown how government spending is by definition wasteful. You've declared as if you were an armchair economist delivering a sermon on economic truth passed on by god. Government spending is by definition the government spending it's money, nowhere in this definition is the concept of wasteful invoked. usefulness of work can be gauged by profit and loss. the government doesnt operate based on them, so it cannot ensure its work is useful. as a result, government spending is always wasteful, and must be minimized for the good of the tax payer You've dodged half the post. It's not about profit and loss. You've just made that up. It's about economic growth and unemployment, and fiscal stimulus in a recession has been shown to increase economic growth by putting idle labor to work. For an example of what happens when government cuts spending in a recession, you only need to look at Europe, 20% unemployment. numerical growth can be a delusion. if you borrow money from your buddy and spend it or employ someone for a bullshit job, your GDP grows. do you become richer? no! How do you know this? Because you operate at a loss to do this! That is what it all comes down to, PROFIT and LOSS. That is the true indicator of usefulness of resource usage. Not only have you dodged half of the previous post, you've dodged half of this post too. And if you've made a profit, that's because another person has spent money, which is a loss. Profit and loss for an economy is a pointless measure, which is why no economist uses it. They use GDP instead, because it measures production. And products are what increases utility and social well-being. I suggest you get a economics education before talking about a technical subject for which you have a simple-minded and erroneous understanding of. Wait, i just showed how GDP can be an erroneus numeric, now you are dodging it! I ignored the rest of your post becaues it assumed the strict validity of GDP as an economic indicator, which as i showed is not true: GDP can be increased by unproductive borrowing and spending. I've shown why profit and loss is stupid for an economy, because every profit is someone else's loss. And I've further shown why GDP is used. Because products are what people use and want, products like computers, food, etc, are what increases utility and social well-being. Do you really think economists all use GDP because of... stupidity? Lack of creativity? Because you're unsophisticated thinking shows you're smarter than these academics? My other points have nothing to do with growth, it was about unemployment being a waste of human capital. If people sitting on their asses doing nothing isn't a waste, I don't know what is. im not talking about aggregate profit and loss, but that of a single entity.
a product may not be suitable. If you borrow money to buy some crappy product, or employ an unproductive person that doesnt makea profit, it is waste. You bid scarce resources on means that cannot be used to bring about satisfaction of consumers in proportion to the proportion that they pay you. But its still makes the GDP rise! And it is what government dos all the time. Government engages in trying to crank up the GDP in unproductive ways. It is clear that GDP has its faults from this example.
Also, in a free market economy there is no involuntary unemployment, only people prefering leisure to the aomount of money they would get from work.
|
On April 20 2012 18:57 FrodoAndTheSlobStix wrote:
Kinda sad there is even a thread liek this on liuid. Lol, Such is evil is being done, to the point where we have to do something, and your still playing along. Voting for----------NO ONE. Because both are evil men!
To be fair, a lot of posting is done by Europeans as well. And we just like watching rediculous politics unfold.
If you prefer a revolution, I will kindly redirect you to http://www.reddit.com/r/evolutionReddit . For the rest of us, we still prefer watching politics and doing what a democracy allows people to do, vote.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 20 2012 06:24 Sub40APM wrote:
You have two bland centrists, who probably share a relatively similar world view. For all this "Obama is communist" stuff spewing out from Fox News can anyone actually point to an Obama policy that is socialist? His healthcare plan literally stole from Romney, he has passed 0 tax increases in 4 years, Guantanamo Bay is still open and torturing people, his attorney general says the US constitution no longer grants you judicial due process and so forth.
The real problem with Romney is that he had to pivot so far hard right to get to the thing he clearly so desperately wants, will he ever come back to the center? Because the last 30 years of American political history is this. Republicans shift to the right, Democrats follow them, and what used to be a right wing position is now 'centrist'. So would Romney actually try to crawl back to the Obama center but with more tax cuts? Hard to say, he says lots of stupid stuff like "We will cut taxes for all but have the biggest military ever"...now is that just for the dumb hillbillies or does he believe it? And the other problem with Romney is that his economic advisers are the same economic advisers that were around Bush.
Having Greg Mankiw there for another 4 years is pretty scary, since he hasnt seen a corrupt corporation or a tax cut he didnt like. And we've already seen what 8 years of Mankiw "economic policy" does to the economy.
So really, in an ideal world Hillary would step in, get Obama off to his lecture circuit where his shit eating grins and meaningless platitudes belong and let the Clintons fix stuff.
go Hillary
|
|
|
On April 20 2012 18:54 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 18:47 Velr wrote:On April 20 2012 15:02 Rossen wrote:Wait why is everyone who isent from America wanting Obama to win ? Cant handle someone who isent a socialist ? omg. . I know he will win, but I'd still vote for Romney if I could. (We dont need american to become as socialistic as EU.) T_T Every 7th american gets food stamps allready... So as it seems theire actually quite socialist .. But don't tell em, else they might stop lieing to themselevs and start to restructure their welfare system.... ... ... . I'm jealous of you. In my opinion, Switzerland is the best country in Europe. No EU, high standard of living, democracy, freedom, neutrality, etc. I think the US government should definitely try to learn from Switzerland.
If you were to take a moment to compare the size and scope of the United States to Switzerland, you would realize just how absurd this statement is.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On April 20 2012 03:26 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 03:12 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 03:06 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 03:00 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:55 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 02:48 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:42 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 02:35 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:22 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 02:11 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
Not only have you dodged half of the previous post, you've dodged half of this post too.
And if you've made a profit, that's because another person has spent money, which is a loss. Profit and loss for an economy is a pointless measure, which is why no economist uses it.
They use GDP instead, because it measures production. And products are what increases utility and social well-being.
I suggest you get a economics education before talking about a technical subject for which you have a simple-minded and erroneous understanding of. GDP can grow because of inflation. It does not reflect social being and utility. It is what it is. Having high priced goods and services does make you "richer" on paper but it does not reflect the actual well-being of the people. So what if it includes inflation? Have you heard of real GDP and nominal GDP? Economist can look at both real GDP (doesn't include inflation) and nominal GDP (does). And products are what people want. I use money to buy products, I value food, computers, beds, chairs, video games, etc. GDP measures production. And I've completely debunked your nonsense about profit and loss to the point you haven't even brought it up. I didn't bring up profit and loss. But profit is a necessity because losses will result in less production. If I make cars at a loss than I'm not going to buy any more of your raw materials and won't demand any of your services. The economy shrinks and prices can still rise. You use money to buy products, that's why what you can buy with your money is important. GDP can rise and your purchasing power can still decrease. And if you don't make cars, that's reflected in the GDP. Again, profit and loss is symmetrical, everyone's profit is another person's loss, so it makes no sense at an aggregate level, which is one reason why economist don't use it. Why do people want to make a profit? Because it gives them money. Why do people want money? To buy products. Products are what people ultimately want, it' is ultimately what increases utility. Profit and loss is not symmetrical. It is not a zero sum game. Why do you keep saying this? If metal fabrication company buys metal from a mining company who makes a profit, and that fabrication company sells to a car company at a profit, and the car company sells its car at a profit, customer buys car at a loss to increase his production. You are are saying this the same as: Mining company sells metal at a loss, fabrication company sells parts at a loss, car company sells car at a loss. Customer buys car at a loss. ??? Tell me what happens to the jobs of the people at all these companies. The loss part is the sum of all the customers of these companies. When a consumer buys a product the company makes a gain, and the consumer makes a loss. This makes profit and loss for the economy a useless measure. GDP is the best measure, because it measure production, ultimately people want products, which is why it's used. What do you mean by "gain"? Net profit? I'm describing a situation where a company operates at a loss. This is your GM's, etc. Production /= prosperity. GM made many cars that no one was buying. It operated at a loss. So you are saying this is the customer's gain? So in your view a country with many high priced goods that people can't afford is still good. You must like Venezuela's economy then. No. I'm saying that profit and loss is rubbish, as I've proven. Profit and loss is rubbish because it sums to 0 by definition, and you look like a fool for suggesting it be taken seriously. People want products doesn't mean people want every product. But regardless, GDP is still the best measure we have, and includes a consumption component too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gdp#Expenditure_approachIn economics, most things produced are produced for sale, and sold. Therefore, measuring the total expenditure of money used to buy things is a way of measuring production. This is known as the expenditure method of calculating GDP. Note that if you knit yourself a sweater, it is production but does not get counted as GDP because it is never sold. Sweater-knitting is a small part of the economy, but if one counts some major activities such as child-rearing (generally unpaid) as production, GDP ceases to be an accurate indicator of production. Similarly, if there is a long term shift from non-market provision of services (for example cooking, cleaning, child rearing, do-it yourself repairs) to market provision of services, then this trend toward increased market provision of services may mask a dramatic decrease in actual domestic production, resulting in overly optimistic and inflated reported GDP. This is particularly a problem for economies which have shifted from production economies to service economies. Your fixation on high prices and hyperinflation is completely out of touch with the fact of below 2% inflation. Although I see that you've given up on that argument. In regard to your last statement. Obviously there is no Hyperinflation now, the conditions for it occurring are taking place. And Inflation is understated because Core Inflation does not include food energy. No one disagrees with you that inflation as currently stated is under 2%. You seem to be singing the same old Keynesian song that profit is not necessary for growth and that government printing and spending is all you need to keep an economy afloat (because GDP rises brooo!!!!) You have nothing to back this up but I acknowledge your religious adherence to these principles.
You keep repeating the same nonsense, with no proof, that I've already debunked.
The conditions for hyperinflation are taking place now? Based on what? Where is your source? That's right, you have absolutely nothing. The Fed triples the monetary base, yet you still have nothing, and there is still no hyperinflation.
Core inflation not including food and energy is because that makes it a better predictor of future non-core inflation (which does include food and energy in the future). Core inflation does not understate current inflation anymore than it overstates it. Food and energy prices are volatile, sometimes they are high, sometimes they are low. How many times must you keep repeating the same debunked argument, and yet not address a single point that I've raised?
I've already shown why core inflation is better and why economists use it. You've completely ignored it because you don't have a single valid argument against it: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=16#304
You're also a disingenuous liar for claiming that I said that profit is not necessary for growth. Where did I say that? You said that we should use profit and loss to measure the economy, and I said using profit and loss to measure the economy is stupid because every profit is another persons loss, and profit and loss must sum to 0, thereby telling you nothing. The profit and loss of an economy measures nothing, and you demonstrate an utter lack of understanding in elementary mathematics to say we should measure the economy with profit and loss. And this is a point that you've never addressed, because again you have no valid argument.
And where have I said that all a government needs is to borrow and spend? Not only is your knowledge of economics completely wrong, you can't even read.
GDP is not Keynesian economics, it far predates Keynes, it's simply economics.
You say I have nothing to back this up? I have cited a source for every single argument I've made in this post. Yet you've not given a single source for any of the nonsense and anti-intellectual drivel you've been spouting.
Get an education in economics, so you learn to stop spreading your completely wrong misinformation to the rest of the internet.
|
On April 20 2012 19:23 storkfan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:23 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:17 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 02:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:04 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:49 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:47 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:32 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:27 paralleluniverse wrote:[quote] The notion of opportunity cost is a microeconomics concept not a macroeconomic concept. If your point is comparing what would happen without the stimulus to what happened with the stimulus, than things are better because stimulus in recessions have fiscal multipliers. See for example: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/Written Version of Effects of Fiscal Policy.pdfFurthermore, we have another baseline for fiscal austerity: Europe and the 20% unemployment rate in Spain and Greece. wrong. opportunity cost is just the same at the macroscopic level. and the opportunity cost is all the WASTE of government they have created with their BS spending schemes. All the scarce resources that have been wasted there. Government spending will ALWAYS, i repeat ALWAYS, by its definition, be wasteful. It is because it is not based on profit and loss, but taxation and spending. No source. What waste? The stimulus created jobs the link shows. Waste is unemployed. Idle labor. People sitting around doing nothing, not contributing the productive economic activities. Stimulus puts these people to work thereby reducing the waste associated with unused human capital. Scarcity doesn't apply when there is high unemployment, i.e. people doing nothing, waiting for and wanting to work. And you have not shown how government spending is by definition wasteful. You've declared as if you were an armchair economist delivering a sermon on economic truth passed on by god. Government spending is by definition the government spending it's money, nowhere in this definition is the concept of wasteful invoked. usefulness of work can be gauged by profit and loss. the government doesnt operate based on them, so it cannot ensure its work is useful. as a result, government spending is always wasteful, and must be minimized for the good of the tax payer You've dodged half the post. It's not about profit and loss. You've just made that up. It's about economic growth and unemployment, and fiscal stimulus in a recession has been shown to increase economic growth by putting idle labor to work. For an example of what happens when government cuts spending in a recession, you only need to look at Europe, 20% unemployment. numerical growth can be a delusion. if you borrow money from your buddy and spend it or employ someone for a bullshit job, your GDP grows. do you become richer? no! How do you know this? Because you operate at a loss to do this! That is what it all comes down to, PROFIT and LOSS. That is the true indicator of usefulness of resource usage. Not only have you dodged half of the previous post, you've dodged half of this post too. And if you've made a profit, that's because another person has spent money, which is a loss. Profit and loss for an economy is a pointless measure, which is why no economist uses it. They use GDP instead, because it measures production. And products are what increases utility and social well-being. I suggest you get a economics education before talking about a technical subject for which you have a simple-minded and erroneous understanding of. Wait, i just showed how GDP can be an erroneus numeric, now you are dodging it! I ignored the rest of your post becaues it assumed the strict validity of GDP as an economic indicator, which as i showed is not true: GDP can be increased by unproductive borrowing and spending. I've shown why profit and loss is stupid for an economy, because every profit is someone else's loss. And I've further shown why GDP is used. Because products are what people use and want, products like computers, food, etc, are what increases utility and social well-being. Do you really think economists all use GDP because of... stupidity? Lack of creativity? Because you're unsophisticated thinking shows you're smarter than these academics? My other points have nothing to do with growth, it was about unemployment being a waste of human capital. If people sitting on their asses doing nothing isn't a waste, I don't know what is. im not talking about aggregate profit and loss, but that of a single entity. a product may not be suitable. If you borrow money to buy some crappy product, or employ an unproductive person that doesnt makea profit, it is waste. You bid scarce resources on means that cannot be used to bring about satisfaction of consumers in proportion to the proportion that they pay you. But its still makes the GDP rise! And it is what government dos all the time. Government engages in trying to crank up the GDP in unproductive ways. It is clear that GDP has its faults from this example. Also, in a free market economy there is no involuntary unemployment, only people prefering leisure to the aomount of money they would get from work.
The profit and loss of the US is virtually aggregate profit and loss. Of a single entity? What entity? How can the profit and loss of a single entity tell us about the state of the entire economy? What about all the other entities that is not this single entity?
Scarcity doesn't apply in the same way when there is high unemployment. The waste isn't so much people not increasing profits, it's unemployed people sitting on their asses doing nothing. A complete waste of human capital and human potential. That's waste.
If you employ a person who is unproductive and makes stuff inefficiently so that it's a loss for you, it still doesn't necessarily mean it's a waste for the economy. If people buy this product because they value it, it has added value to the economy. Just not to your business.
To claim that loss is a waste for the economy is mind-bogglingly stupid, because every profit you make is someone's loss. If your bogus argument were actually true, it would imply that every time you make money, you cause someone to produce economic waste that exactly cancels out the economic good you've done.
|
paralleluniverse, thanks for posting in threads like this one, it's like a breath of fresh air.compared to some of the stuff I read here.
|
Are there any Romney supporters here who are voting for him because they geniuinely think he's the right man for the job, instead of simply voting against Obama?
I have yet to meet anyone who likes Romney. I absolutely understand why he has support... Obama has been somewhat of a disappointment, and there are plenty of reasons to want him gone (and some of them are actually true).
But... Romney? The guy who can't seem to make up his mind what he supports or is against? The guy who wants to dramatically cut spending, but refuses to name what he would cut?
I think Governor Romney was a great politician. He managed the Massachusetts budget well, did a great job in improving their health care system, and did an excellent job in organizing the Winter Olympics just before his governorship.
But now he's suddenly strongly pro-life, he demands tax cuts for billionaires... he seems willing to say anything at all to get elected, no matter how contradictory it is to his past actions.
He seems like a completely different man, and I can't figure out what he's just saying and what he actually means. I can't see myself voting for a candidate like this.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
what they say is pretty much irrelevant. romney is not, by himself, terrible. the problem is all the stuff he will enable, proceeding straight from the republican base. as an administrator romney is pretty ok. keep in mind, this is assuming the job of govt is to service the business of business.
in the larger strategic picture the u.s. needs to be at the forefront of new forms of business organization to maintain itself, but this also means a lot of people are going to be cast off from the economy, income gap widens etc. this is a structural problem that has no easy solution given the political climate. don't expect much, even if the candidate is well wishing. colonial capitalism with computers, booya
|
On April 20 2012 18:58 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 18:54 Voltaire wrote:On April 20 2012 18:47 Velr wrote:On April 20 2012 15:02 Rossen wrote:Wait why is everyone who isent from America wanting Obama to win ? Cant handle someone who isent a socialist ? omg. . I know he will win, but I'd still vote for Romney if I could. (We dont need american to become as socialistic as EU.) T_T Every 7th american gets food stamps allready... So as it seems theire actually quite socialist .. But don't tell em, else they might stop lieing to themselevs and start to restructure their welfare system.... ... ... . I'm jealous of you. In my opinion, Switzerland is the best country in Europe. No EU, high standard of living, democracy, freedom, neutrality, etc. I think the US government should definitely try to learn from Switzerland. It's already a wealthy country and they attract all the wealthy people from Europe. With this kind of population things are easier. But their democratic system is really good though, for a small state.
They also attract the poor, but they are better than other countries at excluding poor non-Swiss residents from acquiring citizenship. It's a great place to live if you're rich, an expat or have citizenship though.
|
On April 20 2012 18:47 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 15:02 Rossen wrote:Wait why is everyone who isent from America wanting Obama to win ? Cant handle someone who isent a socialist ? omg. . I know he will win, but I'd still vote for Romney if I could. (We dont need american to become as socialistic as EU.) T_T Every 7th american gets food stamps allready... So as it seems theire actually quite socialist .. But don't tell em, else they might stop lieing to themselevs and start to restructure their welfare system.... ... ... .
Plus government spending is about 40% percent of GDP with a tax burden of about 30%. In perspective, communist china's government spending is 20% of GDP with a tax burden of about 18%.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 20 2012 21:48 Diomedes7 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 18:47 Velr wrote:On April 20 2012 15:02 Rossen wrote:Wait why is everyone who isent from America wanting Obama to win ? Cant handle someone who isent a socialist ? omg. . I know he will win, but I'd still vote for Romney if I could. (We dont need american to become as socialistic as EU.) T_T Every 7th american gets food stamps allready... So as it seems theire actually quite socialist .. But don't tell em, else they might stop lieing to themselevs and start to restructure their welfare system.... ... ... . Plus government spending is about 40% percent of GDP with a tax burden of about 30%. In perspective, communist china's government spending is 20% of GDP with a tax burden of about 18%.
china's govt is far far more intrusive into the actual operations of the economy. you can't take 'private vs public' in the same sense between the two places.
|
On April 20 2012 18:58 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 18:54 Voltaire wrote:On April 20 2012 18:47 Velr wrote:On April 20 2012 15:02 Rossen wrote:Wait why is everyone who isent from America wanting Obama to win ? Cant handle someone who isent a socialist ? omg. . I know he will win, but I'd still vote for Romney if I could. (We dont need american to become as socialistic as EU.) T_T Every 7th american gets food stamps allready... So as it seems theire actually quite socialist .. But don't tell em, else they might stop lieing to themselevs and start to restructure their welfare system.... ... ... . I'm jealous of you. In my opinion, Switzerland is the best country in Europe. No EU, high standard of living, democracy, freedom, neutrality, etc. I think the US government should definitely try to learn from Switzerland. It's already a wealthy country and they attract all the wealthy people from Europe. With this kind of population things are easier. But their democratic system is really good though, for a small state.
It's also one of the most right-wing countries in Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
