Who is the richest socialist?

#1
Read the Op-ed.


According to these right wing authors from a right wing think tank writing in a right wing newspaper, "the Index confirms what experience tells us. Decent, accountable government, rule of law, competition, opportunity and a regulatory environment and culture that promote liberty, responsibility and entrepreneurship are drivers of prosperity everywhere."


In other words, all these countries have that in abundance.


Yet they also have free healthcare, daycare (in some of them, Canada has considered it), huge public pensions, relatively high income/corporate taxes (compared to the US), public broadcasters, monetary support for children, fre or subsidized post-secondary education, public seniors care, housing allowances, unemployment and maternity plans, and in some of them a guaranteed income (in Sweden for example they have "Försörjningsstöd": Benefits for anyone (incl their children) who otherwise can't get a reasonable standard of living).


Yet Obamacare will ruin capitalism and bankrupt America?


Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204840504578086264176773002.html






Analysis from ex-Bush White House Staffer David Frum:

"Which free-market society tops the list?
Norway.
What???
Norway? That socialist hellhole? Where entrepreneurs pay a tax rate 33% higher than they do in Massachusetts? (Reports INC.) Where the government controls the country's largest industry, where they run probably the world's most generous welfare state? Where they publish all tax returns on the Internet to deter cheating? That Norway?
Oh well, Norway is a petro-state and oil prices have been high. We can dismiss this as an aberration. Who's number two? Denmark. And three? Sweden. The rest of the list: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Finland, Netherlands, Switzerland, and Ireland. The US ranks at 12th."
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,175
12,933
373
Atlanta, GA
#3
Yet they also have free healthcare,
There's no such thing as "free" in government.
huge public pensions,
Funded with money taken from the public to begin with.
relatively high income/corporate taxes (compared to the US),
Of course you would list a high corporate tax as a positive. Of course, that's a lie. The United States has the highest corporate tax in the world (35%, last I checked).
public broadcasters,
And hate speech laws.
fre or subsidized post-secondary education,
Again no such thing as "free" in government.
and in some of them a guaranteed income
Does getting money just for existing at the expense of the taxpayer seem "fair" (a big word in leftism)?
Yet Obamacare will... bankrupt America?
Yes.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,424
22,058
398
Northern California
#4
You can have very different economies with smaller populations. Socialist programs work in a village... they don't work in a diverse country of 300 million people. Norway and Denmark have 5 million people. New York City is fucking bigger!

Also most of those countries have tougher immigration laws than we do. How many of those countries have a military that can defend themselves from anyone else in the world? How much of the world runs to Norway, Denmark, or Sweden for aid after natural disasters? Which of them have been to the moon?

Fuck off.
 
#5
You can have very different economies with smaller populations. Socialist programs work in a village... they don't work in a diverse country of 300 million people. Norway and Denmark have 5 million people. New York City is fucking bigger!

Also most of those countries have tougher immigration laws than we do. How many of those countries have a military that can defend themselves from anyone else in the world? How much of the world runs to Norway, Denmark, or Sweden for aid after natural disasters? Which of them have been to the moon?

Fuck off.
1. What was the income tax rate on the richest Americans when the country could afford to go to he moon?

2. Norway is one of the highest in terms of per capita military spending. The highest? Israel. They can afford it along with Universale Healhcare where buying health insurance is mandatory (sound familiar?).


3. Most of these countries have very liberal immigration policies. In 2012 alone, Norway's rate of non-Europeans went up to over 40%. Canada is much easier to get into than the US.

4. Population doesn't matter if you apply the policies the same way. The advantages to a higher population actually mean your economy should be stronger, not weaker. It should give America an advantage over the Sweden's of the world if policies were applied correctly.




I don't appreciate the personal atack. For some reason, we always feel that praising any other country is an attack on our own.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
48,752
36,894
628
In a porn tree
#6
Saddle all of those countries in the top 11 above the US with the 13% black and doG knows what percentage of illegal Mexicans we have here in the US and watch them topple down on that list within a matter of months.

It's easy for white Europeans to stay prosperous when the teeming masses of givesmedat vampires aren't sucking their societies dry.

Level the playing field and watch socialism fall on its face.
 
#10
Saddle all of those countries in the top 11 above the US with the 13% black and doG knows what percentage of illegal Mexicans we have here in the US and watch them topple down on that list within a matter of months.

It's easy for white Europeans to stay prosperous when the teeming masses of givesmedat vampires aren't sucking their societies dry.

Level the playing field and watch socialism fall on its face.
But they have a significant proportion of Arabs and North Africans. Even Afghans and Turks.

How do you explain Canada being 6 points higher?



Y'all niggas posting in a troll thread.
Only you could find a right wing think tank's findings in a right wing newspaper "trolling."
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
48,752
36,894
628
In a porn tree
#11
But they have a significant proportion of Arabs and North Africans. Even Afghans and Turks.
All of which are much better behaved and less givesmedatty than American blacks... who have raised leeching and society ruining to the level of a high art.

How do you explain Canada being 6 points higher?
2.5% black population versus America's 13%
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,424
22,058
398
Northern California
#12
1. What was the income tax rate on the richest Americans when the country could afford to go to he moon?
Overall taxation was lower, and actually income tax paid was lower even with a higher rate, due to its structure. People could deduct almost anything back them, even from different businesses they ran... for example if you owned a restaurant had capital investments, you could deduct losses against both those investments... can't do that today, at least to the same extent.

2. Norway is one of the highest in terms of per capita military spending. The highest? Israel. They can afford it along with Universale Healhcare where buying health insurance is mandatory (sound familiar?).
Again, villages vs empires. It's also easier with 5 million people to deal with fraud. As THP pointed out, we have upwards of 20 million illegal aliens who aren't paying taxes, yet still using services. Add to that the tens of millions of American citizens who are leeching off the government, with little to no consequences.

3. Most of these countries have very liberal immigration policies. In 2012 alone, Norway's rate of non-Europeans went up to over 40%. Canada is much easier to get into than the US.
A) No one wants to get into Canada.

B) Sweden has very tough immigration laws for anyone from non-Nordic countries, and Denmarks are so tough they've been accused of violating human rights by some entities.

4. Population doesn't matter if you apply the policies the same way. The advantages to a higher population actually mean your economy should be stronger, not weaker. It should give America an advantage over the Sweden's of the world if policies were applied correctly.
Nope. As I stated above, five million people is relatively easy to manage. Fraud would be easy to spot and eradicate. Our population of illegal immigrants is 4 times the total population of Norway or Denmark. We spend billions on people who don't even try to contribute to our society, and don't pressure them to do so.

Also, you gave Israel as an example where this works... a country we give $3 billion in aid to. We've helped bail out the European Union when it was going under.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#13
You can have very different economies with smaller populations. Socialist programs work in a village... they don't work in a diverse country of 300 million people. Norway and Denmark have 5 million people. New York City is fucking bigger!
Not to mention a huge percentage of "diverse" people who have no inclination to contribute to the system.

3. Most of these countries have very liberal immigration policies. In 2012 alone, Norway's rate of non-Europeans went up to over 40%.
But they have a significant proportion of Arabs and North Africans. Even Afghans and Turks.
Yeah, about that...I remember some dude getting really pissed off about that statistic last year...
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#14
This entire shit thread is based upon the fallacy that the European socialist countries are solvent. They're not.
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#15
4. Population doesn't matter if you apply the policies the same way. The advantages to a higher population actually mean your economy should be stronger, not weaker. It should give America an advantage over the Sweden's of the world if policies were applied correctly.
The term used in business is "scalable", which government simply isn't. Businesses aren't, either, after a certain point. No human enterprise is. Each enterprise has it's own balance point at which you cannot keep the same level of efficiency while growing larger.

When I ran restaurants, if "X" was the profit I got from running a single operation, there was no way to get 20X from running 20 restaurants. I'd be lucky if I could get 15X. It's not about doing things "right": it's the realization that after a certain point the bigger you get, the more inertia, the greater the the grit in the gears, the bigger the problems you will have.

If you really, truly believe that human enterprise is scalable like you seem to, you are naive and stupid beyond words.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#16
All he sees is free shit paid for by the rest of us. Scalable isn't in his lexicon.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#18
The term used in business is "scalable", which government simply isn't. Businesses aren't, either, after a certain point. No human enterprise is. Each enterprise has it's own balance point at which you cannot keep the same level of efficiency while growing larger.

When I ran restaurants, if "X" was the profit I got from running a single operation, there was no way to get 20X from running 20 restaurants. I'd be lucky if I could get 15X. It's not about doing things "right": it's the realization that after a certain point the bigger you get, the more inertia, the greater the the grit in the gears, the bigger the problems you will have.

If you really, truly believe that human enterprise is scalable like you seem to, you are naive and stupid beyond words.
You're forgetting economies of scale and the ability to vertically integrate. I agree to your point with one person trying to manage multiple restaurants, but look how organizations like Apple and Walmart have taken advantage of those things.
 
#19
Overall taxation was lower, and actually income tax paid was lower even with a higher rate, due to its structure. People could deduct almost anything back them, even from different businesses they ran... for example if you owned a restaurant had capital investments, you could deduct losses against both those investments... can't do that today, at least to the same extent.



Again, villages vs empires. It's also easier with 5 million people to deal with fraud. As THP pointed out, we have upwards of 20 million illegal aliens who aren't paying taxes, yet still using services. Add to that the tens of millions of American citizens who are leeching off the government, with little to no consequences.



A) No one wants to get into Canada.

B) Sweden has very tough immigration laws for anyone from non-Nordic countries, and Denmarks are so tough they've been accused of violating human rights by some entities.



Nope. As I stated above, five million people is relatively easy to manage. Fraud would be easy to spot and eradicate. Our population of illegal immigrants is 4 times the total population of Norway or Denmark. We spend billions on people who don't even try to contribute to our society, and don't pressure them to do so.

Also, you gave Israel as an example where this works... a country we give $3 billion in aid to. We've helped bail out the European Union when it was going under.
Sweden has 150,000 Iraqis alone. And Canada has an immigration waiting list...280,000 people on it.

And 20 million illegals is a problem. But we can't be like "We are still better" and dismiss the success of other countries because its our fucking fault we have that problem.
 
#20
The term used in business is "scalable", which government simply isn't. Businesses aren't, either, after a certain point. No human enterprise is. Each enterprise has it's own balance point at which you cannot keep the same level of efficiency while growing larger.

When I ran restaurants, if "X" was the profit I got from running a single operation, there was no way to get 20X from running 20 restaurants. I'd be lucky if I could get 15X. It's not about doing things "right": it's the realization that after a certain point the bigger you get, the more inertia, the greater the the grit in the gears, the bigger the problems you will have.

If you really, truly believe that human enterprise is scalable like you seem to, you are naive and stupid beyond words.
Rmind me to use this argument when Republicans compare the unemployment rate in Nebraska or Kansas to that of California.

Yes Dick's diner would be hard to manage with 4 servers and 1000 tables full of customers.

But Chipotle is doing ok.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#21
But Chipotle is doing ok.
Actually, no they're not...:action-sm

Chipotle loses its sizzle. Stock plunges 15%
By Maureen Farrell October 19, 2012: 10:23 AM ET

Influential hedge fund manager David Einhorn recently told investors to short Chipotle's stock. It looks like David Einhorn's latest prediction may be coming true.

Shares of Chipotle Mexican Grill (CMG), which Einhorn recently recommended shorting, got slammed after the casual restaurant chain reported earnings that fell short of forecasts.

Chipotle's stock sank more than 10% after-hours Thursday. On Friday, shares fell more than 15% before gaining back some ground.

I fortuitously bumped into Einhorn on my way out of the Time Warner Center (where CNNMoney is housed) Thursday night. Einhorn, the founder of hedge fund Greenlight Capital, said he wasn't surprised by Chipotle's earnings but hadn't had time to dig into them yet.

Earlier this month, Einhorn told investors to bet against Chipotle's stock. Einhorn, known for his early calls on the looming blow up of Lehman Brothers, said Chipotle's torrid growth pace wasn't sustainable, particularly with Yum! Brands' (YUM) Taco Bell making a push into upscale burritos.

Consumers, who once seemed to have an endless appetite for Chipotle's burritos, appear to be losing it. The company's pace of growth has been steadily decelerating over the last several quarters.

Until recently, Chipotle had been one of the highest-flying stocks, with its shares doubling over the past five years. This year, its shares are down nearly 28%.

http://buzz.money.cnn.com/tag/chipotle-mexican-grill/
 

Stig Helmer

Registered User
Apr 18, 2012
116
31
63
#25
Försörjningsstöd is not a guaranteed income. If you have no way to make a living, and if the welfare office make the judgement that within reason you have tried to get a job or education then they will pay your rent (within reason) and maybe 3500 kr for the rest of you living costs. If you have any money in the bank you will not get it. Also if you have a car they will force you to sell it. Isn't that exactly how your welfare checks work?

It always is weird when others point at your country as a success. I bet if you tried living here you would find that there is more opportunity in the US. Not every country have to be social democratic... what a bore the world would be then. Why am I on an American message board and not an American on a Swedish messageboard? Because you have more fun. There is no way there ever could be a show even remotely similar to O and A over here.

The election system is in some ways better here though. I can't believe all the money that is spent in your elections. Also we have 8 parties in the parliament and every other decade a new party pops up and have some success. You havent had that in over a hundred years if I am right. Everything is within either the democrat or the republicans.

Also, all this welfare are going to collapse because of massive immigration. That is a huge cost. Dut to this we are also transforming some cities into the the glorious american models of Detroit and Chicago. Nice huh?