jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (106 posts)

Socialism and high taxes are not equivalent

  1. Josak profile image60
    Josakposted 3 years ago

    One of the greatest criticisms leveled at socialist and perceived socialist nations is their high taxes, usually reinforced with the example of France and it's high tax rates under a newly elected socialist government.
    Let's examine that claim factually, a quick analysis will prove it false.
    For starters the US tax rate is maximum  35% for corporations and maximum 39.6% for individuals. While there are other measures of taxation that is a reliable one that is comparable across nations, and I do not believe it to be an unfair one to the US (for example "socialist" Australia has no inheritance tax)
    So then let's have a look at some democratic socialist nations and compare.
    First up those horrible socialist Scandinavians.
    Finland:   Maximum Corporate: 26%, Maximum individual: 30% taxes are LOWER
    Norway:   maximum Corporate: 28%, maximum individual: 47.8% lower on C higher on I similar overall.
    Switzerland: 25% and 13.2% WAY LOWER
    Other Scandinavian nations follow this pattern, similar and on average lower taxes.
    Where it get's really interesting are when democratically elected socialist governments of the non Scandinavian type are studied.
    Venezuela the nation of Chavez has 34% and 34% meaning it is LOWER.
    Peru: 30% and 30% LOWER
    Bolivia: 28% and 13% WAY LOWER
    Even Vietnam has a lower tax rate.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … _tax_rates   (Wikipedia link, follow it's sources as per usual it's not difficult)

    1. Silverspeeder profile image61
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The governments you have decided to highlight are not really socialist are they? They are governments with social programs.
      A real socialist government could not survive in this capitalist world, even governments with their roots in socialism have become more capitalist to advocate better conditions in their countries.
      Here in the UK the TPA calculated that if you earn an average income, own a house, drive a car have the occasional night out and buy clothes or luxury food items once a month you pay nearly 50% of your earnings in tax, this figure increases to 56% if you smoke and enjoy a few alcoholic drinks per month.
      Governments are in the business of taxation, they will come up with all sorts of excuses to increase taxation and most of the tax collected goes to the rich.

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The government I have highlighted are all members of the socialist international, the Scandinavian ones have their own "volksocialisme" which is slightly different in many ways, the South American nations I highlighted on the other hand are genuine socialist nations though some of them have elements of capitalism remaining.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image61
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The governments you have highlighted have high tax rates as a percentage of GDP.
          Finland 43.6%
          Norway 43.6%
          Sweden 45.8%
          The south American countries are all embroiled in poverty and corruption and do not operate a socialist system of government at all.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            By % of GDP is quite an inefficient measure because it depends heavily on method of GDP creation, the tax burden is not the point the point is the taxative rate on Corporations and individuals on income. Furthermore the measure you are using is woeful because it does not include the taxes of lower institutions (as wikipedia notes) only Federal taxes and sometimes state taxes making it completely unrepresentative and skewing the measure in favor of less centralized nations (precisely like the US).

            As for the South American nations they do operate socialist systems certainly in an American context, all of the leading parties of the nations listed are socialist parties and all have seen excellent growth and development since those being elected. I happen to be from Argentina and have plenty of insight into the South American political situation, to describe it as embroiled in poverty and corruption is both simplistic and irrelevant, if the thread was on poverty or corruption it would be relevant but it is not.

            To prove how simplistic and ignorant we can look at Uruguay, a South American nation with a long time socialist government and lower tax rates AND performs better than the US in the corruption index.

            1. Silverspeeder profile image61
              Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Lower corporation tax rates and a booming economy doesn't mean that the people of a country benefit. Is there for instance a benefit system that helps the poor, or a medical system free at point of service.
              How does Uruguay stand in the poverty tables for instance, and how much of the governments income is spent on the poorer people of the nation?
              As for Agentina you are correct, I don't know much about them so I shall ask you, do they still have people loving in abject poverty? How much does the goverents owe to the banks? And how many of the corporations are owned by the people?
              The psuedo socialist governments can't be held up as a shinning example of the advantages of socialist states firstly because there is no such thing and secondly all the socialist systems operate on the backs of capitalist funding.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                As for aid for the poor and free medical service etc. yes socialist governments provide it.

                Uruguay I believe not only sits pretty well but is rising (which is the greater measure of current government) Argentina is also not only improving but yes many of it's corporations are owned by the people either as collectives seized from their initial owners and protected by the government or businesses such as Repsol owned by the public.

                Debt is about a 15th of what it was when the socialist party took power about 12 years ago in Argentina.

                1. 84
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You're grasping for straws.  When we have to look at Uruguay’s economy as a shining example, there's a problem.

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    There is no reason to Compare the Uruguayan economy with the American one, but I am happy to compare the success of the Uruguayan over the last ten years that it has been socialist with the US in that period. Both Uruguay and Argentina had to free themselves from fascist US backed dictatorships and their economy was destroyed by the process, Argentina was the third wealthiest country in the world at one stage under semi socialist leadership, then it was taken by the military in a dictatorship with US aid and support and everything went to hell, now it is recovering quite well.

                    It is a really dumb attitude in seen in both those comments that somehow a third world nation being poor is somehow proof they have a bad government even if they are growing monumentally and the quality of life has doubled over the last decade when that government has been in.

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't see Argentina as a very strong comparison to the US. 

                  http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/co … =Argentina

                  Scanning down the list, rent is cheaper, food about the same, utilities a little cheaper, clothing about the same.  Overall a little cheaper in Argentina.

                  Unfortunately the median income, after taxes, is $910 per month.  No wonder the standard of living is so much lower!

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Did I ever seek to compare the two?
                    Certainly not economically I did not even list them in the comparisons I believe so I don't see why we are even having this discussion.

                    However it is worth noting that for about ten years Argentina has been growing at one of the fastest rates in the world, several times outgrowing even China by year. Which is not to say it's a perfect recovery the inflation got out of hand at times but it was pretty good considering in 2000 the economy had actually completely collapsed to the extent that banks would not even give people their deposits and Argentina defaulted on it's debts all under a capitalist government of course, had been for decades then, first dictatorial and then democratic.

  2. Zelkiiro profile image84
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    B-B-BUT FOX NEWS SAYS SOCIALISM IS BAD!! And Fox News would never lie to me!

    Therefore, socialism is bad because Fox News told me so!

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That is about the response I expect in the main tongue hopefully there will be some with something more interesting.

  3. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    Yup, our taxes are way too high.

  4. John Holden profile image59
    John Holdenposted 3 years ago

    And you have to remember that the high tax rates in France only affect a very few super rich people.

  5. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 3 years ago

    Might it be more indicative of real tax rates not note what the total taxation rate, as a percentage of maybe GDP, is for the country?  Just how much of total income is going to the government, not the maximum rate of 39% after all deductions, loopholes etc. are removed first?

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That would be a million times better!
      People could then see through the parties that claim to reduce taxation whilst actually increasing the portion of GDP paid in taxes.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yep - and include state income tax, FICA, sales taxes, personal and real property taxes, the irrigation tax I pay, gasoline and diesel taxes and all the rest of them.  Include car registration fee, motel room taxes, rental car taxis and taxes paid when flying.  Include the tax on your phone and the "fees" to buy a gun.  The cost of excessive government is absolutely staggering and so few people recognize that. 

        I, for instance, am in the 10% federal taxes, yet over 1/3 of my meager income goes directly to our bloated government.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I covered why I was not comparing all of those, it just becomes impossible to keep track of all the variants by system.

          It's not government that is expensive it's inefficient and backwards governments like ours, as I demonstrated above plenty of nations whose governments do far more tax much less because they do it better and with a lot more balance (for example less ludicrous military spending.)

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I guess that was the point, Josak.  "I demonstrated above plenty of nations whose governments do far more tax much less because they do it better and with a lot more balance" - you did nothing of the sort.  You compared top tax rates but made no mention of total taxation, and that's what counts. 

            Nor is it particularly difficult; I gave you a way to do that.  All you need is total govt spending, from all branches and not just federal, total GDP and total deficit spending.  All should be reasonably available, at least down to city level.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Not only are they not available for many many countries it also becomes impossible to keep track of the many incidental taxes that people don;t mention, who has what and etc. eg. the US has inheritance tax, Australia does not, which is why I explained that would not be used as a measure using the tax rate instead, feel free to compile such a list yourself if you have a few spare weeks and can find regional taxation limits in Norway (for example).

  6. innersmiff profile image88
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    I agree with your main point, but the example countries you use are misleading. I'd struggle to call any modern western nation 'capitalist' or 'socialist', seeing as they all operate a mixed economy, large government but still have large private sectors. The Scandinavian countries, despite their massive states and social programs, actually have freer markets than the US. You are also right to point out that their lack of imperialism helps a great deal.

    1. 84
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yep.  To some degree, this is a point I have made in other forums.  +1

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The Excellent free market scores of Scandinavian countries are often misinterpreted, it does not come from term not interfering in the market but quit the opposite, Scandinavians have been able to direct and influence their market without allowing the market to effectively corporatise the government the way that has occurred in the US. However to describe the market as freer in the traditional sense is false, Scandinavian nations own their healthcare system, own transport systems etc. and they carefully regulate the free market (for example carbon taxes that many have instituted).


          A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the public.

      That is what Scandinavian nations do, partially they own things like healthcare and transport and mostly they regulate the means of production, distribution and exchange.

      Very socialist hence why pretty much all of the leading party or opposition parties in those nations have volksocialisme as their ideology.

      1. 84
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "  A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the public."

        There's no doubt that this is better than communism and government ownership. 


        Could you please answer these questions when you get a chance?  I'm curious about what you think.

        Please tell me what you think makes socialism more efficient than capitalism.  This is one of your beliefs, isn't it?

        Do you consider Obamacare a step closer to socialism than what we have in America now?


        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well Socialism is more efficient than capitalism in myriad ways one of the main one sis full use of capital.

          As it stands let's say the US has (as a convenient measure) $1000 in it's total economically liquid worth, now ideally for growth you want all that money invested in making more growth and creating new jobs, but what you really get is about $100 invested in that sort of process, the rest sits in the private banks accounts of the very wealthy making interest, in foreign investments that do not aid the US, in pleasure uses like several mansions etc. etc. etc. because people with capital do not use it efficiently for growth.

          Additionally many people just collect interest on their money instead of creating jobs with it which means the state has to stop all the thus unemployed from starving, I know that right near my house there is a fully profitable coal mine, I worked in that industry for many years, it takes a capital investment and will provide a profit margin of 4 to 5 percent yearly while employing hundreds of people but why would anyone with that much capital invest in that when they can get more than 10% interest in a New Zealand bank account with a large term deposit at zero risk? (that does not make them evil just smart) so the mine goes unused, the people go unemployed and you and I have to keep paying to prevent the total anarchy of starving Americans all over the country with our tax dollars.

          All of which is brutally inefficient, on the other hand in a socialist system the public directs the majority of the national capital so we can easily get $900 into creating new jobs and investment and it doesn't matter if we can make slightly more money in a foreign investment because we want people to have jobs so we don't have to support them and because we invest in our own nation it continues to grow.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Maximum interest in NZ is 5%, and not for zero risk investments, either.  It also requires a long term investment, one really too long.

            http://www.interest.co.nz/saving/term-d … to-5-years

            On the other hand, bank investments in the US are used (by the bank) to invest elsewhere, promoting job growth.  If the rich want to "invest" in their mansions, that too promotes job growth either in building said mansion or staffing it.

            I'd have to say that in general capitalism does a better job of creating jobs with it's wealth than socialism.  Where capitalism will demand production of some kind (and thus a profit) socialism gives it away without a care as to how it's spent by the citizenry.  Foreign travel, maybe.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The first is false because I have a large term deposit in NZ at more than 10% for  10 years, it's a negotiated rate, obviously if your are investing large amounts of money you don't use the rates that are designed for the average customer.

              Investing in a mansion is far more inefficient than investing in creating jobs for the country as a whole.

              I am more than happy to compare unemployment rates with first world socialist nations or compare change in unemployment rates under socialist governments in the third world.

              I believe Argentina raised it's employment level 22% under this government. Norway's unemployment is 3%, Switzerland's is 3.1% at the comparison rate that would put the US's at about 12.5%. SO please enlighten me on job creation big_smile

              I am also more than happy to compare emigration rates in socialist first world countries (all of which except Norway are poorer) but if I were you I wouldn't because they kick capitalist statistics all over the park.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                "Investing in a mansion is far more inefficient than investing in creating jobs for the country as a whole."

                Really?  Given a half million, which provides more jobs: construction of one mansion or 4 more "normal" homes?  Or, given a hundred thousand, which provides more: hiring 8 maids, cooks, butlers, etc. or 8 retail clerks?

                Did Norway and Switzerland participate in the great recession?  If not a far more germane consideration would be to work out why not than to look at a country in a far different position than the US.  Or would you rather consider unemployment in Greece vs the US?

                Same for Argentina; when 10 out of a hundred have jobs it's not a great problem to raise employment by 1/5; all you need is 12 out of a hundred to have jobs.  (Don't assume I have magic information; the numbers are to show an example only).

                There is also the question of how to find employment.  Is it the number of people working, or the percentage of those that want to work that have a job.  If the US somehow lowered the number of two earner families to the same level as other countries (without cutting jobs) what would the unemployment number be?

                You are very definitely cherry picking both the fight and the country to fight with in your arguments.  A great deal more care is needed if you truly want to compare socialistic countries with capitalistic ones.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I said in comparison to investing in creating jobs, building a mansion produces temporary labor, building a factory on the other hand provides continuous labor.

                  Yes all European countries were hit by the GFC (hence GLOBAL financial crisis)
                  Greece was never socialist, it elected a socialist party for like 2 years in the last 15.

                  Argentina increase it's employment by 22% of the population, as in almost a QUARTER OF THE POPULATION, got a job under this government that did not have one previously.

                  Number of people not working but want to that have looked in the last six months I believe.

                  I am keeping the debate within the topic of the thread, and I am not cherry picking nations in my favor, I have talked about third world socialist nations and first world socialist nations, on the other hand I have only compared with the most successful capitalist nation on earth, not for example Nigeria or something which is a mess and capitalist.

                  So if you like we can do that. Compare capitalist nations with socialist nations all around the world with no cherry picking, it is very much against your benefit however given that the US is the most successful and one of the very few successful.

          2. 84
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Okay, I see what you are saying, but what about how inefficient our government is?  Does it really take trillions of dollars to run our government?  What could you accomplish with a trillion dollars?  Our government is joke when it comes to being responsible with our money.  It wastes billions and billions of dollars.  People don't waste their own money like the government does.  Why should I trust our current leaders with more money/control?

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Oh the US is not ready for a socialist transition, not with the terrible governmental system we have now, it needs a lot of changes, primarily in getting rid of the massive numbers of politicians corrupted by special interest groups, unions and most of all corporations and large businesses, there are some things the government can handle because we have seen around the world even worse government do it (like healthcare IMO) but many other areas require serious changes first.

  7. 84
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    Big governments need more funding.  That’s a fundamental truth.  It’s misleading to look at taxes when you don’t include all of them.  Let's use France as an example.  Did you mention all of the additional taxes in France? Don't forget the tax conservatives in America dread, the Value Added Tax:

    There are four rates of VAT in France (2013):
    •    19.6 percent: (standard rate)
    •    7 percent: (restaurants, transport, renovation/improvement works and certain medical drugs)
    •    5.5 percent: (food, water and non alcoholic beverages, books, special equipment for the disabled and school canteens)  School canteens? 
    •    2.1 percent: ( medical drugs reimbursed by the French social security)

    In France, the average worker pays 61% more tax than in America.  Here are some statistics for you:

    http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Fra … s/Taxation

    One embarrassing statistic is that poor people in France contribute 38% more in tax than poor Americans.

    Now, if you think I’m only citing a conservative source, I’ll provide one from ABC News:

    What Would France’s 75 Pct Tax Rate Look Like in US?

    “The French Government’s budget presented Friday, which is imposing a 75 percent tax rate for income exceeding 1 million euros ($1.39 million), is expected to inspire a number of wealthy French to move their residency to other countries. The 75 percent rate seems shockingly high, but if it were instituted in the U.S. it would still not be enough to even balance the budget.”

    “'It’s not as if it comes at no cost. The cost is a huge waste of resources in the form of tax planning, investors leaving the country, or investors who stay will stop investing,'” McBride said. “'There would be a loss in investment over time due to lower productivity, lower wages for everyone. It would cause massive harm to the economy with little or no gain in revenue.'”

    For the full article, here’s the link:
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/20 … look-like/

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I did not talk about France in the sense of listing it's tax measures and I covered why mentioning alternate taxes is impossible #1 because different nations have such wide and varied ones it's impossible to keep track of #2 because the US has plenty of alternate taxes and is as such not getting the harder time of that comparison (as I mentioned inheritance tax for example).

  8. maxoxam41 profile image78
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    To be fair in the US the taxes concerning corporations are at 10% only whereas the individuals represent 46%.

    1. 84
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      This statement is not even close to true.  If our corporate tax rate were that low, it would be among the lowest in the world.  In fact, our corporate tax rate is between 39.2-40% and has been for years and years.  Our corporate tax rate is the HIGHEST in the world.  Josak will be able to argue that socialized nations have less corporate tax, but then again doesn’t that also go against his argument for socialism? It means people are paying a greater share of taxes in socialized countries.  Both corporations and individuals are getting taxed to death in America, so politicians can squander our money on anything from a study to see how goldfish get along to bridges to nowhere and weapons for countries that will later attack us with those same weapons.  Businesses are leaving America for many reasons.  Our ridiculous corporate tax rate is one of the reasons. 

      http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/services/ … table.aspx

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/ … VV20120330

      Just four days ago, even the POTUS said he would be willing to lower our corporate tax rates.  If that doesn’t tell you how high our rates are, nothing will.

      http://www.npr.org/2013/04/13/177108648 … ittle-else

  9. 84
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    “By the late nineteenth century, the United States had become a leading global industrial power, building on new technologies (such as the telegraph and steel), an expanding railroad network, and abundant natural resources such as coal, timber, oil and farmland, to usher in the Second Industrial Revolution.”

    Josak likes to claim that the primary reason America became the biggest economic and manufacturing power in the world is because it wasn’t destroyed by World War I and World War II.  America’s South was ravaged by the Civil War, and yet it recovered and prospered within thirty-five years.  Prior to World War I, America was already a wealthy nation with massive manufacturing capabilities.  How did America do this when there hadn’t even been any war to destroy Europe?  Capitalism is one of the answers.  It wasn’t because other countries were destroyed or faltering; it was American capitalism.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of … ed_States_(1865%E2%80%931918)

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hilarious for two reasons. #1 IF you think wars that killed hundreds of millions of Europeans, ravaged the landscape and utterly annihilated their industrial capacity did not have a monumental effect on Europe you are just ignoring simple facts, the American continent has never see warfare on the scale or brutality of WWI or WWII not even a minute example, and actually many would say the South is still  recovering from it's devastation, typically it is said to have recovered within 40 years so WWII ended in 1945 which means by that standard Europe did not recover until 85 and could only then start growing further meanwhile the US grew unmolested and with minimal competition.

      Also before WWI every single major European power was capitalist so the US out competing the world can't possibly be down to capitalism since both sides were using it.

      1. 84
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Capitalism was greater in America, and you should know that.  On one hand socialists drone on about the evil things that happened because of America's great capitalism during this period, and on the other, they diminish its greatness.  You can't have it both ways. America was the king of capitalism during that period, and its growth showed it.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Not only it's growth, but it's capability during WWII.  The huge production rates of America played a great part in winning that war, on both fronts, and while patriotism played a large part of that production, so did capitalism.  People made fortunes supplying the American war machine even as Rosie drove her rivets in a job she had never contemplated.

        2. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Prove capitalism was greater in America, that sounds like blatant propaganda based on blind patriotism. As I have noted before Germany had far greater production per person or by square mile than the US, it was capitalist too, the only non capitalist state in either of the WW was the country that killed 9 out of every 10 Nazi's who died in the WW2 and captured Berlin despite being soundly defeated in WWI by the same nation when capitalist.

          Which is not my defense of communism as a system since I don't like it but for maximizing production communism in the USSR had capitalism beat.

          It's all a very mythical non existent story Americans like to tell themselves as part of a patriotic narrative, which is fine having pride in one's country is good but it has no place in a debate unless you can prove these things like "capitalism was better in America" or "America was more productive" which has to be assessed per capita and landmass.

          As for effectiveness in WW2 I recommend reading the field reports of German armies fighting American ones and their assessment of their abilities (remembering that by the time the US entered the war all of Germany's best troops were in Russia, we were fighting reserves and teenagers) and then look at the size and industrial capacity of Japan and consider how "amazing" it is we beat them (for which we still had to resort to the atom bomb).

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No question the US was outclassed by the German army (WWII).  Tanks, planes, ships - the allies lagged in technology everywhere.  Without the vastly superior production capability (a capability driven by and developed during the war) the allies would almost certainly have lost.  Same with Japan, at least early in the war.

            Outclassed and outfought, at least early on, American production is what turned the tide.  The sleepy giant awoke, the factories went onto a wartime footing, and the US simply produced planes, ships, tanks etc. faster than they could be shot down, sunk or destroyed.

            But the bomb wasn't necessary; the handwriting was already on the wall by the time it was dropped.  The only thing the bomb did, even as it caused massive casualties, was to save lives in the long run.  With the allies within airstrike range of Japan, it was inevitable that an invasion of the homeland would occur, with a far greater loss of life on both sides as the emperor would never have given up outside of the "shock and awe" of the bomb.  It was far more a psychological weapon than destructive one, even though it was more destructive than any other weapon ever seen.

          2. 84
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It's a fact.  America had/has the largest economy, and I don't need to say "per person" or any other spin like that. 

            Germany had better weaponry in World War II.  That's largely true.  We produced more.  We still produce more.  We produced more before the war.  We produced more after the war.  This isn't about patriotism.  It's about facts.  Try to dispute it with your "yeah, but" statements.  It's a fact.

            Am I patriotic?  Absolutely.  Is this about patriotism?  No.  I believe in facts.  You seem to believe only in facts that support your misguided belief in a socialistic utopia.  We've had this discussion before.

            By the way, I'd be happy to debate war tactics and history, but what does that have to do with this?  You're deflecting and sounding desperate.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Comparing economies with a nation a quarter the size and population on gross terms is ridiculous and demonstrates you have zero interest in the facts, look at the size of Germany, now you are bragging that the US produced more than Germany therefore it's system was better... which is laughable AND Germany was capitalist anyway.

              You failed completely to demonstrate that American capitalism was different in a significant sense.

              Seriously actually prove your statements and debate the facts. You have not presented any data at all, you have tried to present different sized economies in gross terms and have failed to back the statement you made. Terrible.

              1. 84
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That may be the case, but you, too, have failed.  I don't feel I have fully articulated my point well.  Maybe it's my own limitation or my inability to express via this forum.  Your debate comes off more like a lecture where the teacher never admits mistakes.

                Still, there is nothing I could say or do to prove the point to John or you.  You concede nothing, never have, and never will, unless I've missed something.  If I had quantifiable proof, you'd spin it by saying "per person," "per capita," "relative," or some other rhetorical jargon to prove your point.  Before you try to deflect this back and say I do the same, know that I have conceded points, such as our expensive healthcare.  No point, besides yours or people who support you, is ever accurate.  Can you name a single time, within any forum here at HubPages, that you admitted that somebody had a good point, one that went against socialism?  If so, I'd really like to see that post.  Part of debate is give and take.  If you're always right, you're either exceedingly impressive or arrogantly wrong from time to time.  It's okay to accept other people's statistics and admit that you are wrong.  You ought to try it, once.

                1. Clint Ward profile image60
                  Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I can assure you that in the face of facts he holds steadfastly to the opposite, it is quite remarkable.