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)
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.
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.
The governments you have highlighted have high tax rates as a percentage of GDP.
The south American countries are all embroiled in poverty and corruption and do not operate a socialist system of government at all.
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.
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.
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.
You're grasping for straws. When we have to look at Uruguay’s economy as a shining example, there's a problem.
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.
America is not the America I knew when I was a kid. Comparing us in our decline, in the last few years, is hardly a fair comparison. I suggest you look at how America was at our peak, perhaps after World War I. Even then, the times were so different, I doubt that comparison could be made. We're just not the capitalistic country we once were.
Our economy has never been bigger than it is right now statistically speaking this is the best the US has ever been economically.
During WWI Argentina with it's population about a tenth of the US's and a semi socialist government was outgrowing the US and was the 10th wealthiest nation in the world (the US I believe was third).
I believe your stats are wrong. I may be mistaken, but I thought America had the largest GDP after World War I and outmanufactured the rest of the world. . . combined.
AFTER WW1 Yes except for the British empire, because All the other Competing nations had been devastated while the US had barely suffered a scratch.
Not exactly a fair comparison.
Before WWI Germany and the US were par on manufacturing power, you may recognize Germany as a comparatively tiny nation.
“From 1865 to about 1913, the U.S. grew to become the world's leading industrial nation.”
World War 1 took place between 1914-1918, so it wasn’t World War 1 that pushed us into the position of being the world’s greatest industrial leader. You can’t say that other countries were ravaged by war, and that made us the king of production when we took the lead prior to World War 1. It was the first and second Industrial Revolution that made us the greatest industrialized nation in the world, something capitalism produced. Capitalism made us the leading producer in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of … ed_States_(1865–1918)#Industrialization
You are correct by WWI the US produced more than any one nation, though still significantly less than the Western European powers (remembering that at this point all of them except the USSR were solely capitalist) by landmass it produced far less than say Germany, of course those nations fell in capacity afterwards, except for the USSR that eventually surpassed the US in production, however all of the nations that could have competed were very conveniently ravaged, by WWI by WWII and by the US aided South American dictatorships, Britain, Germany, France, Austria Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, China, Japan, Russia and Italy were all repeatedly devastated or destroyed by the wars, not to mention further civil wars etc. so calling that a triumph of capitalism is a bit laughable. The US was an enormous country, largely unassailable by large powers due to it's geographic location, the power and knowledge required to industrialize, huge reserves of oil and steel, massive population and the ability to get cheap labor when other nations could not, initially from slavery and then from immigrants fleeing the devastation of those nations and most importantly stability, no civil wars or revolutions for a very very long time.
And yet still other nations have recovered it and are in the process of surpassing it with far less capitalist systems making the claim of capitalist superiority in the modern context a joke.
You make a good point about the relative size of countries and their production.
So which countries are in the process of surpassing the US in terms of production per capita?
It's quite hard to find stats on production in the modern era because our economies are (to an extent unfortunately) less focused on it, I believe Japan already has surpassed us in that area? i could be wrong, certainly many countries like Vietnam for example have rapidly growing production in the high tens yearly compared to our 3%.
You're right of course, about production. However, production of hard goods isn't the only thing that can, and is, being produced. GDP ought to offer a good substitute for tons of cars or whatever. That will also automatically factor into the equation the differing desires of different peoples for different "things".
Vietnam: when a country has 1% of the production rate or another, a growth of 10% in that rate doesn't mean much. Certainly not that it is surpassing the production rate of the country with 100 times the production. It's easy to have a high growth rate when actual production is at the bottom - doing it with the highest production in the world is another matter entirely.
That doesn't mean they are beating capitalism with socialism. America is not capitalistic like it once was.
I disagree about productivity. America produced more goods than the rest of the world combined at one point. I'll find sources to prove this point.
None of the world is capitalist like it once was, transition occurs as inferior systems are replaced. It's quite funny to suggest that all around the developed world nations almost universally had this supposedly better system and decided they would change it and continue to do so. Obviously they were all just wrong
I would have to agree that they were wrong. The more socialistic the US becomes, the lower the production rate becomes as well. An inverse relationship - not unexpected when incentive to produce is removed.
Actually production continues to rise, I don't think it has ever stopped doing so in the US, it is just being outperformed in terms of growth by other non capitalist nations or semi socialist nations so it is more in gross terms but less in relative terms, so your claim is incorrect and does not support that conclusion at all.
Production continues to rise, yes. So does the number of people; without a very definite rise the production per capita will see a large fall.
That is what I refer to; it looks to me like production per capita is falling in the US, and that is the inevitable consequence of removing incentive to produce. The further down the road of socialism, the less incentive there is to produce and the less average production per person there is. We can and do counter that somewhat with increasing automation and more efficient methods of production, but average production per person is falling even after accounting for the increasing shift to paper pushers rather than production of hard goods.
Hunger is an excellent incentive, but we've already gone far beyond that in providing luxuries as well. There is a continual decrease in incentive to produce as we continue down the road to our own version of socialism.
I don't think the US population grows at more than 3% yearly.
More to the point if socialism were the issue we would see productions and GDP decreasing across all the other countries, indeed the US is one of the most capitalist in the world but it is being rapidly outgrown by socialist nations so that explanation makes no sense.
Same mistake. No, the US production rates aren't being surpassed by socialist countries; the rate of growth of production rates is.
Again, when production rates are extremely low it isn't difficult to increase them rapidly. When they are already the highest in the world it becomes much more difficult to have a high rate of growth. Some socialist countries are coming on line with very high rates of growth and we can reasonably expect them to max out as much of Europe has; with production rates much, much higher than they are now but still considerably below that of capitalistic countries. Not the rate of growth, but total production rates.
Talking about the growth rate of production in third world countries doesn't say much about the society as a whole, but how much industrialization is going on. As a country becomes industrialized more and more, the growth of production rates will stabilize; at that point you will have a major point if that production consistently surpasses that of a capitalistic country. While there may be small examples here and there, it is quite rare for a socialistic country to produce goods at a higher rate than a capitalistic one, and those that do are typically adding little to no value to resources that are being "produced" by simply digging them out of the ground.
That is a ridiculous double narrative you are pushing, the US isn't growing because socialism is bad but also other countries growing isn't because of socialism it is because they are less productive beforehand, there are several countries who surpass the US in GDP per capita all of them are further to the left, and growth absolutely is not easier when the nation is poor, can nations make bigger leaps when they have little industrialization? Yes but it is not easier, in fact it is much much harder and demonstrates quality of leadership and governance to overcome the challenges of industrializing in third world nations where there is no infrastructure and people are less willing to invest, there are also MANY nations with similar GDP per capita that are growing much faster such as Australia.
So in other words, socialism provides at least one nation that surpasses the US in GDP per capita, (Norway which is the highest in macro nations of the world) and the fastest growth not to mention higher quality of life and lower unemployment and somehow that is proof that capitalism is better. Excellent point
"there are several countries who surpass the US in GDP per capita"
I asked before, which ones? Can you back that up?
"socialism provides at least one nation that surpasses the US in GDP per capita"
You claim to know of just one (and I did say there were scattered examples), but provide no proof. Can you back the statement up?
"and the fastest growth" I think I've complained enough about looking at growth vs production. You stick with it if it makes you feel good, but I'm not particularly interested. Especially when the topic is production rates, not growth.
"higher quality of life and lower unemployment" US citizens primarily measure quality of life by the wealth (material possessions) - that's where they choose to spend their money. Which country has a higher standard of living using that measurement? Norway? I don't think so.
Norway does, why don't you check the GDPP yourself?
Well here it is anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … per_capita
According to all measurements Norway does and according to the most precise Australia does too with several set to overtake int he next few years.
According to all models of economic one observes trends not static data, if one is just looking at static data a country of slightly higher wealth with a collapsing economy is being better managed than one with a slightly lower wealth growing every minute and that is just flat our dumb.
As Noted Norwegians have more money each per capita, whether they choose to spend it more wisely than buying boats and sports cars is a different question but it's an irrelevant one to economic management, people keeping savings does not make them poorer that too is just flat out mathematically dumb.
NOW as for Australia I can confirm having been many times that they do have more material possessions, because wealth distribution in Australia is much better the average man on the street is far wealthier than the average American and outside of native population reservations in the whole of Australia you would not find a thing that resembles an American ghetto, so yes they are much wealthier and have more "material possessions" as irrelevant as that is.
I also think that Americans realize having work is an important part of quality of life.
This is the MOST successful capitalist nation we are talking about, and it is being beaten by younger countries and countries with very different systems that have suffered devastation and turmoil fr beyond what the US ever has in that time period.
Thank you. Of the 7 countries with a higher PPP per capita, all are very small, most have very high natural resources per capita (oil, mostly) and they are of highly differing governments.
Of those 7, probably Norway and Switzerland are the best examples for comparison of socialism vs capitalism. Two very small countries, and I did say there were examples. Shall we also look at Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Cyprus, Greece and Spain? Australia, (one of the best) at only 85% of the US?
Wait - how about Argentina - you've held that one up as being much superior. It comes in at 1/4 the US - a great example of...what? That third world countries can easily improve their numbers no matter what government?
"This is the MOST successful capitalist nation we are talking about, and it is being beaten by younger countries and countries with very different systems that have suffered devastation and turmoil fr beyond what the US ever has in that time period"
You mean younger countries like Switzerland and Norway? Or are you again cherry picking a handful of third world countries with high growth rates? Maybe countries that have suffered a devastation far beyond the civil war in the US?
Josak, you are very carefully picking a socialistic country or two, about as far different in size and culture as is possible, that outperforms the capitalistic US while ignoring all the rest that don't and exclaiming that it proves socialism is superior. It isn't, and your data very plainly shows that. All but two of the socialistic countries even partially comparable to the US perform much worse - you really need to look at all the information rather than cherry pick.
A suggestion if you want to make a point - use that very Wiki data and produce a chart from it. X axis is country, Y is PPP. Color the socialist (developed countries) green and the evil capitalistic ones red. Ignore countries like Qatar and Kuwait, no matter what government, that depend solely on natural resources for GDP. Limit yourself to 30 or 40 developed nations - more is unnecessary and will make the graph hard to read. Use some common sense, some judgement in picking countries and DO NOT pick only ones that prove your point - rather look for a true answer rather than one that you want to see.
I guarantee the results will shock you.
Did that ages ago, the average GDPP of developed socialist nations is much much higher than the average average GDPP of developed capitalist nations and the socialist GDPP is growing faster AND they have lower unemployment, longer life expectancy, better education etc. etc.
As for Devastation Norway was invaded in WW2 the US has never been invaded in the last century.
You've made those graphs ages ago? Why all the unsupported claims then?
Let's see them! As I scan down that Wiki list you provided it seems to show the opposite of your claim, but I have not done the work to make an actual comparison. Certainly hard data is worth so much more than unsupported claims ("the average GDPP of developed socialist nations is much much higher than the average average GDPP of developed capitalist nations"). Particularly when your claims so completely fail to follow accepted statistical practice with constant cherry picking - let's take a look at your research and see if we can come to a rational conclusion from good, hard data.
Why is it always me that provides the data and links, you refer to nothing at all, I post the links for points you raise, not to mention the data at the beginning of the thread) and then you hand out work, I never made graphs just averages and it was not a competition at all, the Scandinavian nations + Australia and Austria have very high average GDP's to get equivalent numbers of capitalist economies you really need to start scraping the barrel.
Socialist nations dominate the upper rankings between 1 and 25 on the world bank rankings
We have 17 major nations the rest being eliminated for being too small, too resource dependent (Luxemburg, Arab Emirates and Qatar for example) or for being the EU which is not really a country.
Ireland: Pretty Socialist
Belgium: pretty socialist
Germany: leftist but not really socialist or capitalist, actually third way liberalism
UK: Sort of neither third way.
Canada: relatively leftist but not really socialist
Japan is more capitalist than socialist but a bit of both
of 17 nations 12 are socialist and 1 or two are capitalist.
Now you do some work
How many of them are totally socialist? How many are totally capitalist? Without comparing opposites, your data really isn't that accurate. You wouldn't be able to run any science experiment or study by using the kind of data you have provided. You have not been able to do that by comparing mixed economies. Yes, I know that makes it almost impossible to come to a conclusion, because there certainly aren't many countries that can claim to be absolute when it comes to any doctrine. Still, that's how science and statistics are supposed to work.
It's true no system is completely pure, nor are completely pure systems a good idea in my opinion, both systems have advantages in certain areas it is wise to exploit, the point is a relative definition of the terms which is how science works when the definitions are not absolute such as in psychology.
The argument really is that either capitalist or socialist principles are better and therefore nations with more capitalism or more socialism should be doing better.
Why is it you providing the links and data?
That should be pretty obvious - it is you making unsubstantiated claims that fly in the face of experience and common sense. While you may be right, it is up to you to provide something more than mere opinion to give support to the claim.
I don't see any graphs...but will point out something you have conveniently ignored.
From your post, there is exactly one capitalist nation, the US, and 17 socialistic ones. The US is in #8 position, and 2 of your socialist countries are listed above it. The other 15 are below; the "score" is thus 15-2 that capitalism is superior. How do you come to the conclusion that socialism is the better producer when there are 7 times as many lower than are higher than the mark of capitalism (#8)? It would seem that the obvious conclusion is that capitalism prevails; what line of reasoning takes you to the opposite?
Claiming the fastest growing system in the world is superior is not a large claim.
The top 25 nations on Earth are a very elite group and Socialism has the majority of the nations in it, the vast majority, including nations that do better than the US already, almost all of those are outgrowing the US too, Developed capitalist nations are way lower, Japan (sort of) South Korea is at around 30, Israel 31, Poland 47, Turkey in the 50s etc.
That is what happens to inferior systems, the nations with the highest levels of education and global knowledge leave them and change, even the US is doing that, and as much a conservatives just want to pretend that it's because everyone is dumb the truth is people are evaluating systems, comparing them, testing them and moving on to socialist mixed systems.
Countries in the first world that have done so have seen massive success improving tremendously and either surpassing or getting quite close to the US on which they have gained ground and countries in the third world that have done so have seen the most explosive economic growth. Even the UK looks set to elect a social democratic party according to the polls anyhow).
America is and was the biggest producer in the world, with the largest economy by far. You justify it by saying that Europe and Asia were ravaged by war, so America rose to the top. That is ridiculous. The Industrial Revolution, sparked by American ingenuity, effort, and capitalism pushed us to the top. Sure, we had problems too, but you can't take that away from America by simply saying we weren’t destroyed by war, so we rose to the top. That's inherently wrong and revisionist.
Josak, you're almost funny. At least it would be if you weren't dead serious in doing your best to promote a failing system of government.
We've already discussed growth rate and pointed out just how useless it is to look at. Let's just ignore that discussion completely and concentrate our attention on something informative.
Saying the top 25 nations are elite, while the top 50 aren't is rather subjective isn't it? And then to use the (undeniable) fact that most nations are socialistic as proof that because the majority dominates that magic top 25 means they are better...well...that's just silly. Of course they dominate (and using third world nations like Turkey and Poland as comparisons is ridiculous) - there are more of them! Still remains, though, that the US beats out 15 of the 17 you listed even as the socialists in the country continue to put more and more obstacles in the way of real growth.
You then take the fact that most are changing to socialism because of education - while the change is happening, it isn't because of education. It's because lazy and greedy people have found that they can vote themselves bread and circuses at the expense of others. Which is also why socialism will nearly always be lower on the scale; those lazy and greedy people wanting "free" handouts aren't producing anything of value, just taking.
And finally back to the growth thing, once more ignoring how easy it is to improve (and improve greatly) when numbers start at the bottom of the barrel. That's easy, but it's been going on for a long time now and very, very few have surpassed the US. Forgot that, or just didn't want to mention it?
No, the very numbers you are promoting as providing proof positive of you claims show just the opposite. You may not want to acknowledge it, and refuse to learn from that data, but that's the choice you choose to make. The only good thing you can say about socialism is that it redistributes the wealth from those that earned it to those that did not, while at the same time reducing incentive to produce and thus promoting a lowering of real living standards for the group as a whole.
What do bread and circuses have to do with socialism? Those lazy and greedy people are usually cast off's from capitalism, they have no place in socialism.
No place except to suck up valuable resources while refusing to produce. It's the largest problem socialism has, even larger than the loss of freedom. The loss of freedom can be tolerated by many, particularly if it comes on slow as it is in the US, but anytime people can look at their neighbors across the ocean and see a much better richer nation they're going to complain.
It has absolutely nothing to do with socialism and every thing to do with capitalism.
As we keep telling you under socialism if you don't work, you don't eat. It is only capitalism that enjoys a large pool of the unemployed.
Look at the UK, under the last socialist government we had zero unemployment for most of the post war years, the first act of a capitalist government saw unemployment shoot up to unprecedented levels.
"As we keep telling you under socialism if you don't work, you don't eat."
Under socialism, the hardest working and most successful people have a dispropotionate share of their wealth taken away from them and redistributed to other people, in the name of equality. Failure to produce MIGHT be punished, though I truly doubt that anybody would be allowed to starve to death in a socialist country just because they weren't productive. Still, ingenuity and hard work are thwarted; what's the point of working your fingers to the bone and earning millions of dollars when the government is just going to tax you at some ridiculous rate and redistribute the wealth?
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/20 … eur-france
If a classroom were a socialist economy like you have described, interesting things would happen. Lazy students would fail. Motivated or smart students would have some of their grade taken away from them and redistributed to other kids in the class. Why would any kid want to work hard when his/her grades would simply be greatly diminished in an effort to equalize and redistribute the wealth? It makes no sense and forces mediocrity. Why be the best when your prize is greater tax? Why be the best when your hard work and success will just be shared with others?
Not quite. In John's version of socialism, a person is paid what they are worth - a doctor earns more than a ditch digger - instead of a set rate by the hour. Pay is set by the job, not the person or their needs. People also get to keep what they earn - the doctor will become rich and have lots of money. He can also start a business and earn from using his capital, adding to his income until he becomes one of the uber rich.
A non-worker will simply starve to death. The only question that has never been answered is who is going to decide the worth of a person or job - whether it is by community vote or the top dog of the government has never been answered, except that it is NOT via competitive bidding.
It's a little different than the more normal version of socialism, and seems like pure pie in the sky where everyone acts in the best interests of the country, ignoring their own needs or wants.
Who says that they do? The capitalist book of socialism?
It is capitalist governments that tax you to extinction. And neither is money the motivation for doing everything.
That isn't socialism at all. Again, what is your source for that crazy idea? The capitalist book of socialism?
You want to lecture me about my capitalistic book on socialism? That's fair. I would raise the same question about your knowledge of true capitalism. How's that VAT tax?
You are so biased, you can't even answer a single yes/no question in the North Korea forum, because it might make a country that seems to mirror your beliefs, at times, seem bad.
How's that VAT tax? Apart from being a capitalist burden, it stinks, it affects the poor much more than the rich.
I can and do answer simple yes and no questions, but NK isn't a simple yes/no question, and my only involvement in the NK debate was to say that you aren't qualified to speak on my behalf.
The VAT tax is not a capitalistic policy, and you should know that.
Whether or not someobody said something is a yes/no statement. If you were in court, you wouldn't get away with this kind of double speak, because it really is a yes or no answer. It either happened or it didn't. IT DID.
When capitalist governments have raised VAT from 8% to 20% why should I know that it is not a capitalist policy?
Real capitalist nations don't even have the tax. That's how you know. High taxes and capitalism are like oil and water; they don't mix.
It's an absurdity to say that openly capitalist governments aren't capitalist.
That's not what I said.
The VAT tax was "invented" in France. It, along with all taxes, take away from capitalism. People spend their own money better than the government. People make jobs. People are responsible for our GDP. People drive the economy. Taxes take away from their ability to do these things.
Openly capitalistic governments are supposed to leave most of the capital in the hands of the capitalists, the people.
What they are supposed to do and what they actually do are, as you are well aware, two totally different things.
That's often true. That's why it's so hard to really show what capitalism CAN do. People look to countries that aren't really practicing capitalism as examples of capitalistic countries.
Er, would you deny that the US is and has been a capitalist country?
America was a capitalist nation. It is not as much a capitalistic economy as it once was. America's greatest gains occurred many years ago, when she was more capitalistic.
Wow it just gets increasingly pathetic.
Well first off the "voting themselves stuff" blatant lie, or ignorance liberals in this country are 7% wealthier than conservatives, that trend follows around the world in almost all places the left is wealthier (simply because education makes you wealthier and the left is almost universally far more educated) so on the contrary it is those who produce who are voting for those changes.
(that is according to the oft quoted conservatives donate more research)
Yes the top 25 was quite arbitrary I just chose a reasonable measure, feel free to choose any other number but you do it this time.
About half of the democratic world is capitalist and yet i has one nation in the top 25 a nation being surpassed day by day by the socialist competition, even though it has a perfectly isolated position from warfare, a massive landmass, excellent population, massive mineral and oil resources, great agricultural lands and is part of the former British settler Empire which has universally been very successful, despite all that it has been surpassed by two and will soon be passed by more.
The fair competition has not been going on very long at all, Europe has still not entirely recovered from the World Wars, South America was under dictatorship until he 80s, India had it's civil wars and separation and China was plagued by bad governance and war too. That is why it is only recently that socialist nations have started surpassing the US, they started off miles and miles behind.
And seriously read a book socialism does not redistribute from those who earn to those who did not, it only offers true wages to those who work. My guess is you have never read a single socialist founding text in your life.
The absolute correlation between socialism and education is totally a coincidence
Failed systems disappear by slowly being replaced by superior ones, humans don't abandon better systems en mass across the world, that is not how economics or politics work.
Half the world is capitalist, but the only ones you will use as comparisons are third world countries such as South Korea, Turkey and the at-war Israel? How convenient.
A decent production rate would have a country fully recovered in less than a generation. It has been 3 since WWII, and the US has improved it's standard of living enormously in that period while the socialist ones you point to have remained nearly where they were. Maybe a problem with the socialistic program?
"From each...." Remember that? Especially the "To each..." part? Needs don't go away just because one doesn't want to work, yet still must be filled. Yeah - it's a part of socialism whether you want it to be or not.
We are not capitalist now. We are only a shadow of the capitalist country we once were.
You seem to have a real problem giving America credit. Capitalism made America the leader of the world. Liberalism, socialism, and government spending are all undoing this. Comparing America to a socialist country now is like comparing the current state of the greatest boxer, who is now 80 years old and failing, to a young, healthy boxer. It's unfair, and you should know that. Obamacare, entitlements, a lack of jobs, failures from previous presidents both democrat and republican, and deficit spending are a cancer to our economy and future.
You like Obamacare, because you say it's better than what we currently have. You and I both know that Obamacare is not what they have in Western Europe; frankly I don't want that either. Obamacare is bad policy, and you yourself have said that you hope it gets revised and repaired. Just admit it, Obamacare is bad policy. Spending mass amounts of money you don't have is bad policy. Printing money to bolster your economy is not a permanent solution. People need jobs, and few jobs are being created. . . and you want to compare our current state to socialist nations?
America is beating itself. Capitalism isn't losing.
Transition occurs with all systems.
Capitalism is not inferior. America WAS proof of that, even with its flaws.
America was never proof of that, it would have taken a political cataclysm to prevent the USA from being successful, English colonies composed of English settlers with industrialized values have all been very successful, indeed by scale and population the US has been arguably less successful than Australia, Canada and New Zealand, certainly at best equally successful even though they took very different paths.
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!
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.
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!
And you have to remember that the high tax rates in France only affect a very few super rich people.
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?
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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).
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.
Yep. To some degree, this is a point I have made in other forums. +1
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.
" 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?
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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/
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).
To be fair in the US the taxes concerning corporations are at 10% only whereas the individuals represent 46%.
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
“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)
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
by Kathryn L Hill3 years ago
-today in the Forums, it was stated that socialism offers freedom and low taxes. This is what we have learned today, 3/9/13 from advocates of Social Democracy for the United States (A Social Democracy promotes a gradual...
by Brian6 years ago
I was talking with a group of friends the other day. and I suggested that there should be a national tax, where the money collected should be distributed evenly among every U.S. citizen, and I was labled as a...
by GA Anderson8 months ago
*Thread credit should go to Credence2 for his Bernie Sanders enthusiasm - which prompted a look at his platformLooking at presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' website was a real eye-opener. Great sounding programs -...
by Holle Abee4 years ago
McCain released two years of tax returns. Reagan released one. Romney has released two. It wasn't a big deal with McCain and Reagan. Why is it now?http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romney-and … precedent/
by Mtbailz4 years ago
Why is socialism such a dirty word in the United States. Is socialism always a bad thing?
by Charles James5 years ago
There are many millions of people who are born in poverty, live in poverty, die in poverty, and leave their children in poverty. Getting out of poverty by individual effort is theoretically possible, and there are...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.