Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Norway has a 3% unemployment rate and does well in all of the indexes that measure happiness and well being. The country is run by socialists.
Norway has oil wealth and has been blessed with leadership in recent years that has not squandered it. But according to this it has nothing to do with socialism (or capitalism) Norway Thrives by Going Against the Tide - NYTimes.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Times
Norway’s relative frugality stands in stark contrast to Britain, which spent most of its North Sea oil revenue — and more — during the boom years. Government spending rose to 47 percent of G.D.P., from 42 percent in 2003. By comparison, public spending in Norway fell to 40 percent from 48 percent of G.D.P.
“The U.S. and the U.K. have no sense of guilt,” said Anders Aslund, an expert on Scandinavia at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “But in Norway, there is instead a sense of virtue. If you are given a lot, you have a responsibility.”
Perhaps more likely the lingering influence of Lutheranism.
It is an economic system whereby the means of production is owned and controlled by those that produce.....common ownership of the means of production. The objective of socialism is the greatest economic good of the greatest number. Those that produce have a greater share of what they produce.
Just so you know the difference...
Communism is state capitalism, in which the means of production are owned and controlled by 'the state'. Goods are produced for 'the state' and then distributed by 'the state' according to ones needs.
Um, no. Those are actually not what socialism and communism are.
Too many social programs created in good times with borrowed money. You can't continue doing that. It's an illusion of wealth. Sooner or later you have to pay for your spending.
That statement is factually incorrect. The largest social programs were Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Social Security and Medicare are self-funded. Social Security has not contributed one dime to the debt. Medicaid was paid by taxes.
What you need to consider is that prior to Reagan, the federal government really didn't run significant deficits, except in times of war. So to exclaim that "social programs created in good times with borrowed money," is just not true.
Norway has oil wealth and has been blessed with leadership in recent years that has not squandered it. But according to this it has nothing to do with socialism (or capitalism) Norway Thrives by Going Against the Tide - NYTimes.com
Perhaps more likely the lingering influence of Lutheranism.
Also from that NYT article:
Quote:
Just around the corner from Norway’s central bank, for instance, Paul Bruum takes a needle full of amphetamines and jabs it into his muscular arm. His scabs and sores betray many years as a heroin addict. He says that the $1,500 he gets from the government each month is enough to keep him well-fed and supplied with drugs.
Mr. Bruum, 32, says he has never had a job, and he admits he is no position to find one. “I don’t blame anyone,” he said. “The Norwegian government has provided for me the best they can.”
Norway has one of the strongest social safety nets anywhere. Medical coverage is government provided as is generous unemployment benefits.
Complain about the rich getting rich is something new? Perhaps you missed the labor movement and populist movements of the 1930s. To state that nobody complained about this inequality is true denial. I need only quote Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1936 Speech at the 1936 Democratic convention to disprove your assertion:
Of course the socialists always come out in hard times to incite the mob. But before the market crash, no one was complaining. When people have jobs, no one complains.
The point is socialism doesn't work. If one person works harder and takes more risks, is more inventive, is he is not entitled to anything more than the person waiting for his government cheque?
Actually no. I would say that most of the wealth in America belonging to the top 1% of America is greed. Especially since most of that wealth is tax payer money and the result of crooked politicians.
Also, socialism has never truly been explored. It's always been mixed in with another system and those systems are usually controlled by tyrannical government.
Someone mentioned China earlier, and I'd have to say that the Chinese system is the best I can think of as well. In modern times, if people in China were granted more social freedoms and individual rights it would be the most popular place to live on earth. The majority of the population went from being impoverished to owning MacBooks and iPhones.
Where do you get the idea it is tax payer money? The bonuses which make up the lions share of their compensation are investor monies. Company profits go to dividends. The bonuses are all capital gains.
Where do you get the idea it is tax payer money? The bonuses which make up the lions share of their compensation are investor monies. Company profits go to dividends. The bonuses are all capital gains.
I believe he was considering that we have a system in the U.S. of privatizing profits and socializing loses. When times are good, business is all too happy to claim that they are entitled to low taxes on their profits. But when these firms are in trouble, the run to the government with hat in hand.
Norway has a 3% unemployment rate and does well in all of the indexes that measure happiness and well being. The country is run by socialists.
3% unemployment tells you why they are happy, not the country is run by socialists. And it is 3% because they can trade with the capitalist countries. Just like China owes its growth to trading with the U.S. and Europe. Without the U.S. and Europe, there would be no jobs. So what's the lesson to be learned here? That socialism can not exist without Capitalism.
Of course the socialists always come out in hard times to incite the mob. But before the market crash, no one was complaining. When people have jobs, no one complains.
The point is socialism doesn't work. If one person works harder and takes more risks, is more inventive, is he is not entitled to anything more than the person waiting for his government cheque?
You keep running back to Socialism accusations.
High tax rates on income is not Socialism. The means of production still belong to the private party.
In any case, income inequality was narrowed in the middle of the 20th Century. Tax rates on income were raised and funded social programs were put in place. As a result we had a growing middle-class and a more equitable society with shared prosperity, partly because strong unions, a high minimum wage, and a progressive tax system helped limit inequality.
I don't think that's a bad thing nor do I call it Socialism. But if a growing middle-class -- where most Americans can own their own home and afford to send their children to college, is Socialism, viva le socialisme!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
