Could libertarians please help me understand this?

I'm very capitalistic myself and I mostly agree with authors like Ayn Rand, however in the real world I see a pattern - the top countries from this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) and all of them have 25% - 30% corporate taxes or higher and income taxes that go to almost 50% for high incomers. They also have some pretty strong social policy and a lot of public spending. How is it that these countries are thriving, instead of the countries with low taxes? I mean I live in Bulgaria - there is a flat 10% tax here and that's it, even if you make trillions you only pay 10%. Why isn't this super-capitalistic country suddenly experiencing an economic boom? Instead, businesses in my country keep failing. Or am I making the wrong connections? I'd really like to hear the opinion of more educated libertarians please.

 

Libertarianism is merely an excuse for rich people to exploit the poor - hence, long term decay.

 

Well I'd hardly say the US is thriving at the moment, but basically, public spending results in strong infrastructure and high social mobility, both of which are very good for economies. Libertarians are wrong, and Ayn Rand was an idiot. You think nothing matters but your own rational self interest? Fine. It's in your own, personal best interest to support progressive economic policies because they're the only thing that will get us through the next few decades of technological progress without a complete societal collapse.

 

Ayn Rand was a joke - she spent the last years of her life sponging welfare of the system she so despised. lol

 

That the rich countries are now thriving is not because they have high corporate taxes, but the reverse. They have high corporate taxes, because they are thriving. Even with these extra taxes, it's still more profitable to be in these countries rather than say bulgaria because there's more capital, better educated workforce, better infrastructure, and a bigger market, etc. Then there's that economic freedom isn't only about corporate taxes, but a whole set of other things also, and on average, Bulgaria is still less economically free than the west. Have a look at the 2014 index of economic freedom to see the details of that.

 

They aren't thriving. Most are facing high unemployment rates generally higher than in the US especially among the young although we are thanks to Obama's policies catching up fast.

It's not how many businesses that fail, start ups always fail at a fairly high rate but how many new ones are being created. And remember at ten percent of you make trillions your tax bill is billions. HIgh tax rates make it harder to accumulate wealth and harder for start ups to succeed. And remember the social welfare states of the West were built on the backs of prolonged periods of capitalist enterprise without which their very existence would not be possible.

 

Typically corruption, and regulations which stifle economic growth. The Index of Economic Freedom can give you a good idea of what goes on a country by country basis. Taxes are only one factor, and perhaps not the most important.

http://www.heritage.org/index/

 

Considering that the money was taken from her forcibly, it's not sponging. She's taking back what rightfully belong to her.

 

Wait...so according to http://www.heritage.org/index/ Bulgaria is closer to fascism than anything?

 

No. It's a pay as you go system. No amount of rationalization can change the fact that the benefits she collected were paid for with other people's taxes.

 

I'm sorry, but your assertion that most of the countries at the top of the GDP list are experiencing high unemployment and not thriving is simply wrong.

 

I always see leftist running their beaks about this. You can always ask them if Rand had a option to op out of social security and medicare, and yet chose to take benefits anyway, then just watch their argument go down in flames.

 

No but it is hypocritical.

I complain about something then use it? NO out of principal I DO NOT use it.

 

A country that produces a lot of wealth can afford mass taxation and large government expenditures. A poor nation cannot.

 

Swedish guy answered this perfectly even though he doesnt realize it,

The work force is better education thanks to Socialist free education for everyone and not just wealthy elites as the Capitalists want it to be, there is better infrastructure precisely because the government has higher taxes therefore has more money to spend on the infrastructure rather than stuffing the money in their pocket like a CEO of a business does. The Market is bigger because we have regulations that keep monopolies from forming and taking everything over, there is more Capital because our workers have decent social benefits so they work harder.

Essentially, Sociailsm is a way to safeguard the economy and help propel it, whereas Capitalism is a way for the rich to siphon money from the poor and become billionaires while everyone else works for a few dollars an hour doing the labor of a rich fat cat who doesnt even work.

 

I was very aware, and still is, that I answered the OP with my post..

Perhaps it is unknown to you, but public education was something liberals pushed for in the 19th century. Capitalists are not opposed to public education. What a capitalist might say though, is that it's better done by private rather than state schools, but they'll still want the government to pay for education via vouchers. Even Milton Friedman, the uber capitalist, supported school vouchers (very adamantly I might add). i.e., that is a strawman: capitalists are not opposed to public education. And capitalism isn't opposed to spending on infrastructure either. They are not even necessarily opposed to a welfare state even. It seems to me you are confusing capitalism with anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism or something. And i'll just point out, that public education and infrastructure aren't by any very meaningful definition socialist.

 

No, because socialism requires you to be omniscient in order for it to work. No one is, so it doesn't work. Ask Venezuela.

 

When the State interferes with the economy, that is Socialism. Anarcho-Capitalism is true Capitalism, school vouchers are a subsidy, subsidies are Socialist. When the government intefres with the economy to help the poor, that is Socialism, when they interfere to help the rich, that is Fascism. You are the one confusing Socialism with Capitalism, likely because you live in a Socialist country and have no choice but to admit that free schooling and free healthcare is good for society. You really think public schools is Capitalist? What a load of (*)(*)(*)(*). Milton Friedman is not a anarcho-capitalist.

 

"Anecdotal evidence:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Confirmation bias and Cherry picking (fallacy)

The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[1][2] Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a generalized claim"

How does it require us to be omniscient? How deep did you have to reach in your ass to pull that one out?

 

Like most trolls, you have no clue what fascism is.

 

Eh, no. It is not. Where did you get that ridiculous notion from, seriously?

For christ's sake... no, no, no. Anarcho-capitalists are anarchists (duh!), and in case you don't know anarchist means that you want to abolish the state. Capitalists are not anarchists. Capitalists just want a free market. Most capitalists are in favour of government.

No, subsidies are not inherently socialist. As I've said, capitalist liberals have supported public education since the 19th century. You are confusing capitalism and anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is opposed to public education, capitalism is not.

No, and no. Socialism is an economic system in which there is social ownership of the means of production and a collective management of the economy. Fascism is a kind of nationalism with no inherent economic philosophy other than to do what is best for "the nation".

Our means of production are in private hands and our economy is not controlled by the state. We do have a large welfare state, but our economy is very free. That's not a socialist country, it's a capitalist one with socialist elements. A mixed economy. And for your information, Sweden is actually starting to provide its welfare in a manner which capitalists like: via vouchers. Schools, healthcare and elderly care are now being provided by the market, and the state gives vouchers.

No he is not, but he is a capitalist. Seriously, where did you get this collection of utterly ridiculous and just plainly wrong notions? It's almost as if you intentionally tried to be as wrong as possible on everything!

 

What is Fascism than?

 

If the means of production are collectively owned, then the only way for things to be done efficiently, on time and in sufficient quantity is for everyone to somehow know what everyone needs AND for everyone to actually CARE. Without profit incentives or prices, how the hell do you propose anyone do that? Again, you'd have to be omniscient.

This is old stuff, I can't believe I have to even bring it up. Socialism has been debunked for decades and that fact anyone still thinks it can work in this day and age is hilarious.

 

Anarcho-Capitalism is not Anarchy lol, Anarcho-Capitalists still believe in the State, just not when it comes to interfering with the economy. Laissez-faire Capitalism is true Capitalism there is absolutely no question about that, when you say "Capitalism" what you are clearly referring to is a Mixed Economy, which you yourself mentioned. You pretend that interfering with the economy is still Capitalist in nature, it is not, its very Socialist in nature, how do you not see this? I think it really has to do with the fact you live in a very Socialist country, you see the beauty of Socialism but you are under the false impression what you are seeing is Capitalism, its not, its Socialism and the Swedish openly admit this, they also dont hide their Socialism with Liberalism, they admit they are Socialist, you on the other hand do not. The fact you dont think Sweden is Socialist shows you dont know what Socialism is, you are stuck on this one line definition from wikipedia about "controlling the means of production" there is a lot more to Socialism than just that. Even with that definition, Sweden is still Socialist because although they may not COMPLETELY control the means of production, surely they do have some medium of control when it comes to production, they have safety laws surely for their workers, that is a means of controlling production that Socialists love, they have a minimum wage which is another way of controlling the means of production, they have subsidies the whole 9 yards, all of these things are small ways of controlling the means of production, you pretend if the entire private industry is not Nationalized therefore it cant possibly be Socialism. You are trying to give credit to Capitalism for Socialism's success's, its blatantly obvious and all right wingers do it.

Again, laissez-faire Capitalism is true Capitalism just look at a history book. When you speak of "Capitalism" you are speaking of a mixed economy, plain and simple.

 

Look at Sweden Norway and Denmark, they are doing better than us. A lot better than us. Look at even the Rule of Law index,
http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/

Denmark is number one, Norway number two, Sweden number 3. All three of these countries are openly socialist, and all three take up the top 3 spots for the rule of law index in the entire world. I thought Socialism leads to the murder of millions and authoritarianism? Well, not in Scandinavia I suppose

Feel free to look up their ranking in education, healthcare, prison recidivism rates, all of these things they literally are on the top 5 list in the whole world, yet they are extremely Socialist and admit it.

You know child labor laws were fought for by Marxists and Socialists right? Are you against child labor laws because "Socialism has been debunked"? What about minimum wage and public schooling? That is very socialist, should those also be abolished because "Socialism has been debunked"?