Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Hoosier8, Mar 7, 2019.
Often you hear that we should be more like Sweden. Take a look at Sweden now.
Sweden was never socialist. It was social democratic, by definition a form of capitalism. Given the fellow cannot get the basics right, perhaps improve the quality of your sources?
This is the third time in the last few years this exact thread was re-hashed. Every time it has to be pointed out that Sweden's form of government is a mixture of socialist programs and capitalist business. This video is a failure.
Sweden has a big welfare state, funded by Swedes' free market practices, not their socialist ones. In the 1970s and 1980s Sweden had something that resembled socialism: a big government that taxed and spent heavily. Even socialistic Swedes complained about the high taxes.
And their debt to GDP ratio is less than half that of the US. So if they are a failure, how does that reflect on US government failures.
If you have money you have good health care if you don't have money tough ****!!!Here in the good old USA.
Call em what you will. The results are the same
Should have learned better skills, then you could buy your own instead of wanting me to buy my own, and yours
Neat example of the binary favoured by the right wing.
You think nomenclature changes something?
It never resembled socialism. It was social democracy. Given that's a form of capitalism, its inconsistent with socialism. They are mutually exclusive, by definition.
There is some relatively interesting debate over the distinction between social and liberal democracy. Ultimately it comes down to the level of poverty which is consistent with stability in the capitalist paradigm. That impacts on institutions at all levels. For example, high poverty countries- other things equal- tend to be more reliant on owner occupancy and knock on effects for a financial sector.
Ok, social democracy ruined them.
Thanks for that
You've been very consistent in saying nothing. Its a talent in a way.
But Sweden guaranteed Positive Rights to everyone. The right to
-- medical care
of reasonable quality was given to everyone.
That is a great step forward for Humankind.
Their socialism has resulted in very low home ownership rates, low automobile ownership, and the invasion of Muslims who rape their women for them. Doesn't sound so great to me....
Sweden has higher home ownership rates than the USA,Sweden 70.6%,USA 64.5%
Existence guarantees all three to everyone. You could literally buy just about any piece of arable land in the world and easily build your own home, grow your own food, and provide for your own medical needs with very little effort.
Not really. Many people have disabilities.
Sweden is listed as the 18th wealthiest country in the world.
First off one of the finest craftsmen I know only has two fingers, but damn can he make a knife.
Much more importantly labor is valuable based on productivity, and technology has vastly expanded the opportunities available to the disabled
Being "free" to pay someone for permission to access economic opportunity is not the same as actually having a liberty right to access economic opportunity.
Labor is not valued based on productivity, but on its productivity on marginal land, because all the rest of production is taken in land rent. That is why wages have stagnated while productivity and land value have both soared.
How does one have to pay others for economic opportunity?
Are you referring to education?
Wages have stagnated because the human population has artificially increased, significantly reducing the demand for labor while increasing it's supply. The value of land has soared because government has manipulated and obstructed free markets.
I didn't realize there was such a boom in artificial insemination. Please tell us more.
Stagnant wages, in a capitalist society, signal a surplus population, and a glut of labor. Under a capitalist system, the natural response to stagnant wages is lower birth rates.
Separate names with a comma.