Swedish Economist Schools Sanders On The Ravages Of Socialism

OK, fine. You came up with your asinine argument all by yourself. Good job.

 

I dissected this argument in this thread: Why the U.S. spends more money for worse outcomes

Anyway, overall outcomes have been deteriorating in Sweden right now because they've taken in so many poor people.
So we're seeing the hallmarks of your socialist dream being undone before your eyes.

Another thing: They've already had to shut down several hospitals and old people homes in more rural areas, due to lack of enough funds. Police forces are being cut (or in many cases completely dismantled altogether) in the rural areas to move them to the urban areas where crime rates have been on a speedy increase.

Sweden 30 years ago is maybe what an all-white area of Minnesota would have looked like.

 

Where is your credible evidence that capitalism only works with low tax rates?

 

Wrong!

Sweden is the 3rd ranked arms exporter in the world per capita.

Sweden's arms industry is ranked at #11 worldwide.

 

Complete and utter FAILURE to substantiate your bogus allegation duly noted for the record.

 

Where is your credible source for your allegations?

 

And why do you suppose the Germans loved Hitler until he was in wars. The man operated as a Socialist He was every bit the Socialist that Sanders admits he is.

Germans adored Hitler due to the fact that prior to him, they starved and had no jobs. Hitler fed them and handed them jobs. FDR so admired it he did the same thing to America. WE still have FDR brand of socialism yet Democrats demand it. We are not blind Democrats. Trust us, we see clearly.

 

Duh, history. It was progressives that instituted the tax on labor to begin with. Before that America became the powerhouse it is. Taxes destroy growth. Just ask Sweden that almost killed their economy with high taxes and socialist wet dreams. Venezuela is a great example of the socialist wet dream.

 

Why the hell does Deridio defend Socialism and challenge severely capitalism?

 

Best guess. Someone wants free stuff they don't have to work for.

 

In other words you have ZERO factual substantiation for your completely BOGUS allegation.

 

OMG, you really have no clue of American history. Not surprised. I suppose you have never heard of President Wilson.

 

And he countered you with no credible argument Not one fact has been offered to rebut your statements.

 

Par for the course.

 

Blathering still does not support your asinine allegation.

 

And how does this negate my point that they will have to pay for their own defense when the US pulls out of the EU? They make arms and sell them, that's not the same as keeping them (cut in revenue) and having the military to ward off would be invaders (another cost). But hey, if you thinking making and selling arms is going to keep a force as big as Russia from over running your country, then you still agree with my position that the US needs to pull its troops back home.

 

To compare Sweden to Hitler is absolutely disgusting

 

I get it. You don’t like facts.

 

Obviously you are subject matter challenged when it comes to Sweden and her military capabilities.

One third of all Swedes are fit for service and they have conscription. It is an exceptionally difficult nation to invade and relatively easy to defend. The USSR found that out the hard way when they invaded Finland.

 

Ironic projection given that you didn't post any credible substantiated facts!

 

The population of Sweden is 9.9 million. Russia is 144 million. Russia going in full force, with their full army and Navy and Air Force is going to be stopped by a population 1/10th their size if Russia did it without holding back? But I see where your reference to 1939 Finish attack makes sense today.

 

Interesting. Between 1860 and 1910 Sweden experienced massive depopulation. About 1 in 4 Swedes left to seek better opportunities elsewhere during this time, many to America, but also some to Canada, Argentina and Australia.

Could there be a connection between this sudden depopulation and later prosperity?
Maybe fewer workers pushed up wages and led to a positive feedback cycle?

Conversely, the Great Depression in the United States was preceded by four decades of massive immigration.

 

And for dunces, let them know that "Socialism" exists presently NOWHERE ON EARTH (except perhaps North Korea).

Socialism is a political mechanism that calls for the state ownership of the means of production and distribution. Today, the developed nations live in a market-economy the foundational basis of which is the private-ownership of capitalism. (Often mixed with state-ownership for social-services that some countries consider primordial to an adequate existence.)

In fact, what exists today is the dichotomy between the US and the EU, with only the latter calling itself a Social Democracy, the definition of which is this:

The US is NOT a social-democracy. And, as such, it has the most unfair distribution of wealth in terms of the Gini Index* of any supposedly modern nation..

So, stop sputtering in an Economics debate-column! Go take a course in the subject ... !

*Here's the list of the countries with the highest wealth inequality, according to the Allianz report.

• U.S.A. — 80.56.
• Sweden — 79.90.
• U.K. — 75.72.
• Indonesia — 73.61.
• Austria — 73.59.
• Germany — 73.34.
• Colombia — 73.18.
• Chile — 73.17

 

Hitler was no socialist - so cut the crapola.

He rebuilt his nation by shutting off any war reparations by Germany to both France and the UK, which occurred in one of the worst economic times in Europe, the 1920s and 1930 (that led ultimately to the Great Depresion in the US.).

Period.

As I said above, the period in which Hitler came to power was one in which severe punishment was meted out to Germany by the victors of WW2 in terms of war reparations.

He was no "socialist", so get that out of your mind. His Nazional Sozialismus was uniquely Germanic in nature. For your edification, read here: National Socialism.

Absurd!

You may not be a "blind Democrat" (whatever that means), but your understanding of historical-reference is wildly unreasonable...

So, stop baiting the forum with your unacceptable nonsense ... !

 

What a pile of pedantic nonsense!

Yours is an over-exaggeration of a reaction to massive migration that Sweden almost uniquely accepted in response to the middle-east crisis.

Sweden has been by far the most accommodating of EU countries towards the migration. And people who have no understanding whatsoever of the foundational problematic, like you, belittle its efforts.

Shame on you ... !