By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Should guns be outlawed in America?

Kudistos Megistos on 31 January 2012

Andrespetmonkey said:

Hmm maybe it depends on the criteria of which it's based, this is what I saw:

Looking at the methodology for this, it's very heavily biased in favour of socialist systems, even moreso than the HDI, and it takes into account the particular strengths of the Scandinavian nations wilst ignoring the particular strengths of the US.

And I honestly can't take seriously any quality of life index that puts Britain ahead of the US.

These aren't just wild guesses...

Transparency International commissioned Johann Graf Lambsdorff of the University of Passau to produce the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI).[4] The 2010 CPI draws on 13 different surveys and assessments from 10 independent institutions.[5] The institutions are the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Bertelsmann Foundation, the Economist Intelligence Unit, Freedom House, Global Insight, International Institute for Management Development, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, the World Economic Forum, and the World Bank.[6] The 13 surveys/assessments are either business people opinion surveys or performance assessments from a group of analysts.[2] Early CPIs used public opinion surveys. Countries must be assessed by at least three sources to appear in the CPI.[7]

That's still very opnion-based, so it probably tells us more about how cynical people are than how corrupt their governments actually are. Most Anglo-Saxons automatically assume (quite rightly) that all politicians are corrupt, so of course they'll do badly.

 

If this has anything to with me, I'm not using these countries as a "poster-boy" in any way. If you go back and see my first post about them all I was saying is that they seem to be doing very well with a socialist system in place, that's it.

Well, some people do it, and it really grinds my gears. They don't take into account the natural advantages some countries have over others and they tend to look at the worst aspects of some palces whilst ignoring the bad things about others. People who think Sweden is so great might change their minds if they knew about the crippling affect their tax rates had on businesses and the self-employed. Often, ironically, the countries that get the worst PR are the ones that are the most open and self-critical.

And here's a fun fact. IKEA is, contrary to popular belief, no longer a Swedish company. Guess why they left!





Around the Network
Andrespetmonkey on 31 January 2012
Kudistos Megistos said:

Andrespetmonkey said:

 

Hmm maybe it depends on the criteria of which it's based, this is what I saw:

Looking at the methodology for this, it's very heavily biased in favour of socialist systems, even moreso than the HDI, and it takes into account the particular strengths of the Scandinavian nations wilst ignoring the particular strengths of the US.

And I honestly can't take seriously any quality of life index that puts Britain ahead of the US.

These aren't just wild guesses...

Transparency International commissioned Johann Graf Lambsdorff of the University of Passau to produce the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI).[4] The 2010 CPI draws on 13 different surveys and assessments from 10 independent institutions.[5] The institutions are the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Bertelsmann Foundation, the Economist Intelligence Unit, Freedom House, Global Insight, International Institute for Management Development, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, the World Economic Forum, and the World Bank.[6] The 13 surveys/assessments are either business people opinion surveys or performance assessments from a group of analysts.[2] Early CPIs used public opinion surveys. Countries must be assessed by at least three sources to appear in the CPI.[7]

That's still very opnion-based, so it probably tells us more about how cynical people are than how corrupt their governments actually are. Most Anglo-Saxons automatically assume (quite rightly) that all politicians are corrupt, so of course they'll do badly.

 

If this has anything to with me, I'm not using these countries as a "poster-boy" in any way. If you go back and see my first post about them all I was saying is that they seem to be doing very well with a socialist system in place, that's it.

Well, some people do it, and it really grinds my gears. They don't take into account the natural advantages some countries have over others and they tend to look at the worst aspects of some palces whilst ignoring the bad things about others. People who think Sweden is so great might change their minds if they knew about the crippling affect their tax rates had on businesses and the self-employed. Often, ironically, the countries that get the worst PR are the ones that are the most open and self-critical.

And here's a fun fact. IKEA is, contrary to popular belief, no longer a Swedish company. Guess why they left!

 



Well, thanks for the education I guess. I need to learn to not get so defensive :/



My Music

Marks on 31 January 2012
SamuelRSmith said:
I dislike Scandinavia being used as a poster boy for socialism for multiple reasons.

1) Most of Sweden's largest and richest companies were founded before the socialist party ever existed. Ikea and Volvo (perhaps Sweden's two most famous brands) certainly were, and Sweden was unregulated capitalism, back then.

2) Scandinavia is an extremely resource-rich region, with small, indigenous populations who have a (stereotypically) strong work ethic. What part of the world wouldn't do well with these circumstances?

3) Scandinavia is an extremely "safe" region. Very little war, or natural disasters have plagued the countries. They are also surrounded by extremely affluent and friendly neighbours with great trade policies between them.

What region or country wouldn't do well with the above circumstances? Capitalistic or socialistic? It's a shame that no other region in the world has similar circumstances, but with a far more capitalistic society. I'd argue that the capitalistic version would probably be far better off than Scandinavia.


True, very true. Good post dude.