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

Forums - General - All financial institutions to be run by the federal government.

HappySqurriel on 17 June 2009
ManusJustus said:
HappySqurriel said:

There is some truth to the statment that American's can learn about social programs from Canada ...

The first lesson that should be learned (but won't) is that the higher the level of involvement of a higher level of government the lower the quality and greater the expense of a social program is. The best programs are (almost) exclusively managed locally and supervised by the city or province with little or no involvement of the federal government.

I agree with that, but I would like to add that problems with scale (Beurocracy) isnt just a problem for the government.  If you have issues with a private business, you will have a much more difficult time dealing with Wal-Mart than you will with a small business owner.  Wal-Mart screwed me over a few Christmases ago and I was forced to wait a couple of months for a misplaced gift, and even companies with decent customer service, like Microsoft, made me wait a few days for an issue I had with Microsoft points to be resolved.  However, if you have an issue with a small business owner, it can be settled in no time.

There is also the reality that many small independant systems are more likely to make a variety of different choices in how to implement something, and from learning from the good and bad decisions made all systems can iterate towards being higher quality at lower cost.



Around the Network
Avinash_Tyagi on 17 June 2009
Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:

 

 

 

Remember .995 and .991 are aggregates of multiple measures Kaz, including GDP per capita, so yeah its probably a substantial difference.

 Actually no, that's not true, many of these countries have comparision figurres from where they were before the implementation of welfare and similar social programs to where they are now, and the values of poverty for example have gone down.

Even other european nations like france outstrip US in those measures KAZ, as does Canada and Japan, so even countries that can't copy the Swiss or the Norweigians manage to do a better job of supplying a standadrd of living than the US.

I'm not fixed in my viewpoints, its just that I haven't seen anything from you or anyone else that shows my view is wrong.  I've pointed out many examples where government interevention does not harm a nation and in fact in many ways helps.

Maybe the US can't copy Denmark, but what about Canada?  Canada's HDI figures is quite high and their GDP per capita PPP isn't that far below the US's they also have more robust social programs than the US.

Not all the countries with robust social programs and strong standards of living are so heavily different than the US, even the US has an economy almost 70% service based,most of the nations we've been discussing are in that range as well, around 70% service based

Only in some measures I'm sure.

Things like unemployment and econimic growth have shrunk.

You are talking about an improvement for a small part of the population, with a decrease for the rest of the population... WITH a decrease in responsibility for those people who have received the increase.  That's basically what your talking about when you talk about with your measures.

The thing is... socialized saftey nets DOESN'T work for most nations that well... hence why countries like France are desperetly trying to copy countries like Denmark. The bigger a country gets the more and more unwileldy and unworkable socialised saftey nets are.

You keep harping on the idea that socialized safety nets harm economic growth and employment and that big countries can't do it, but you are wrong, currently US has an unemplyment rate of 9.4%, france has an unemployment rate of around 8.7%, the eurozone has an unemployment rate of 9.2%, so where are the employment gains from our current system?  On the other hand poverty has fallen in many of those nations by over 20% due to the implementation of the Welfare state, France has had a reduction of around 26% poverty, and their poverty rate is much less than ours. And while their GDP per capita is less, they have a higher life expectancy and higher HDI, so you're way off base if you're saying that the reductions in economic growth and employkent ae that great, heck right now they have better employment than we do.

Also you keep harping on size, but you forget the EU is far larger than the US, about twice the population and most nations in the EU have socialized safety nets that work quite well.

 



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

TheRealMafoo on 17 June 2009
NJ5 said:
Mafoo is a conservative idealist who is very far removed from reality. It's not the first time I see him wanting to portray government-provided services as "slavery", which really cracks me up.

Ok, so if we were a country of 2 people. (you and me), and I made $10 and hour, and you made $20. A service we wanted for our country cost $2000 each (let's say health care).

If I "taxed" you $3000 for this service, and I was "taxed" $1000, I would have to work 100 hours to pay for it, and you would have to work 150 (50 of those so I could have health care).

How is forcing you to work 50 hours for my benefit not slavery?



Avinash_Tyagi on 17 June 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
NJ5 said:
Mafoo is a conservative idealist who is very far removed from reality. It's not the first time I see him wanting to portray government-provided services as "slavery", which really cracks me up.

Ok, so if we were a country of 2 people. (you and me), and I made $10 and hour, and you made $20. A service we wanted for our country cost $2000 each (let's say health care).

If I "taxed" you $3000 for this service, and I was "taxed" $1000, I would have to work 100 hours to pay for it, and you would have to work 150 (50 of those so I could have health care).

How is forcing you to work 50 hours for my benefit not slavery?


Well actually by merely taxing the $20 wage earner $2670 and the $10 wage earner $1330 would result in both worker working about 133 hours to pay for the service, an equitable result



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

HappySqurriel on 17 June 2009
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:

 

 

 

Remember .995 and .991 are aggregates of multiple measures Kaz, including GDP per capita, so yeah its probably a substantial difference.

 Actually no, that's not true, many of these countries have comparision figurres from where they were before the implementation of welfare and similar social programs to where they are now, and the values of poverty for example have gone down.

Even other european nations like france outstrip US in those measures KAZ, as does Canada and Japan, so even countries that can't copy the Swiss or the Norweigians manage to do a better job of supplying a standadrd of living than the US.

I'm not fixed in my viewpoints, its just that I haven't seen anything from you or anyone else that shows my view is wrong.  I've pointed out many examples where government interevention does not harm a nation and in fact in many ways helps.

Maybe the US can't copy Denmark, but what about Canada?  Canada's HDI figures is quite high and their GDP per capita PPP isn't that far below the US's they also have more robust social programs than the US.

Not all the countries with robust social programs and strong standards of living are so heavily different than the US, even the US has an economy almost 70% service based,most of the nations we've been discussing are in that range as well, around 70% service based

Only in some measures I'm sure.

Things like unemployment and econimic growth have shrunk.

You are talking about an improvement for a small part of the population, with a decrease for the rest of the population... WITH a decrease in responsibility for those people who have received the increase.  That's basically what your talking about when you talk about with your measures.

The thing is... socialized saftey nets DOESN'T work for most nations that well... hence why countries like France are desperetly trying to copy countries like Denmark. The bigger a country gets the more and more unwileldy and unworkable socialised saftey nets are.

You keep harping on the idea that socialized safety nets harm economic growth and employment and that big countries can't do it, but you are wrong, currently US has an unemplyment rate of 9.4%, france has an unemployment rate of around 8.7%, the eurozone has an unemployment rate of 9.2%, so where are the employment gains from our current system?  On the other hand poverty has fallen in many of those nations by over 20% due to the implementation of the Welfare state, France has had a reduction of around 26% poverty, and their poverty rate is much less than ours. And while their GDP per capita is less, they have a higher life expectancy and higher HDI, so you're way off base if you're saying that the reductions in economic growth and employkent ae that great, heck right now they have better employment than we do.

Also you keep harping on size, but you forget the EU is far larger than the US, about twice the population and most nations in the EU have socialized safety nets that work quite well.

 

Unemployment rates do very little to tell the whole picture on employment ...

In 2006 France's participation rate was (roughly) 70% while the United State's participation rate was (approximately) 75%, which means that (unless there has been a dramatic shift in participation rates) the US probably still has higher employment that France even with a higher unemployment rate.



Around the Network
Avinash_Tyagi on 17 June 2009
HappySqurriel said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:

 

 

 

Remember .995 and .991 are aggregates of multiple measures Kaz, including GDP per capita, so yeah its probably a substantial difference.

 Actually no, that's not true, many of these countries have comparision figurres from where they were before the implementation of welfare and similar social programs to where they are now, and the values of poverty for example have gone down.

Even other european nations like france outstrip US in those measures KAZ, as does Canada and Japan, so even countries that can't copy the Swiss or the Norweigians manage to do a better job of supplying a standadrd of living than the US.

I'm not fixed in my viewpoints, its just that I haven't seen anything from you or anyone else that shows my view is wrong.  I've pointed out many examples where government interevention does not harm a nation and in fact in many ways helps.

Maybe the US can't copy Denmark, but what about Canada?  Canada's HDI figures is quite high and their GDP per capita PPP isn't that far below the US's they also have more robust social programs than the US.

Not all the countries with robust social programs and strong standards of living are so heavily different than the US, even the US has an economy almost 70% service based,most of the nations we've been discussing are in that range as well, around 70% service based

Only in some measures I'm sure.

Things like unemployment and econimic growth have shrunk.

You are talking about an improvement for a small part of the population, with a decrease for the rest of the population... WITH a decrease in responsibility for those people who have received the increase.  That's basically what your talking about when you talk about with your measures.

The thing is... socialized saftey nets DOESN'T work for most nations that well... hence why countries like France are desperetly trying to copy countries like Denmark. The bigger a country gets the more and more unwileldy and unworkable socialised saftey nets are.

You keep harping on the idea that socialized safety nets harm economic growth and employment and that big countries can't do it, but you are wrong, currently US has an unemplyment rate of 9.4%, france has an unemployment rate of around 8.7%, the eurozone has an unemployment rate of 9.2%, so where are the employment gains from our current system?  On the other hand poverty has fallen in many of those nations by over 20% due to the implementation of the Welfare state, France has had a reduction of around 26% poverty, and their poverty rate is much less than ours. And while their GDP per capita is less, they have a higher life expectancy and higher HDI, so you're way off base if you're saying that the reductions in economic growth and employkent ae that great, heck right now they have better employment than we do.

Also you keep harping on size, but you forget the EU is far larger than the US, about twice the population and most nations in the EU have socialized safety nets that work quite well.

 

Unemployment rates do very little to tell the whole picture on employment ...

In 2006 France's participation rate was (roughly) 70% while the United State's participation rate was (approximately) 75%, which means that (unless there has been a dramatic shift in participation rates) the US probably still has higher employment that France even with a higher unemployment rate.

That's only assuming that those who aren't participating actually want to work, for all we know Squirrel those could be stay at home mothers and fathers who don't want to work, remember the social support provided in europe is better than in the US, so they may feel no need to work, and instead may prefer to take care of their children, what we do know is that of those who are actually seeking work, France and europe currently have a lower percentage unable to find work.  That kind of disrupts the argument that stronger social services results in some horrible economic condition.



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

ManusJustus on 17 June 2009
TheRealMafoo said:

How is forcing you to work 50 hours for my benefit not slavery?

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization."

It was said before, but if you dont like taxes then feel free to leave human society.



TheRealMafoo on 17 June 2009
Avinash_Tyagi said:
TheRealMafoo said:
NJ5 said:
Mafoo is a conservative idealist who is very far removed from reality. It's not the first time I see him wanting to portray government-provided services as "slavery", which really cracks me up.

Ok, so if we were a country of 2 people. (you and me), and I made $10 and hour, and you made $20. A service we wanted for our country cost $2000 each (let's say health care).

If I "taxed" you $3000 for this service, and I was "taxed" $1000, I would have to work 100 hours to pay for it, and you would have to work 150 (50 of those so I could have health care).

How is forcing you to work 50 hours for my benefit not slavery?


Well actually by merely taxing the $20 wage earner $2670 and the $10 wage earner $1330 would result in both worker working about 133 hours to pay for the service, an equitable result

So you’re for a flat tax? Perfect. We are on the same page.



TheRealMafoo on 17 June 2009
ManusJustus said:
TheRealMafoo said:

How is forcing you to work 50 hours for my benefit not slavery?

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization."

It was said before, but if you dont like taxes then feel free to leave human society.

Why do socialists always group paying taxes, and spending the money as one thing? I never said I didn’t want to pay taxes.

What they are collected for matters.



Avinash_Tyagi on 17 June 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
TheRealMafoo said:
NJ5 said:
Mafoo is a conservative idealist who is very far removed from reality. It's not the first time I see him wanting to portray government-provided services as "slavery", which really cracks me up.

Ok, so if we were a country of 2 people. (you and me), and I made $10 and hour, and you made $20. A service we wanted for our country cost $2000 each (let's say health care).

If I "taxed" you $3000 for this service, and I was "taxed" $1000, I would have to work 100 hours to pay for it, and you would have to work 150 (50 of those so I could have health care).

How is forcing you to work 50 hours for my benefit not slavery?


Well actually by merely taxing the $20 wage earner $2670 and the $10 wage earner $1330 would result in both worker working about 133 hours to pay for the service, an equitable result

So you’re for a flat tax? Perfect. We are on the same page.


No,all I'm saying is if we had a system with two people in the country we could create a tax plan which seemed fair to both, however we have hundreds of millions, and where people make 40 times more than another person, not just double, so we have a different method which is fair under our current conditions, that is by taxing the rich much higher and not taxing the poor, who can't afford it anyways.



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)