socialism doesn't seem to be balanced

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Why do the more socialist countries have a better quality of life than the US despite being poorer?

Is it really a better quality of life when the government dictates to you everything.

What percentage of Americans emigrate to the socialist countries vs what percentage immigrate from the socialist countries?

That is the better barometer?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Why have nearly all the communistic economies disappeared from 30-40 years ago.
That is a fallacious argument, a false dichotomy suggesting the only two options are Communism or unbridled capitalism with extreme concentration of wealth in a relative handful of people. The simple fact is there is a sweet spot in the middle, where the wealthy still have fabulous wealth, yet the working class get a generous share of the success and ever-growing economy they help to build. (Unlike the current situation where virtually all of the growth we've seen over the last 30 years has gone to the elite few while the working class has seen their earnings stagnate.)

We had that balance in the decades after WWII and America saw unprecedented prosperity, becoming the most successful country the world had ever seen. It is truly unconscionable that so many pawns have been duped into sacrificing that historic success for the benefit of those elite few, that they have been brainwashed into voting against the American dream by one of the most successful -- and most cynical -- marketing campaigns ever conceived, brimming with emotionally loaded, carefully researched phrases like "welfare queen," "punishing success," "death tax," "death panels," and "job creators." They've proved Barnum was right and that some suckers can indeed be fooled all of the time.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
So maybe those that are leeches should understand the pain of having someone reaching into your wallet without permission.

Let the pickpockets have the tables turned on them.
That's a nice talking point, but many of society's biggest "leeches" are the same people who have the deepest pockets. They've been pickpocketing the American working class for 30 years, in the biggest wealth transfer scam America has ever seen. The data is inarguable; the result has been a huge shift in wealth concentration from the working class into the pockets of an elite few.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,455
5
81
It looks like you just made up a plan without any looking into it.

Fact is, for a flat tax to be revenue neutral, it needs to be about 30%+.

And any 'flat tax' plan is going to shift taxes off the ultra rich onto people who don't have as much, period.
And? Why are these "ultra rich" being depended on for the stability of our economic system? Why is everyone who is sharing in living the American dream not contributing "their fair share"? That's what annoys me about Bobo..... he uses that line making it sound like the rich are a lower class of citizen.

The poor pays xx%, the rich pay xx% and the "ultra rich" pay xx%. Everyone pays the same rate, but naturally since the rich earn more, they pay more.

There are all kinds of studies that have been done. Common sense would suggest why the ultra rich are the ones pushing it.
I'm by no means ultra rich, but it sounds more "fair" to me that we not pile our economic woes on the rich because we can't stop spending.

Like i said, the numbers i produced for the examples were for simplicity and aren't based on real world data.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Is it really a better quality of life when the government dictates to you everything.

They don't. You are deluded. More liberal government makes you better off economically.

What percentage of Americans emigrate to the socialist countries vs what percentage immigrate from the socialist countries?

That is the better barometer?

Let's clear that up a bit.

Sweden is a more 'socialist' country, as is Europe generally. Bigger safety net, etc.

Funny, they don't seem to have a huge migrate to the US rate.

Other countries are worse off not because they might have a left-wing government but for other reasons - a long history of colonization, for example.

So if you take a poor country that's horrible run by a right-wing dictator, and it's then better off because they get rid of the dictator and have a left-wing government, it might be a lot better off - but still a lot poorer than first-world countries like the US or Europe, with plenty of people who would like to migrate under either system.

Now if we're not talking a 'socialist government', but we're talking, say, the old Soviet bloc, that was a poorer, authoritarian regime that was *communist* - and many would like to leave it. They had to build the wall in Germany to keep their people in, a big embarrassment about how things were there. That's not about a 'socialist government' any more than people wanting to leave Nazi Germany were about 'capitalist government'.

The issues facing the US aren't about what you think they are - you would oppose the changed FDR made that helped the middle class do better also.

Opposing monopoly, opposing excessive concentration of wealth with robber barons and mass poverty, supporting a safety net - these are against the far right, they are more 'socialist' and they are good for the American people, not some Soviet system that the left opposes as much as if not more than the right.

'Hey, let's cut taxes on the top 1% and shift them onto everyone else.' 'Hey, lets cut taxes on the top 1% again.' 'Hey, let's cut taxes on the top 1% again'.

By doing so, let's run up the public debt, let's cut the government that's for the benefit of the citizens, nice idea. That's a right-wing approach bad for the people.

The fact the US is the biggest economy in the world and a good enough standard of living helps give it a low rate of people leaving whatever government it has, left or right. In the Great Depression, I don't recall there being a very high rate of Americans leaving for other countries. So that's not a measure - and your point is undone by the more socialist European countries not having many people who leave either.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
That is a fallacious argument, a false dichotomy suggesting the only two options are Communism or unbridled capitalism with extreme concentration of wealth in a relative handful of people. The simple fact is there is a sweet spot in the middle, where the wealthy still have fabulous wealth, yet the working class get a generous share of the success and ever-growing economy they help to build. (Unlike the current situation where virtually all of the growth we've seen over the last 30 years has gone to the elite few while the working class has seen their earnings stagnate.)

We had that balance in the decades after WWII and America saw unprecedented prosperity, becoming the most successful country the world had ever seen. It is truly unconscionable that so many pawns have been duped into sacrificing that historic success for the benefit of those elite few, that they have been brainwashed into voting against the American dream by one of the most successful -- and most cynical -- marketing campaigns ever conceived, brimming with emotionally loaded, carefully researched phrases like "welfare queen," "punishing success," "death tax," "death panels," and "job creators." They've proved Barnum was right and that some suckers can indeed be fooled all of the time.

Much of the post WW2 glory is due to the population explosion triggered by its end along with a developed war time economy being dumped onto the public consumers which allowed many thinngs to be mamsked for decades. Notice that many of the problems we have now are due to the legislation of the progressive governments that existed for much of the first half of that century.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Are you conservatives happy with the direction of America since Reaganite thinking took over?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Are you conservatives happy with the direction of America since Reaganite thinking took over?

We should ask more specifically:

Are they happy with the skyrocketing of debt - private even more than public?

Are they happy with the increase in lobbyists from 800 when Reagan took office to 36,000?

Are they happy with Wall Street becoming a far larger part of the American economy, adding non-productive wealth-extracting activities draining up to 40% of all US profits?

Are they happy with the private sector's moving so much American employment and capital overseas where they make more money, but the American people are harmed?

Are they happy with the destruction of the middle class, while the top 1% have taken 80% of all new wealth since Reagan was elected?
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
They are definitely happy with the destruction of the middle class. Helps bust the unions.