|
Post by ladytera on Nov 4, 2008 2:02:07 GMT -5
Your thoughts and opinions. First a couple general points however. There is no such thing as a pure economic system. The freest capitalist economies still require some regulation, and obviously some taxation. The most socialist economies still require some capitalist notions. Even communism, except on a very small scale, cannot be found purely. So recognize this and move past it. When dealing with primary forms, what's your preference and why? Does the type of economy a country has impact the way it is governed? How? What's good, bad or otherwise about them? Be straightforward, be nice, and most of all have fun!
|
|
Raivynn
Journeyman
...my winter storm
Posts: 187
|
Post by Raivynn on Nov 4, 2008 12:14:48 GMT -5
I live in the UK, so Socialism isn't seen as something to be feared. The NHS is not perfect, but I'm very glad it's in place.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Nov 4, 2008 15:09:54 GMT -5
What works about it there? I know that most of Europe is socialist. I have to say it's kind of an alien concept to me in all honesty, and one I doubt I'd ever agree is a "good" thing necessarily. But, as there are so many countries around the world who rely on such systems, a better understanding of what's working and what isn't and why would be much appreciated. And to show my utter ignorance, what is the NHS?
|
|
Rhovanion
Apprentice
La Danse Macabre
Posts: 53
|
Post by Rhovanion on Nov 5, 2008 7:28:37 GMT -5
I don't really have one preference over the other. I don't agree with all forms of socialism and I definitely don't agree with all forms of capitalism. But I do know, from past experience as a citizen of my country that it tends to work best with a social government. Socialism should not be confused with communism. And communism should not be confused with liberalism. Free schooling (from day care and preschool all the way up to university), free dental care for all children under the age of 20, universal health care and monthly benefits/contributions to parents/students/disabled/unemployed etc (things that socialism has established in Sweden) are not things of evil. They are of great help and comfort to all citizens of this country. Just because your surgeries are paid for by the government doesn't mean you'll receive poor health care or that the government will tell you what kind of treatment you can or can't have. That's not how universal health care works. You'll always get the best possible care available at any hospital in the country - someone else is just picking up the tab, that's all. Sweden also has agreements with a few other nations (including the US I believe) so if say an American is on holiday here and breaks his leg (for example), he doesn't have to pay to get the care he needs. We do have a problem with the local clinics though. People have to wait for weeks sometimes. But that's more likely due to personnel-shortage rather than free health care. I also can't commend Sweden's school system enough - especially the child care system (day cares, nurseries and preschools). I don't have any sources at the moment but I've read several articles and surveys indicating that Sweden (and Scandinavia in general) has the best child care system in the world. And I'm not surprised. Parents can take maternity and paternity leave with pay for up to a year (during the first year of their child's life). Parents are also allowed to take up to 60 days off per year to care for a sick child - with pay. Vacation pay is mandatory (you usually get 25 paid vacation days per year, weekends or bank holidays excluded). Employers are also required to provide paid sick days for all employees. Granted, no system is perfect. But I'd rather have a system that cares for everyone regardless of income (or lack thereof) than a system that only cares for the ones who can afford it.
|
|
Raivynn
Journeyman
...my winter storm
Posts: 187
|
Post by Raivynn on Nov 5, 2008 17:02:59 GMT -5
What works about it there? I know that most of Europe is socialist. I have to say it's kind of an alien concept to me in all honesty, and one I doubt I'd ever agree is a "good" thing necessarily. But, as there are so many countries around the world who rely on such systems, a better understanding of what's working and what isn't and why would be much appreciated. And to show my utter ignorance, what is the NHS? I think Anna pretty much summed up my thoughts. It's not exactly like like it is in Sweden over here. But there are more similarities than none. I like how things are here. That you have free education. Free nursery care. Free medical care ect. Without it, I'd be screwed. My partner would be screwed and my daughter too. What is the NHS? The National Health Service. It's funded by tax but is free to all who need medical care. No-one is turned away. Everyone gets equal treatment and care. Especially in emergencies. We do have private medical care, but it's an option for if you can afford the bills. QFT!
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Nov 5, 2008 17:47:47 GMT -5
Well, now that we have elected the most liberal member of the Senate as our next president, we will be trying out some more of that socialism stuff, you know, government spreading my wealth around. Now we will have heath care for all, as long as you go to the doctor the government mandates. Now we will have complete schooling for all, as long as you stay in what ever program the government places you in. With just about 40% of those in the US not paying taxes at all, it will be up to the remaining 60% to pay for it all. Reward poverty and you get more poverty, punish high achievement and you get less of it. Remember, government health care and schooling is not free. It cost some one their money, and I costs us all out freedom of choice. Pretty simple. And the reason that people in socialist countries have to weight weeks or longer for an appointment at the doctors is because of lack of doctors. Why be a government doctor and have your future income capped by government pay scales. And then have 50% of that capped pay taken back in taxes. That just is not worth 8 years of schooling for most people. This is what we in the US have to look forward to now, but hay, you get the government you vote for.
|
|
Rhovanion
Apprentice
La Danse Macabre
Posts: 53
|
Post by Rhovanion on Nov 5, 2008 18:18:10 GMT -5
Bubba's Dad, why do you seem to think that tax-funded schooling and health care would limit your choices on what schooling or health care you can have for yourself or your family?
I can only answer for Sweden but here you can pick and choose whatever school in the country you want to put your child into and it'll still be free (or tax-funded if you will). The fanciest high schools of Stockholm are equally free and affordable as the rural local high schools of small towns. And both provide the same high quality education.
The same with health care. You can go to any clinic or hospital in the country and you'll be welcome everywhere and treated with the best care possible.
Tax-funded services and benefits doesn't mean the government will tell you what kind you can have. It means the government will help you get whatever kind you want and make it affordable for you.
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Nov 5, 2008 23:37:29 GMT -5
Rhovanion, In this country we are already limited with our school choice if it is public or government provided. Your child has to go were assigned. That is one of the big arguments against public schools, no competition. If I understand President elect Obama's idea on health care correctly, it will be some what the same as the school system. You get what you get. Also, in states that have a heavy amount of state funded health care, such as New York, the State governments are dictating to people what type of foods they can eat (no trans fat) and one state has tried to disqualify fat people from state care, even though those same fat people pay taxes. In short, the smaller states (population) will have great tax payer funded care, and the larger states will suck. And, though Sweden seems to have things worked out, it is a fact that here in this country, the Government screws up almost every thing that it gets involved with (like Fanny Mae and Freddy mac housing loans). Our government produces a great military, and a pretty good monitory system when it is not abused. But when it gets involved in things that have traditionally been left to the free market, things go bad.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Nov 6, 2008 0:19:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Nov 7, 2008 20:42:38 GMT -5
I looked up some stuff on Sweden's socialism. Although it seems to work, it is still a down hill spiral, just like every country that has tried it. Socialism just dose not work in the long term. Sweden has done a great job making it work, but time will tell. Right now the nation has a 55% tax rate, and the government owns almost 70% of all businesses. Thus, it is the government that dictates the direction industry takes. Although the schools are free, Sweden has a national religion, Catholicism, and many of the public schools are Catholic, so the tax payer funds religious schools rather they want to or not. I only bring this up because of the question of how soscialism effects free choice. Also, the unemployment rate in Sweden is said to be around 2% but considering the government forces some unemployed people to take one or more classes at the collages so that their status could be changed from unemployed to student. Now, any of this may not be a bad thing, as Sweden seems to make it work, but here in the states, the restrictions imosed by a socialist system would not go over well.
|
|
Rhovanion
Apprentice
La Danse Macabre
Posts: 53
|
Post by Rhovanion on Nov 8, 2008 6:31:32 GMT -5
Bubba's Dad, I don't know where you're getting your info from.. but our tax rate is at 47% the last time I checked (heck when I worked at McDonald's my tax rate was 30%). And most importantly, Catholicism is NOT our national religion and I know of next to no Catholic schools (and if there are any, they are certainly NOT public as tax-funded/state funded schools can have no religious affiliation). The very few religious-based schools we have are all independent and NOT funded through taxes.
The dominant religion is Lutheran Christianity. About 75-80% of the population are members of the Church of Sweden (which used to be the state church until separation of church and state occurred) but those numbers are mostly by default since everyone born in Sweden, up until the 1990's automatically became members of the Church of Sweden. It was just a very old policy that I guess the parliament had forgotten to remove as Sweden became secularized. Church attendance is scarce. According to the Church of Sweden's own website: "Somewhat less than 4 percent of the Church of Sweden membership attends public worship during an average week; about 2 per cent are regular attenders.".
|
|
|
Post by Caunion on Nov 8, 2008 10:44:06 GMT -5
I will remind you, bubbasdad, that you are asked to show where you get your information from. That goes for everyone as well.
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Nov 8, 2008 14:22:21 GMT -5
Actually, Caunion, I just make this stuff up as I go along, kinda like the main stream media. But as luck would have it, I found this to back me up. I admit I did not follow the links or verify the site info much, but I do know that Sweden, as other socialist countries, have high tax rates, and still it is not enough to fund their nanny states. www.namyth.com/SocialismWORKS!/index.php?sw=Sweden Also, It has been something like 33 years sense Sweden has hit its peak in per ca pita income, I wonder when Socialism took over? www.demographia.com/db-ppp60+.htmBy the way, this is not an attack on Sweden, or any other country for that matter. I just think that if the US wants to avoid the bad combination of super high 55% plus tax rates and lower income levels, socialism should be avoided.
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Nov 8, 2008 17:18:51 GMT -5
As I said, I do not know how old the info is on these web sites, the one looks like it ends at 2003. However, my point still stand that Sweden may make socialism work, do to it's size, but with a country as large as the US, and with our poorly managed immigration system importing poverty level workers, it would not take long for the non-tax paying portion of this country to overwhelm the ability of the tax payers to pay for everything. This is true of most socialist countries, and though Sweden may do a better job of managing it then most, it is still a down hill spiral. Or so it seems. Capitalism, combined with limited taxation promotes growth, and provides a way for even the poor to afford health care and schools, and the enlarged tax base will be able to support the needed government programs.
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Nov 8, 2008 17:27:50 GMT -5
Oh, and one other thought. Socialism and communism goes hand in hand. Socialism limits your economic freedoms because the Government takes your money (taxes) and spends it for you. Communism limits the rest of your freedoms, because the government decides what you need, where you work, and so on. Socialism is like diet communism.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Nov 8, 2008 17:52:03 GMT -5
For Clarification purposes, as some have objected to the comparison between socialism and communism. Definitions of socialism, Capitalism, and Communism. These are from Dictionary.com, and are not the complete listings of each one. Socialism - 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. Capitalism - An economic and political system characterized by a free market for goods and services and private control of production and consumption. Please note this is not the first definition at dictionary.com. I posted this one because it refers to the economic and political system, as does the definition for socialism. In reality, the capitalist system is primarily an economic rather than political system. However, socialism and communism are not. Because these two systems are dependent on government for the running of the economy, they are by definition both political and economic systems.Communism - noun 1. a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership 2. a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society 1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. 2. Communism 1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. 2. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat. I used a couple different listings for this one, and specifically tried to stay away from the ones that had good/bad connotations to it. I would encourage you to look up the historical references other definitions for this entry as you form your arguments on this topic.www.dictionary.comPlease also note, that common communist theory, as put forth by Marx and Lenin, defines socialism as a necessary step toward communism. One of the other definitions, I'm not sure which, also states that ALL Communists are by definition socialists, although not all socialists are communists. Also, if you look at the additional definitions of communism, it is difficult to define communism without referring to authoritarianism. By inference it is easy to make the case that regardless of intent of the proletariate, communism will of necessity lead to authoritarian government because collectivism cannot work without it.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Nov 8, 2008 18:24:32 GMT -5
Taxes in Sweden - Local Taxes run at about 31.5% average, according to www.scb.se/templates/Product____11858.aspThough not all citizens are subject to National Income tax, the number has been steadily increasing since the 1991 reform of the tax structure that brought it down from the 90% tax rates of the late 70s. Currently, the national government has been been trending back toward more citizens paying national income tax, and in 2006 (the time this article was published), half the taxpayers were subject to the 20% national income tax, raising the rate from the local 31.5 to 51.5, one in 5 tax payers is subject to the higher national tax rate of 25%, raising the total income tax rate for twenty percent of tax payers to 56.5. This does not include payroll taxes, or consumption type taxes such as the value added tax. www.freedomandprosperity.org/Papers/sweden/sweden.shtmlReligion in Sweden - The confusion over The Catholic Church in Sweden was probably based on misread information. Only 2% of the population of Sweden, according to Roman Catholicism in Sweden from Wikipedia, is Roman Catholic. It is, however, the fastest growing Catholic Church in Europe currently, which may have led to the misunderstanding over its prominence in Sweden. Also, before the Protestant Reform (way way back) Catholicism was the national religion of Sweden, but has not been such since the time of Martin Luther.
|
|
Rhovanion
Apprentice
La Danse Macabre
Posts: 53
|
Post by Rhovanion on Nov 8, 2008 20:13:26 GMT -5
Thank you for all the links you guys provided. I didn't really demand any, but it was nice of you to provide them. Also, It has been something like 33 years sense Sweden has hit its peak in per ca pita income, I wonder when Socialism took over? Actually, we had Socialism WAY before that and long after. It was thanks to Socialism that Sweden became a welfare state in the first place (during the 1930s-1950s). The Social Democrats had the power during the following years: 1920, 1921-1923, 1924-1926, 1932-1976, 1982-1991 and 1994-2006. We currently have a coalition government consisting of the following parties: The Moderate Party (Moderata Samlingspartiet), The Center Party (Centerpartiet), The Liberal People's Party (Folkpartiet Liberalerna) and The Christian Democrats (Kristdemokraterna).
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Nov 8, 2008 20:14:43 GMT -5
Another point on statistics, that was really clarified as I was looking up some on other countries besides Sweden, and particularly some here in the US. The international community and the liberals here in the states, often denounce capitalism as mean because of our so called poverty levels. My family would be considered to be well below the poverty levels, why? There are six of us, and we have an annual income of less than roughly 29,000 (it's actually 28, ). Yet, without any additional income, without any government assistance, if I pay attention, we are perfectly capable of paying the bills for our necessities (including our vehicle), purchasing enough food for all of us to eat, making sure we all have clothing to wear. We have a computer, a flat screen TV, cable TV, a dishwasher, a washer and dryer, gas for our vehicle, and we eat out fairly often, and provide for the kids extra activities. So, how the hell would that be considered poverty stricken? Not all of those considered to be living in poverty here in the states are in such comfortable positions, however a very large percentage of them in all likelihood are. Don't believe me? Check out the slums of the cities or the rural communities, and see what kinds of shoes the kids are wearing, how many have cell phones, iPods, computers, multiple cars, etc. Poverty in this country is determined by "Socially acceptable standard of living" which is to say, whatever the government agency defines as being necessary living expenditures determines the poverty line. If you compare "poverty" here to "poverty" around the world, you will find that even our poorest people tend to have a much better standard of living than the poor in other countries, sometimes they even have a better standard of living than the middle classes of many other nations. We have that high standard of living for even our poorest citizens as a direct result of a capitalist economy that keeps prices low through competition and makes jobs available through production. Note, some of these are anecdotal points, some you can find when you look up wikipedia's pages on US economies. Another interesting site for comparison of GDPs among nations with different types of economies was earthtrends.wri.org/ I didn't develop too much of a researched opinion on these yet, as I don't have more time tonight to do further study on it, but the general impressions were interesting. Of the countries I looked at, Australia and the US seem to have the best GDP growth rates, especially per capita. Australia's overall GDP actually grew a bit faster than the world wide GDP growth rate.
|
|