301–310 of 332 posts
But perhaps it's time to start trying?
Don't get me wrong; vast numbers of Americans do have plenty of experience with the world outside America. The simple (and unfortunate) answer is that because America is geographically isolated, many Americans literally don't see how folks in other countries live. Also, thanks to the Cold War, we spent half a century being indoctrinated to believe that socialism is evil and capitalism equals freedom and that's why th…
There are those that innately understand that socialism and individual liberty cannot coexist. Those people were not indoctrinated.
Anything public-use paid for by non-voluntary taxes is "socialism."
Public roads, public schools, public defenders, public libraries, public parks, government-funded mail delivery, fire departments, laws that prevent your employer from mistreating and exploiting you, the police, near-universal public access to safe drinking water, etc... these are all socialism, and most of these ideas are also considered American as apple pie.
If you're in favor of any of those institutions or ones like them, you support socialism to a degree.
Successful countries balance some amount of socialism with a larger degree of free market capitalism. Too much of either is often disaster.
Don't get me wrong; vast numbers of Americans do have plenty of experience with the world outside America. The simple (and unfortunate) answer is that because America is geographically isolated, many Americans literally don't see how folks in other countries live. Also, thanks to the Cold War, we spent half a century being indoctrinated to believe that socialism is evil and capitalism equals freedom and that's why th…
Thank god we have all of those shining beacons of socialism today to set us straight, like Venezuela.
All nations balance some degree of socialism with free market competition. Name a country you'd consider successful. Chances are, it has public schooling, public roads, that kind of thing. Some elements of socialism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For those more economically minded: We know that 1$ given to poverty will return the economy somewhere along $1.12, while $1 given to wealth will return the economy somewhere along $0.7. There requires no empathy to conclude that providing for our neediest appears to be economically beneficial for everyone, assuming economic growth is a good thing. I understand and accept that certain poeple do not give a damn about…
Do you have references for those figures? I'm quite interested. I'm especially interested in how those figures account for the feedback loop as the poor typically work for the wealthy, so I expect the gap in those figures is potentially larger.
Spending from a finite pot will grow the economy more if it goes to poorer Americans. That should be obvious to anyone. The wealthy will save it, the poor will spend it and it will often pass through multiple hands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The message of American conservatism is, "I've got mine, go get yours". Meanwhile the gots are pulling up the ladder behind them wherever they can. This message tends to resonate with people with little empathy and imagination. They can only see their own experience and find it impossible to imagine another's could be different. Basically, these people are kind of dumb. They don't notice the ladder being pulled away…
For those more economically minded: We know that 1$ given to poverty will return the economy somewhere along $1.12, while $1 given to wealth will return the economy somewhere along $0.7. There requires no empathy to conclude that providing for our neediest appears to be economically beneficial for everyone, assuming economic growth is a good thing. I understand and accept that certain poeple do not give a damn about…
Unless you have information on the distribution of returns, they conclusion is unwarranted. At best, you can say that if you find a friction-free way of taxing and equally redistributing the gains (including most of the redistribution to the poor), and paying it back (starting by paying back 100% to the people you took it from in the first place) you would improve things for everyone.
But of course, you can't: reversing the redistribution would reverse the gains from the redistribution.
So what it does is improve the mean. It maybe improves the median. But for everyone? No, it doesn't. At least, not in the narrow financial terms those figures address.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For those more economically minded: We know that 1$ given to poverty will return the economy somewhere along $1.12, while $1 given to wealth will return the economy somewhere along $0.7. There requires no empathy to conclude that providing for our neediest appears to be economically beneficial for everyone, assuming economic growth is a good thing. I understand and accept that certain poeple do not give a damn about…
How can a dollar taken from me by the government and given to a poor person generate a positive cash flow overall? Has no one taken economics 101 when they get to government that they cannot understand the broken windows policy that Baathist put forward? Step 1. I earn money. Step 2. The government makes fallacious claim using whatever economist dujour is will to prostate themselves to the political party in need of…
Changes to th velocity of money in different uses. Dollars aren't consumed when spent, they keep circulating.
> Step 4. My dollar is used to pay the administrative and bureaucratic needs of the system, god bless them if they can do it for less than thirty cents (after healthcare, salaries, fringe benefits, building costs, etc.) my dollar is down to $0.70.
No, it's still a dollar, because spending it transfers it to other people, rather than destroying it. And, with government spending, at the first hop essentially all of that $0.30 is still in the domestic economy.
> Step 4. The money is given to a person in the lower quartile who then spends the $0.70.
Also, again, largely in the domestic economy, and in places where it has a higher velocity in the domestic economy than it would if a richer person spent it.
And that's where the gain in total economic activity comes from.
> If the economists were honest with that statistic, they would admit it is not the percent increase but the turn around time to spend the money
That's exactly what economists say produces the return to the economy / increase in economy activity that GP discusses.
This is Econ 101 stuff.
> or a pull forward to quickly juice the economy.
It's not a pull forward. (There are ways you can do that, too, but downward redistribution isn't really one of them.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One reason that Europe has very few innovative new companies created in the last 25 years is that everyone is at the coffee shop writing poetry. This does not dispute the central point of the quoted piece, which is that the quality of life of most Americans is very poor contrast to that of the average person in some subset of European countries. I would wager that most coffee shop employees are more concerned with…
Americans don't believe the onus is on the whole to make sure the individual lives a happy life. We just don't have the collectivist culture the Europeans have. I think this is a great thing, and is why America is where most of the innovation, cultural, and political power is. I personally have lower taxes, high quality healthcare, and live in an awesome location, and I got all of that through an education and traini…
One constant thing in every country is there is always a narrative among certain percentage of population about how shitty their country is, America is no different, usually the people who feel this way are not nationalists. If you immigrated to US from third world country you would know how amazing this country is. It always be your choice to live how happily you want to live, you can quit wanting to climb the ladde…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most Americans enjoy a level of live that Most Europeans can only dream of. Large cars, very large houses, every product they buy is at least 20 to 30% cheaper, they have access to the latest technologies... the list goes on and on. Hobbies do not make up for the lack of opportunities.
Since it appears that you weren't just trolling with that comment, I have to ask, have you ever actually been to Europe? The north-western countries offer pretty much the same abundance of material goods and lifestyle opportunities as the wealthier areas of the USA. (I will grant you that the average European passenger vehicle is less wastefully enormous than its North American equivalent.) And can you give us an exa…
1. Weapons. There may be a few exceptions in Europe, such as the Czech Republic, currently fighting the EU. There are certainly exceptions in the USA, such as California. Overall though, availability is superior in the USA.
2. Private aircraft. If you want to build an experimental airplane in your garage and then fly it, you can do so in the USA. Licensing is pretty easy, especially if the aircraft is lightweight and doesn't carry much fuel or many people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like I said, quality of food varies. No matter where you are that is true, not every restaurant is the same. I’m not sure what you mean about the quality of dairy? US milk, eggs, and cheese are no different than any of the milk, eggs, and cheese of the same variety anywhere else in the world I’ve been.
There is huge variation in Dairy! French Milk (was) terrible, only UHT widely available, though fresh is now quite common. US milk is nothing like as good as British milk for freshness/flavour (though the latter is subjective). US eggs are refrigerated, as salmonella is so prevalent. Not so in UK, where they are guaranteed salmonella free (nowadays 'thanks' to Edwina Curry) And Cheese? Really - I'm fairly sure there…
We also have both kinds of edible cheese, mild cheddar and mozzarella.