It’s not REAL socialism though
Comments
-
Boomers are very fortunate in that the mid-20th Century was a uniquely favorable period for self-made wealth. What the 40s 50s 60s and 70s looked like has not been the norm for industrial capitalism and things have been reverting back to something more typical and less egalitarian for decades.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I'm asking for Details here! Please do elaborate. Like I said, this is your chance, don't disappoint.HHusky said:
I've heard of charity. We give to charity. I guess I'm already setting the example you mentioned then.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Don't worry! We said we'd ignore it for you. Charity and all. I want to hear about your economics plan.HHusky said:
Such as?UW_Doog_Bot said:
We'll ignore that if you had a problem with wealth inequality you could be doing something about it yourself voluntarilyHHusky said:
I like adequately regulated capitalism myself, plus a social safety net. Capitalism will still produce a lot of wealth though, and wealthy people should pay more in than we do, and not merely to pay for the stuff government does, but also as a redistribution mechanism in an age of increasing wealth inequality.UW_Doog_Bot said:
What DO you economically advocate for Dazzler? We are waiting.HHusky said:
I don't advocate socialism, madam. I do advocate that you learn what it is.WestlinnDuck said:
Yeah, the dazzler aka Mr. Conservative for his mythical Reagan votes. His advocacy of socialism is what he learned getting his pretend MBA. Quoting Hayek as an advocate of massive government interference in the private sector is like quoting Mao as a capitalist advocate.doogie said:@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
Now one of you Einsteins will say that I can volunteer to pay more, as some sort of exercise in morality. Because you're not serious people.
"I'd love to hear more. What do you mean by "adequately regulated capitalism, plus a social safety net."
I'd also love to know what level of wealth inequality is acceptable in a society and how you ensure that redistribution goes to those intended and not to the redistributers themselves."
This is your chance! We are all waiting to hear what you have to say! I can't imagine why it's so hard to get you to tell us what you think.
Regulated capitalism has been our system for some time. I'm not a revolutionary, and I like our system; the arguments will be over the details. I like the fact we provide some social safety net; the arguments will be over the details.
It is desirable that most of us feel we have a stake in the economy and that the Republic isn't controlled by massive concentrations of wealth. I'm far less concerned about the occasional corrupt redistributor than I am about the enormous concentrations of dynastic wealth itself. The latter threaten the continued existence of the Republic much more than the former.
As to the second point, the vast majority of American wealth is 1st generation(Gates, Bezos, Musk to name a few) and very few families make it beyond 3 generations of inherited wealth. There's a few notables no doubt but for the three you can name there's thousands more that have foundered.
Political corruption on the other hand, is this even really a conversation we are having? Isn't this one of the few things generally agreed upon by both the left and the right of this bored? I could wax on about lobbying, political insider trading, the swamp's revolving doors etc. but do I need to? By all means, I will if we disagree but I thought money in politics WAS a problem. -
Deep thoughts from the Dazzler . . . LOL . . . The growth of government has exploded.
I wonder what your father (the retired public school teacher) would think of today’s educators and the quality of public education (at the K-12 level) at the present time.
Is he still alive? -
Take the L, Counselor.
You’re a fucking hack.
Barack Obama - the more Conservative alternative.
Good one . . . -
Ah, dusting off the old, "rampant capitalism caused the Gilded Age".HHusky said:
Boomers are very fortunate in that the mid-20th Century was a uniquely favorable period for self-made wealth. What the 40s 50s 60s and 70s looked like has not been the norm for industrial capitalism and things have been reverting back to something more typical and less egalitarian for decades.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I'm asking for Details here! Please do elaborate. Like I said, this is your chance, don't disappoint.HHusky said:
I've heard of charity. We give to charity. I guess I'm already setting the example you mentioned then.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Don't worry! We said we'd ignore it for you. Charity and all. I want to hear about your economics plan.HHusky said:
Such as?UW_Doog_Bot said:
We'll ignore that if you had a problem with wealth inequality you could be doing something about it yourself voluntarilyHHusky said:
I like adequately regulated capitalism myself, plus a social safety net. Capitalism will still produce a lot of wealth though, and wealthy people should pay more in than we do, and not merely to pay for the stuff government does, but also as a redistribution mechanism in an age of increasing wealth inequality.UW_Doog_Bot said:
What DO you economically advocate for Dazzler? We are waiting.HHusky said:
I don't advocate socialism, madam. I do advocate that you learn what it is.WestlinnDuck said:
Yeah, the dazzler aka Mr. Conservative for his mythical Reagan votes. His advocacy of socialism is what he learned getting his pretend MBA. Quoting Hayek as an advocate of massive government interference in the private sector is like quoting Mao as a capitalist advocate.doogie said:@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
Now one of you Einsteins will say that I can volunteer to pay more, as some sort of exercise in morality. Because you're not serious people.
"I'd love to hear more. What do you mean by "adequately regulated capitalism, plus a social safety net."
I'd also love to know what level of wealth inequality is acceptable in a society and how you ensure that redistribution goes to those intended and not to the redistributers themselves."
This is your chance! We are all waiting to hear what you have to say! I can't imagine why it's so hard to get you to tell us what you think.
Regulated capitalism has been our system for some time. I'm not a revolutionary, and I like our system; the arguments will be over the details. I like the fact we provide some social safety net; the arguments will be over the details.
It is desirable that most of us feel we have a stake in the economy and that the Republic isn't controlled by massive concentrations of wealth. I'm far less concerned about the occasional corrupt redistributor than I am about the enormous concentrations of dynastic wealth itself. The latter threaten the continued existence of the Republic much more than the former.
As to the second point, the vast majority of American wealth is 1st generation(Gates, Bezos, Musk to name a few) and very few families make it beyond 3 generations of inherited wealth. There's a few notables no doubt but for the three you can name there's thousands more that have foundered.
Political corruption on the other hand, is this even really a conversation we are having? Isn't this one of the few things generally agreed upon by both the left and the right of this bored? I could wax on about lobbying, political insider trading, the swamp's revolving doors etc. but do I need to? By all means, I will if we disagree but I thought money in politics WAS a problem.
Nevermind that rent seeking was a large cause of inequality and monopolizing of industry, even with those inefficiencies the US model was so terrible that immigrants streamed in from around the world because US standards of living were record breaking for the common man and the number of self made fortunes was higher than the rest of the history of Europe combined.
The work week, rising wages, the end of child labor, etc. The government takes credit for these things but the reality is that in each case they were already socially the norm because of improved living standards by the time legislation caught up to the market.
Kind of a run on but I'm on mobile.
In all of history Capitalism has existed for a blip. In that blip capitalism has allowed a small fraction of the world population to create more wealth than all of humanity in the rest of history combined.
Then you have capitalism being spread and destroying poverty at the fastest clip in recorded history over the last 20-40yrs across the world.
It's far from perfect but it creates more wealth for more people than any other system and it ain't close. -
Now! I do have some middle ground perhaps.
Global liberalization has increased gdp across the globe but very much so at the expense of the American middle class. Something many economists believe is transitory but after 2016 many opinions have shifted. China is essentially an entire nation of slave labor. Our elites and the CCP are the ones profiting from outsourcing while the middle has been hollowed out.
Combine that with the fed printing fiat currency which FAR favors those that make their living from capital vs. Those that earn wages.
People are pissed, left and right. The trouble is I don't see giving the swamp more money as a way to fix this. Fix the regulatory environment for small businesses. Fix the tax code. Fix immigration (make a legal process that makes sense) Fix international trade and world standards(like ending incentives for doing business with the CCP). Stop printing fucking money to hand out to government rat holes while causing inflation.
I digress, not my best work but as said, I'm on mobile. -
No need to pile on . . . The Dazzler has been bedazzled . . .
-
I could hear the Dazzler Gurgle from Greater Idaho!
-
Is $6 trillion not a strong enough net?Rubberfist said:
Wait a minute now… I specifically remember you and I having a discussion about nationalized healthcare and I brought up these European (and Canada)countries that are absolutely capitalist but have strong social safety nets and they were “socialist” for that discussion. So what are they?SFGbob said:
Now try listing countries that are actually socialist/communist. Lou Dobbs!!!!Rubberfist said:Now do Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Canada, France and Switzerland.
It’s a cautionary tale to those with synapses that actually fire.
All around the country, millions of jobs can’t be filled because of Socialism.
In the words of the late, grate @TheKobeStopper, you’re not very good at this.
-
JFC. those damn 40 years…..that continue today as long as the leftists you worship get out of they way. And why do you leave out the decades that were extremely prosperous before 1940. Fucking idiot. Your really should kill yourself. Addition by subtractionHHusky said:
Boomers are very fortunate in that the mid-20th Century was a uniquely favorable period for self-made wealth. What the 40s 50s 60s and 70s looked like has not been the norm for industrial capitalism and things have been reverting back to something more typical and less egalitarian for decades.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I'm asking for Details here! Please do elaborate. Like I said, this is your chance, don't disappoint.HHusky said:
I've heard of charity. We give to charity. I guess I'm already setting the example you mentioned then.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Don't worry! We said we'd ignore it for you. Charity and all. I want to hear about your economics plan.HHusky said:
Such as?UW_Doog_Bot said:
We'll ignore that if you had a problem with wealth inequality you could be doing something about it yourself voluntarilyHHusky said:
I like adequately regulated capitalism myself, plus a social safety net. Capitalism will still produce a lot of wealth though, and wealthy people should pay more in than we do, and not merely to pay for the stuff government does, but also as a redistribution mechanism in an age of increasing wealth inequality.UW_Doog_Bot said:
What DO you economically advocate for Dazzler? We are waiting.HHusky said:
I don't advocate socialism, madam. I do advocate that you learn what it is.WestlinnDuck said:
Yeah, the dazzler aka Mr. Conservative for his mythical Reagan votes. His advocacy of socialism is what he learned getting his pretend MBA. Quoting Hayek as an advocate of massive government interference in the private sector is like quoting Mao as a capitalist advocate.doogie said:@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
Now one of you Einsteins will say that I can volunteer to pay more, as some sort of exercise in morality. Because you're not serious people.
"I'd love to hear more. What do you mean by "adequately regulated capitalism, plus a social safety net."
I'd also love to know what level of wealth inequality is acceptable in a society and how you ensure that redistribution goes to those intended and not to the redistributers themselves."
This is your chance! We are all waiting to hear what you have to say! I can't imagine why it's so hard to get you to tell us what you think.
Regulated capitalism has been our system for some time. I'm not a revolutionary, and I like our system; the arguments will be over the details. I like the fact we provide some social safety net; the arguments will be over the details.
It is desirable that most of us feel we have a stake in the economy and that the Republic isn't controlled by massive concentrations of wealth. I'm far less concerned about the occasional corrupt redistributor than I am about the enormous concentrations of dynastic wealth itself. The latter threaten the continued existence of the Republic much more than the former.
As to the second point, the vast majority of American wealth is 1st generation(Gates, Bezos, Musk to name a few) and very few families make it beyond 3 generations of inherited wealth. There's a few notables no doubt but for the three you can name there's thousands more that have foundered.
Political corruption on the other hand, is this even really a conversation we are having? Isn't this one of the few things generally agreed upon by both the left and the right of this bored? I could wax on about lobbying, political insider trading, the swamp's revolving doors etc. but do I need to? By all means, I will if we disagree but I thought money in politics WAS a problem. -
Dazzler credits the economic boom of that era to high tax rates.MikeDamone said:
JFC. those damn 40 years…..that continue today as long as the leftists you worship get out of they way.HHusky said:
Boomers are very fortunate in that the mid-20th Century was a uniquely favorable period for self-made wealth. What the 40s 50s 60s and 70s looked like has not been the norm for industrial capitalism and things have been reverting back to something more typical and less egalitarian for decades.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I'm asking for Details here! Please do elaborate. Like I said, this is your chance, don't disappoint.HHusky said:
I've heard of charity. We give to charity. I guess I'm already setting the example you mentioned then.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Don't worry! We said we'd ignore it for you. Charity and all. I want to hear about your economics plan.HHusky said:
Such as?UW_Doog_Bot said:
We'll ignore that if you had a problem with wealth inequality you could be doing something about it yourself voluntarilyHHusky said:
I like adequately regulated capitalism myself, plus a social safety net. Capitalism will still produce a lot of wealth though, and wealthy people should pay more in than we do, and not merely to pay for the stuff government does, but also as a redistribution mechanism in an age of increasing wealth inequality.UW_Doog_Bot said:
What DO you economically advocate for Dazzler? We are waiting.HHusky said:
I don't advocate socialism, madam. I do advocate that you learn what it is.WestlinnDuck said:
Yeah, the dazzler aka Mr. Conservative for his mythical Reagan votes. His advocacy of socialism is what he learned getting his pretend MBA. Quoting Hayek as an advocate of massive government interference in the private sector is like quoting Mao as a capitalist advocate.doogie said:@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
Now one of you Einsteins will say that I can volunteer to pay more, as some sort of exercise in morality. Because you're not serious people.
"I'd love to hear more. What do you mean by "adequately regulated capitalism, plus a social safety net."
I'd also love to know what level of wealth inequality is acceptable in a society and how you ensure that redistribution goes to those intended and not to the redistributers themselves."
This is your chance! We are all waiting to hear what you have to say! I can't imagine why it's so hard to get you to tell us what you think.
Regulated capitalism has been our system for some time. I'm not a revolutionary, and I like our system; the arguments will be over the details. I like the fact we provide some social safety net; the arguments will be over the details.
It is desirable that most of us feel we have a stake in the economy and that the Republic isn't controlled by massive concentrations of wealth. I'm far less concerned about the occasional corrupt redistributor than I am about the enormous concentrations of dynastic wealth itself. The latter threaten the continued existence of the Republic much more than the former.
As to the second point, the vast majority of American wealth is 1st generation(Gates, Bezos, Musk to name a few) and very few families make it beyond 3 generations of inherited wealth. There's a few notables no doubt but for the three you can name there's thousands more that have foundered.
Political corruption on the other hand, is this even really a conversation we are having? Isn't this one of the few things generally agreed upon by both the left and the right of this bored? I could wax on about lobbying, political insider trading, the swamp's revolving doors etc. but do I need to? By all means, I will if we disagree but I thought money in politics WAS a problem. -
Capitalism - Winners get trophies
Socialism - There are no winners but everyone gets a juice box.
Get in line for your juice box, Kobe -
Ok Dazzler, how much "concentrations of wealth" is too much?
What is the threshhold to to qualify for too much?
Who should decide what is enough and what isn’t?
How much do you donate, beyond taxes, to make it fair?
Since you can run your mouth about it, give us real numbers, not more of your double speak and deflection. -
:Crickets:Blu82 said:Ok Dazzler, how much "concentrations of wealth" is too much?
What is the threshhold to to qualify for too much?
Who should decide what is enough and what isn’t?
How much do you donate, beyond taxes, to make it fair?
Since you can run your mouth about it, give us real numbers, not more of your double speak and deflection. -
-
Of course.thechatch said:
:Crickets:Blu82 said:Ok Dazzler, how much "concentrations of wealth" is too much?
What is the threshhold to to qualify for too much?
Who should decide what is enough and what isn’t?
How much do you donate, beyond taxes, to make it fair?
Since you can run your mouth about it, give us real numbers, not more of your double speak and deflection.
Feel free to chase Dazzler with this.
I have irregular service.
He needs to ănswer the questions.
He won't. He's a typical Leftist coward. -
Can you give examples of what you consider good regulations of capitalism?HHusky said:
I like adequately regulated capitalism myself, plus a social safety net. Capitalism will still produce a lot of wealth though, and wealthy people should pay more in than we do, and not merely to pay for the stuff government does, but also as a redistribution mechanism in an age of increasing wealth inequality.UW_Doog_Bot said:
What DO you economically advocate for Dazzler? We are waiting.HHusky said:
I don't advocate socialism, madam. I do advocate that you learn what it is.WestlinnDuck said:
Yeah, the dazzler aka Mr. Conservative for his mythical Reagan votes. His advocacy of socialism is what he learned getting his pretend MBA. Quoting Hayek as an advocate of massive government interference in the private sector is like quoting Mao as a capitalist advocate.doogie said:@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
Now one of you Einsteins will say that I can volunteer to pay more, as some sort of exercise in morality. Because you're not serious people.
Also, what do you consider a social safety net?
How do you define paying more in taxes by the rich?
You note (in effect) that paying more in taxes shouldn’t be a means to a blank check to the government to spend more …
BTW this is something that we should be significantly aligned on as a country is holding our governmental entities accountable and not allowing them to strong arm new taxes without a thorough review of what is and isn’t needed with existing spend
What do you consider the desired outcome of wealth redistribution? What are the goals? Does a line need to be walked to ensure that we’re requiring contributions to society in exchange for redistribution?
And what do you consider wealth to be? What/Where is the cutoff? Do you consider the individual that retires at 55 with $5-10M of assets for retirement to be rich and subject to wealth redistribution? -
This is the thread to refer back to if you ever want to see HHusky fail miserably to act the part of the intellectual. No factual foundation for his theories. It's all about the feels. Game. Set. Match.
“It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it" - Mark Twain
This is why I usually don't argue policy positions I don't fully understand. I recognize my limitations. Others, not so much. -
But but but Cuba has a high literacy rate!
Lol -
This is why you guys need to let people speak up more instead of piling on. It's easy when all you do is take pithy pot shots at other people's positions. Most of their positions are built on nice sounding bullshit and wishes so let them have the soapbox and lay out their grand visions.Swaye said:This is the thread to refer back to if you ever want to see HHusky fail miserably to act the part of the intellectual. No factual foundation for his theories. It's all about the feels. Game. Set. Match.
“It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it" - Mark Twain
This is why I usually don't argue policy positions I don't fully understand. I recognize my limitations. Others, not so much. -
Best Healthcare in the worldthechatch said:But but but Cuba has a high literacy rate!
Lol -
But baby fur seal clubbing is easy!UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is why you guys need to let people speak up more instead of piling on. It's easy when all you do is take pithy pot shots at other people's positions. Most of their positions are built on nice sounding bullshit and wishes so let them have the soapbox and lay out their grand visions.Swaye said:This is the thread to refer back to if you ever want to see HHusky fail miserably to act the part of the intellectual. No factual foundation for his theories. It's all about the feels. Game. Set. Match.
“It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it" - Mark Twain
This is why I usually don't argue policy positions I don't fully understand. I recognize my limitations. Others, not so much. -
It's threads like this that cause me to bask in the glow of creating "The Dazzler'.
Will forego royalty payments on these six pages. The pound of flesh has already been extracted in the pummeling.
-
A Public Option would be great.trublue said:
If people want rationed care, cool. Leave an option for people who don’t want to pay into it and can pay as they go or go through some type of insurance system. I believe Switzerland has viable options.Rubberfist said:
The grand majority of the Left in the US would prefer European style “socialism.” Are you against that?RoadTrip said:
You're too stupid to understand, in many cases, these countries are more capitalist than the CSA today.Rubberfist said:Now do Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Canada, France and Switzerland.
There are enough Government programs and they simply have not worked well (they’re Ponzi Schemes with insatiable appetites for more money) and are inefficient.
They’re very good at creating gigantic bureaucracies . . . Not very good at actual solutions.
Why do Democrats keep selling it on the Campaign Trail, then dropping it like a rock when they take office?
Is it the suitcases full of cash from Wall Street and the Insurance industry that's changing their mind, over and over and over? -
Hell, he educated the dazzler. Must have been a hell of a teacher. His kid lies as if he is getting paid for each one.trublue said:Deep thoughts from the Dazzler . . . LOL . . . The growth of government has exploded.
I wonder what your father (the retired public school teacher) would think of today’s educators and the quality of public education (at the K-12 level) at the present time.
Is he still alive? -
Brilliant. If only the state actors and employees were competent and motivated enough to do their jobs and distribute the goods and security. They aren't. They don't. They always take care of themselves first.HHusky said:
“There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. .... [T]here can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. ... Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individual in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision.
"Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to super-cede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatability in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.
"To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state’s rendering assistance to the victims of such ‘acts of God’ as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.
“There is, finally, the supremely important problem of combating general fluctuations of economic activity and the recurrent waves of large-scale unemployment which accompany them. This is, of course, one of the gravest and most pressing problems of our time. But, though its solution will require much planning in the good sense, it does not — or at least need not — require that special kind of planning which according to its advocates is to replace the market.
"Many economists hope, indeed, that the ultimate remedy may be found in the field of monetary policy, which would involve nothing incompatible even with nineteenth-century liberalism. Others, it is true, believe that real success can be expected only from the skillful timing of public works undertaken on a very large scale. This might lead to much more serious restrictions of the competitive sphere, and, in experimenting in this direction, we shall have to carefully watch our step if we are to avoid making all economic activity progressively more dependent on the direction and volume of government expenditure. But this is neither the only nor, in my opinion, the most promising way of meeting the gravest threat to economic security.
"In any case, the very necessary effort to secure protection against these fluctuations do not lead to the kind of planning which constitutes such a threat to our freedom.”
-Hayek
See U.S. Teachers. -
Dazzler is pissed at his dad for living too long and spending what he believed to be his money.WestlinnDuck said:
Hell, he educated the dazzler. Must have been a hell of a teacher. His kid lies as if he is getting paid for each one.trublue said:Deep thoughts from the Dazzler . . . LOL . . . The growth of government has exploded.
I wonder what your father (the retired public school teacher) would think of today’s educators and the quality of public education (at the K-12 level) at the present time.
Is he still alive? -
I have a felling dad was an attorney. The Dazzler not so much.SFGbob said:
Dazzler is pissed at his dad for living too long and spending what he believed to be his money.WestlinnDuck said:
Hell, he educated the dazzler. Must have been a hell of a teacher. His kid lies as if he is getting paid for each one.trublue said:Deep thoughts from the Dazzler . . . LOL . . . The growth of government has exploded.
I wonder what your father (the retired public school teacher) would think of today’s educators and the quality of public education (at the K-12 level) at the present time.
Is he still alive? -
Vibrant sailing community!RaceBannon said:
Best Healthcare in the worldthechatch said:But but but Cuba has a high literacy rate!
Lol -
One might say the world wanted Trump out. I wonder why.UW_Doog_Bot said:
All the US needs to do is find a benevolent world hegemon to subsidize our own defense and keep peace in the world and boom! Social safety nets paid for.Rubberfist said:Now do Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Canada, France and Switzerland.
Onto what we can learn from Europe Per your request:
Germany – Literally paying for the rest of the EU’s socialism at the expense of the German Taxpayer. Lulz
Sweden – Has moved away from “social democracy” and liberalized markets after their own “great society” failures. Fastest growing income inequality in Europe btw. Also, every household has a gun. I’ll take that part.
Netherlands – One of the highest and most progressive tax rates. One of the MOST unequal societies on the face of the Earth. Just another of the 1,000+ examples of the failure of progressivism to “redistribute” wealth and make “equality”.
Denmark – Literally has no minimum wage. Ok!
Norway – Essentially a Northern member of the United Arab Emirates. Ranked #7 for ease of business as well.
Austria – Home to the Austrian school of Economics. I’m completely on board with taking Hayek’s advice on how to manage our economy. Are you?
Canada – A healthcare system that literally doesn’t function without the relief valve of their southern neighbor’s healthcare system being within driving distance. Don’t believe me? Why is the US one of the top medical tourism destinations in the World? I’ll give you a hint what the primary driver of that is.
France – Anemic growth, public unions that light people on fire over benefits, alternating between providing and needing subsidized by other EU members. We too could have all of this and maintain a super low economic mobility score of a class society!
Switzerland – Also lots of guns, also literally the black bank of the world. I guess the US should just become the world’s money launderer to subsidize health care?
Pretty much all “universal healthcare” is “rationed healthcare” where the government decides who gets scarce resources. This means lines and bureaucratic death panels unless of course, you are well connected or a government official. We all know how meritorious government employment and promotion is.
School choice is pretty much the singular highest correlated variable in all of the European countries that outperform the US in education. Sounds good!
All of Europe was suffering from terrible economic growth BEFORE the pandemic and we were looking at the potential 2nd death of the European Union, negative interest rates, bailouts, etc. during a global growth period. The European Model!
