Hypothetically speaking, would the USA work better if...?
the federal government was dissolved, and every state was transformed into its own separate nation? I mean, think about it. The most effective and stable countries are small, socially liberal, with an efficient (and SMALL) federal government. The larger the nation, the more diverse it is and the harder it becomes to control. What works in New York doesn't necessarily work in Utah. Our federal government continues to get larger, more invasive, and more convoluted by the day - yes, under both Republican and Democratic rule. With the expansion of the federal government showing no signs of stopping, does this seem like a viable alternative? List of the most stable/sustainable countries (from worst to best). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Failed_States_Index#Sustainable Top 5 most sustainable: 1. Norway 2. Finland 3. Sweden 4. Switzerland 5. Ireland
Politics - 11 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Probably a LOT better. Read about the Home Depot boycott in my profile.
2 :
No. This is not an intelligent approach to national problems.
3 :
last time we tried that 600,000 Americans died.
4 :
Works for me.
5 :
F*ck this country We should just give up China will be better than us in 10 years anyway Lets just be a regular country now, so we have no standards.
6 :
The states would all still be large countries. Think about this; Norway, Iceland, Finland, Sweden and Greenland combined have less people than the New York metropolitan area alone. If France was a State, with all categories considered in aggregate, it would rank about 37th in the US. To mitigate what you're talking about, there just needs to be a greater respect for states rights as the constitution provides.
7 :
Yes, burn it down, rid the blacks, rid the muslims. Start a new. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w
8 :
"United we stand, divided we fall." -- Aesop, Greek slave & fable author (620 BC - 560 BC) The whole point to being the "UNITED STATES" was to band together for our own mutual good and to defend one another. But our Founders were concerned with giving too much power to a centralized government that would dictate the lives of the citizens. "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." -- Thomas Jefferson "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people." -- Theodore Roosevelt Be afraid of a politician who tells you he will take care of you....
9 :
The conservative states would work better. The liberal states would not.
10 :
The fed doesn't need to be dissolved, just have it's powers greatly diminished. No more federal income tax.
11 :
You're absolutely right
Monday, February 21, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
What is Average Income of a person in Finland
What is Average Income of a person in Finland?
Hi there, Can anybody tell me what is average income of a person in finland. him not asking for a white collar job or income from a public service job. just asking about the normal eraning, mean working in store or hotel or restaurant etc etc???????????
Other - Europe - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
same as ours, about 45K a year.
2 :
It is very hard, if not impossible, to give out any averages, but as a thumb rule, the taxation here is very high anyway.
3 :
According to figure published by Statistics Finland (the official public authority on statistics in the country), the average annual income in Finland was 34510 euros (about 42000 dollars) in 2008, while in 2009 it was 35280 euros (just short of 44000 dollars). The average annual income for people in the service sector (i.e. people working in hotels, stores and restaurants) was 34760 euros in 2008. Here's a bunch of statistic lists mainly centered on 2008 figures, though it's all in Finnish (there might similar statistics available in English, if you search around the SF English site): http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_palkat.html As for how much taxes “eat up†the income, that depends on several factors (including where one lives), so that’d be a lot harder to find out.
Hi there, Can anybody tell me what is average income of a person in finland. him not asking for a white collar job or income from a public service job. just asking about the normal eraning, mean working in store or hotel or restaurant etc etc???????????
Other - Europe - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
same as ours, about 45K a year.
2 :
It is very hard, if not impossible, to give out any averages, but as a thumb rule, the taxation here is very high anyway.
3 :
According to figure published by Statistics Finland (the official public authority on statistics in the country), the average annual income in Finland was 34510 euros (about 42000 dollars) in 2008, while in 2009 it was 35280 euros (just short of 44000 dollars). The average annual income for people in the service sector (i.e. people working in hotels, stores and restaurants) was 34760 euros in 2008. Here's a bunch of statistic lists mainly centered on 2008 figures, though it's all in Finnish (there might similar statistics available in English, if you search around the SF English site): http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_palkat.html As for how much taxes “eat up†the income, that depends on several factors (including where one lives), so that’d be a lot harder to find out.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Why does socialism work in countries such as finland, denmark and norway but not the USA or Australia
Why does socialism work in countries such as finland, denmark and norway but not the USA or Australia?
Government - 10 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
It has to do with our diverse population and a lot of the population always wanting more. Americans are very competitive as a whole.
2 :
Because they have small, homogeneous populations. Socialism is fine for 4 million Finns who don't mind giving 80% of their paychecks to the government. Doesn't work for a country as expansive and diverse as the US.
3 :
You have too many segments of America that are only interested on getting more money for themselves without having to work for it.
4 :
Because of capitalism in USA.
5 :
It worked it Germany(30'-40's), Italy(30'-40's), and Sweden(recently) so well, didn't it? Simply put, Socialist countries run out of other people's money.
6 :
I have only really studied the question in America, and know little about Australia, so i will address this from the American perspective. The main reason is the concept that American Dream is about self-betterment through economic means. Many people therefore assume that in the United States social mobility is easier than in other countries. This concept is held by immigrants regardless of origin. For example, to European immigrants, the US was the land of opportunity, while the Chinese name for San Francisco is still 旧金山 (Mandarin for "Old Gold Mountain"), which represents the wealth and opportunity that America seemed to offer. While social mobility is easier than it is in the EU, it is not significantly so. However, when polled on how easy social mobility is in their country, Europeans significantly underestimate it, while American's significantly overestimate it. And, as any game theorist knows, perceptions of payoffs are actually much more important than reality. Additionally, American's, more than any other people, are risk loving. This cultural phenomenon is due to the fact that we are a nation of immigrants. So with the exception of the Indians and Hawaiians, all of our ancestors were willing to take one of the biggest risks of all: moving into a new country. This risk-loving behavior has been embedded into our culture, passed down from parent to child. Therefore, compared to our European counterparts, we more willing to risk it big in hopes of a big reward than rely on constant, yet low-yielding, government support. Also, the long fight against Communism during the Cold War alienated many Americans to any variation of Marxist philosophy. But on a more negative reason, its because of America's ethnic diversity. In America race is clearly linked into our socio-economic system. Therefore our poor our a different color than our rich. In Scandanavian countries, the poor look identical to the rich, all nordic. People are more likely to help out people of the same ethnicity. This is universal, not just unique to America. Europeans are less willing to provide government benefits to the new wave of Eastern European immigrants. However, because race is so intrinsic in our socio-economic system, those with money and power are less willing to redistribute it to those who don't.
7 :
Has a lot to do with the fact that social mobility has been historically easier in places like the USA or Australia. The reason being is that countries that are just in their beginning don't have established lineages of wealth like they did in Europe. And then there's the fact that socialism was suppressed by our government, most notably during the 50s with McCarthy.
8 :
Socialism.. they're free market capitalist countries with an extended social sector. Higher taxes support things like health care and education in a more significant way than in USA or Australia.
9 :
Americans should look to their north, at Canada. We too come from Immigrant stock , who were willing to "risk it all " by coming to a undeveloped wilderness. BUT we also were smart enough to see that in order to be strong and healthy as a country, we needed to provide support to the weak, ill and elderly among us. To that end, Canada was the FIRST country in the world to pass laws that mandated national old age pensions in 1926 , worker's injury compensation on a national level 1941, women's right to vote and be elected to Parliament 1920, national health care plans ( 1960 ) and guranteed national maternity leave, 1968 and many other social support programs that have resulted in our being consistently rated in the top five countries in the world in which to live. Vancouver British Columbia is rated the "best city in the world to live in 2011 ". Canadians have the highest percentage ( 45 % ) of University graduates in the world, based on our national population; while the USA ranks 12 th on that same list. Why? We support University students with our income taxes, and all of our Universities are PUBLICLY owned, not private corporations. No sports scholarships in Canadian Universities, and no 100,000 seat fotball stadiums either, but if you are a superior student, yoiu can get a 100 percent scholarship, in a hard science program. .People in Canada are not worried that their entire future may be ruined by a medical emegency, as in the USA. That goes a long way towards being less tense. Our seniors know that they are not going to be making a choice between paying for life saving medications and paying the rent. After age 65, ( later this year ) I will be paying a flat rate of $4.50 for each script that I fill at the local drug store here in Toronto. That goes on for life. Americans are just too damm self centred, to see that their lack of social compassion is killing them. The " I'm all right Jack, screw you " attitude is just too deeply buried in the national mentality, for it to change any time soon. Of course, may be the " new poor ", who have lost their homes and jobs, and are living in motels with their kids, will have something to say about that at the ballot box. We watch the USA's problems, from up here, north of the border, and shake our heads at the crazyness that goes on down there. Individual Americans are nice people, but as a nation they are scarey, in their ignorance of the world outside of their own borders. That even applies to their "next door neighbours " who are their best busines customers, and who sell them MORE stuff than the next five countries, combined. How many Americans know that Canada supplies nearly HALF of all your oil and gas stocks, via pipline from Alberta, not Saudi Arabia ? And we will continue to do that, for the next 100 years ? Socialism is not the boogy man that Americans think it is.......after all..... you all pay into the Social Security pensioin plan, don't you ? Are you going to send the SS cheques BACK ? When you get them as a senior ? I didn't think so. Jim B. Toronto.
10 :
Well, living in Norway I can tell Norway isn't socialist. The same is true for Finland and Denmark too. he truth is that we have a mixed economy with private ownership and corporations as well as a strong centralised government that takes ownership in certain sectors of society, like healthcare, electricity, telephones, national broadcasting, oil, trains, roads, water and dams, but also opens up for private competition.
Government - 10 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
It has to do with our diverse population and a lot of the population always wanting more. Americans are very competitive as a whole.
2 :
Because they have small, homogeneous populations. Socialism is fine for 4 million Finns who don't mind giving 80% of their paychecks to the government. Doesn't work for a country as expansive and diverse as the US.
3 :
You have too many segments of America that are only interested on getting more money for themselves without having to work for it.
4 :
Because of capitalism in USA.
5 :
It worked it Germany(30'-40's), Italy(30'-40's), and Sweden(recently) so well, didn't it? Simply put, Socialist countries run out of other people's money.
6 :
I have only really studied the question in America, and know little about Australia, so i will address this from the American perspective. The main reason is the concept that American Dream is about self-betterment through economic means. Many people therefore assume that in the United States social mobility is easier than in other countries. This concept is held by immigrants regardless of origin. For example, to European immigrants, the US was the land of opportunity, while the Chinese name for San Francisco is still 旧金山 (Mandarin for "Old Gold Mountain"), which represents the wealth and opportunity that America seemed to offer. While social mobility is easier than it is in the EU, it is not significantly so. However, when polled on how easy social mobility is in their country, Europeans significantly underestimate it, while American's significantly overestimate it. And, as any game theorist knows, perceptions of payoffs are actually much more important than reality. Additionally, American's, more than any other people, are risk loving. This cultural phenomenon is due to the fact that we are a nation of immigrants. So with the exception of the Indians and Hawaiians, all of our ancestors were willing to take one of the biggest risks of all: moving into a new country. This risk-loving behavior has been embedded into our culture, passed down from parent to child. Therefore, compared to our European counterparts, we more willing to risk it big in hopes of a big reward than rely on constant, yet low-yielding, government support. Also, the long fight against Communism during the Cold War alienated many Americans to any variation of Marxist philosophy. But on a more negative reason, its because of America's ethnic diversity. In America race is clearly linked into our socio-economic system. Therefore our poor our a different color than our rich. In Scandanavian countries, the poor look identical to the rich, all nordic. People are more likely to help out people of the same ethnicity. This is universal, not just unique to America. Europeans are less willing to provide government benefits to the new wave of Eastern European immigrants. However, because race is so intrinsic in our socio-economic system, those with money and power are less willing to redistribute it to those who don't.
7 :
Has a lot to do with the fact that social mobility has been historically easier in places like the USA or Australia. The reason being is that countries that are just in their beginning don't have established lineages of wealth like they did in Europe. And then there's the fact that socialism was suppressed by our government, most notably during the 50s with McCarthy.
8 :
Socialism.. they're free market capitalist countries with an extended social sector. Higher taxes support things like health care and education in a more significant way than in USA or Australia.
9 :
Americans should look to their north, at Canada. We too come from Immigrant stock , who were willing to "risk it all " by coming to a undeveloped wilderness. BUT we also were smart enough to see that in order to be strong and healthy as a country, we needed to provide support to the weak, ill and elderly among us. To that end, Canada was the FIRST country in the world to pass laws that mandated national old age pensions in 1926 , worker's injury compensation on a national level 1941, women's right to vote and be elected to Parliament 1920, national health care plans ( 1960 ) and guranteed national maternity leave, 1968 and many other social support programs that have resulted in our being consistently rated in the top five countries in the world in which to live. Vancouver British Columbia is rated the "best city in the world to live in 2011 ". Canadians have the highest percentage ( 45 % ) of University graduates in the world, based on our national population; while the USA ranks 12 th on that same list. Why? We support University students with our income taxes, and all of our Universities are PUBLICLY owned, not private corporations. No sports scholarships in Canadian Universities, and no 100,000 seat fotball stadiums either, but if you are a superior student, yoiu can get a 100 percent scholarship, in a hard science program. .People in Canada are not worried that their entire future may be ruined by a medical emegency, as in the USA. That goes a long way towards being less tense. Our seniors know that they are not going to be making a choice between paying for life saving medications and paying the rent. After age 65, ( later this year ) I will be paying a flat rate of $4.50 for each script that I fill at the local drug store here in Toronto. That goes on for life. Americans are just too damm self centred, to see that their lack of social compassion is killing them. The " I'm all right Jack, screw you " attitude is just too deeply buried in the national mentality, for it to change any time soon. Of course, may be the " new poor ", who have lost their homes and jobs, and are living in motels with their kids, will have something to say about that at the ballot box. We watch the USA's problems, from up here, north of the border, and shake our heads at the crazyness that goes on down there. Individual Americans are nice people, but as a nation they are scarey, in their ignorance of the world outside of their own borders. That even applies to their "next door neighbours " who are their best busines customers, and who sell them MORE stuff than the next five countries, combined. How many Americans know that Canada supplies nearly HALF of all your oil and gas stocks, via pipline from Alberta, not Saudi Arabia ? And we will continue to do that, for the next 100 years ? Socialism is not the boogy man that Americans think it is.......after all..... you all pay into the Social Security pensioin plan, don't you ? Are you going to send the SS cheques BACK ? When you get them as a senior ? I didn't think so. Jim B. Toronto.
10 :
Well, living in Norway I can tell Norway isn't socialist. The same is true for Finland and Denmark too. he truth is that we have a mixed economy with private ownership and corporations as well as a strong centralised government that takes ownership in certain sectors of society, like healthcare, electricity, telephones, national broadcasting, oil, trains, roads, water and dams, but also opens up for private competition.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Why does socialism work in countries such as finland, denmark and norway but not the USA or Australia
Why does socialism work in countries such as finland, denmark and norway but not the USA or Australia?
Other - Politics & Government - 10 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Ethics in the case of the US. Those countries mention have common ethics that (most) people want to work and NOT take advantage of the system. They use it as needed and share a common set of beliefs and background. A few people abusing the system and it can still function. In the US there are too many background beliefs and ethics that too many believe they are due a support system and do not have to put into it or work. They have no incentive to support the system for others when it is needed. The numbers simply do not support the weight of a true socialism system, it would become top heavy and fall over. I do not wish to draw any conclusions about Australia. As the tax system and background of the people are only known to me from books.
2 :
Denmark is not a so called socialist state. In fact the present danish government is liberal and conservative, unitary parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. This applies to Norway and Finland is a parliamentary republic or parliamentary constitutional republic is a type of republic which operates under a parliamentary system of government - meaning a system with no clear-cut separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.
3 :
Your premise is false. A degree of socialism works everywhere. All US Presidential administrations support a degree of socialism, but the perspective is different. Democrats believe in socialism that redistributes wealth from the upper class, to the middle and lower classes. Republicans believe in socialism that redistributes wealth from the middle and lower classes, and gives it to the wealthy.
4 :
With that answer, I am prepared to vote for Carl P for president next year. Well put sir.
5 :
freedom is a funny thing that very few have actually experienced no country is free when they are afraid of their government, only People from revolutions experience true freedom but we have been told to believe we need order to create a "perfect society" but more order only results in more chaos, the only things people need are god and good moral values to live in peace and harmony we don't need "isms" we need freedom. As Americans we believe we are free because we broke away from Britain as did austrailia but we only become a mirror image of them. As for Finland, Denmark, and norway they have not ever thought of themselves as not being free they just do as they have done for centuries and follow their countries order thinking it will help better their society. Hopefully one day all countries will experience freedom and peace and learn that power only leads to corruption.
6 :
Are you sure these countries have socialist governments? How do you define "working"? Redistribution schemes can work for awhile. Some say that the reason for a disparity in wealth among humans is because of greed and evil, but it has been shown that if all the wealth is taken from the rich and redistributed to the poor, within a very short period of time, the former rich will begin to get that way again and the majority of former poor will soon become poor again, albeit with more stuff. Socialism worked for a brief time in Rhodesia. But soon after all the wealth was seized, the country fell into disparate times. (1) The only fair and equitable systems are liberal systems also known as free market capitalist economies. (2)
7 :
AND where did you get the mistaken idea that socialism works in Finland, Denmark and Norway..... on what criteria do you make this comparison?.... The United States is physically bigger and much more populous.... more diverse and complex.... this is sort of like comparing apples and oranges If you proportionally reduce all the factors (GNP, GDP, etc etc) you will find America is FAR more successful across the board..... example: Name one scientific contribution any of those countries has made to the world..... I have a LONG list of American contributions....from "Tang" to the Nuclear Bomb Socialism is the antithesis to Capitalism and causes social stagnation.... in a pure form socialism has NEVER worked.....
8 :
Because you have got Socialism wrong. They were and are a Socialist nation but Indians got it wrong and I have even crticised Das Capita for this and it is this very Nepharious Philosophy that has beaten many Natinalists from their own Homes and they wandered away as Pilgrims... and it does say Progress they have Progressed and not Regressed as Das and capita thus explianing why that system was a Fail. It was Criminal ans wooing the innocent who wanted a change but for the good and not worse.Thus such actions and principles that guided them to justify all their activities in the name of Socialism was to the contrary an action taken out of guilt to protect the criminals and continue in their crime in a fiercer and more confident way. There is a subtler one too like that in Entertainment, sports and Business the very backbone and education the very foundational truth has been RAPED by such a Philosophy. In Indian terminology it is better understood as I see no evil, I say no evil I hear no evil. But to say I see good in evil and to say I say the truth in Gods name and to say I heard nothing but the truth when it was a LIE... is Rape to the very Purity of Knowledge.. and Justice system has been the Violater of such acts which the nation bore but it took very less time to bring it down to Physical in the name of Community Living. Sharing everything common is good but to share your wallet with others is considered as a Fool.. or even Bribe... gross violation!!! To share your bed with another man or women is considered as the In Thing live up with time... but to deny a stranger that very sacred thing is considered as Denial needing reproof!!! This is RAPE!!! of Knowledge... Vidhya Mandir turned to Vidhya Mandir of Temple Prostitutes who had been freed from such social evils and nuicense but today that very evil is considered as worship!!!!! and not ytaking this up would rip me from my very roots of my forefathers.How secure am I in this EVIL SYSTEM that is worshiped and desired by many...? When I question such ethos that are already existing I consider myself as a scion unfit for this POLITICAL SYSTEM and therefore wouldn't vote as that would mean to me that I have voted a Govt in to Rape the Constitution and the Preamble of A Free INDIA ,never was it taken over by any Nation or People group or isms. This is the IRON WALL of INDIA... HER Constitution that protects her people from such an Invasive act of Subtility and wickedness in return of the TRUST that we put on such. We should be people walking and signing papers with an open eye and do less talking lesser more listening. It will do good for our Honoured PM elected by the People of India not to listen to Gillani's passionate pleas on ground of anything.... for we are known as a sleeping giant but when awake... we put others to sleep!!!! but infact to invite The Honoured ASIF ZARDARI to hear him joke on International TERRORISM!!! We as one people from Pakistan and Bangladesh would have a Royal Time in the Royal Palace of the Maharaja Mann SIngh Shri Mann Mohan Singh where I think all Royal Invitees alone should be present... to share all of their light times and dark times... its common friends on a Common floor which is Royal... and any act of treason will be immediately sensed and swiftly and politely dealt with.
9 :
Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden practice a form of Democratic Socialism. This basically means that the country controls or influences certain parts of the economy either through regulation, or just owning certain industries. They also engage in higher taxation policy that allows them to provide social services such as education, welfare, health care, utilities, daycare as well as a bunch of others. In a truly free market economy none of these thing would be provided, not even education. Taxation would be kept at a minimum. Only enough to keep a small government and provide defense. So to an extent even the U.S is also a Democratic Socialism. Don't tell them that! All of these things, however, are done through a democratic process. Which would allow them to either become more socialistic or less depending on how the population feels. Australia, in fact most western countries, tend to be more socialistic then the U.S. Australia tends to be like Canada, which Americans always consider to be Pink. Not exactly Red (A Socialism), but close. To fully answer your question. To say that Democratic Socialism doesn't work in the U.S is wrong, because the socialism that they do have does work. You also can't tell if something works if they don't have it? for example: does universal health care work in the U.S? most likely, based on other countries, it would work. Just because they don't have it, doesn't mean it doesn't work for them.
10 :
Well none of these countries are socialist, but they have differing levels of socialism within their democracies, with US the least, Australia in the middle, and the scandanavian countries having the most socialism. But all of them are democracies, so the people have the freedom to alter their own system if they decide it doesn't "work" for them anymore. However currently these countries have high standards of living, health, etc. so it is currently working for them. It's hard to say whether or not having more socialism would "work" or not in the USA without trying it. How well do the current socialist programs work in the USA (i.e. medicare, etc.)?
Other - Politics & Government - 10 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Ethics in the case of the US. Those countries mention have common ethics that (most) people want to work and NOT take advantage of the system. They use it as needed and share a common set of beliefs and background. A few people abusing the system and it can still function. In the US there are too many background beliefs and ethics that too many believe they are due a support system and do not have to put into it or work. They have no incentive to support the system for others when it is needed. The numbers simply do not support the weight of a true socialism system, it would become top heavy and fall over. I do not wish to draw any conclusions about Australia. As the tax system and background of the people are only known to me from books.
2 :
Denmark is not a so called socialist state. In fact the present danish government is liberal and conservative, unitary parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. This applies to Norway and Finland is a parliamentary republic or parliamentary constitutional republic is a type of republic which operates under a parliamentary system of government - meaning a system with no clear-cut separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.
3 :
Your premise is false. A degree of socialism works everywhere. All US Presidential administrations support a degree of socialism, but the perspective is different. Democrats believe in socialism that redistributes wealth from the upper class, to the middle and lower classes. Republicans believe in socialism that redistributes wealth from the middle and lower classes, and gives it to the wealthy.
4 :
With that answer, I am prepared to vote for Carl P for president next year. Well put sir.
5 :
freedom is a funny thing that very few have actually experienced no country is free when they are afraid of their government, only People from revolutions experience true freedom but we have been told to believe we need order to create a "perfect society" but more order only results in more chaos, the only things people need are god and good moral values to live in peace and harmony we don't need "isms" we need freedom. As Americans we believe we are free because we broke away from Britain as did austrailia but we only become a mirror image of them. As for Finland, Denmark, and norway they have not ever thought of themselves as not being free they just do as they have done for centuries and follow their countries order thinking it will help better their society. Hopefully one day all countries will experience freedom and peace and learn that power only leads to corruption.
6 :
Are you sure these countries have socialist governments? How do you define "working"? Redistribution schemes can work for awhile. Some say that the reason for a disparity in wealth among humans is because of greed and evil, but it has been shown that if all the wealth is taken from the rich and redistributed to the poor, within a very short period of time, the former rich will begin to get that way again and the majority of former poor will soon become poor again, albeit with more stuff. Socialism worked for a brief time in Rhodesia. But soon after all the wealth was seized, the country fell into disparate times. (1) The only fair and equitable systems are liberal systems also known as free market capitalist economies. (2)
7 :
AND where did you get the mistaken idea that socialism works in Finland, Denmark and Norway..... on what criteria do you make this comparison?.... The United States is physically bigger and much more populous.... more diverse and complex.... this is sort of like comparing apples and oranges If you proportionally reduce all the factors (GNP, GDP, etc etc) you will find America is FAR more successful across the board..... example: Name one scientific contribution any of those countries has made to the world..... I have a LONG list of American contributions....from "Tang" to the Nuclear Bomb Socialism is the antithesis to Capitalism and causes social stagnation.... in a pure form socialism has NEVER worked.....
8 :
Because you have got Socialism wrong. They were and are a Socialist nation but Indians got it wrong and I have even crticised Das Capita for this and it is this very Nepharious Philosophy that has beaten many Natinalists from their own Homes and they wandered away as Pilgrims... and it does say Progress they have Progressed and not Regressed as Das and capita thus explianing why that system was a Fail. It was Criminal ans wooing the innocent who wanted a change but for the good and not worse.Thus such actions and principles that guided them to justify all their activities in the name of Socialism was to the contrary an action taken out of guilt to protect the criminals and continue in their crime in a fiercer and more confident way. There is a subtler one too like that in Entertainment, sports and Business the very backbone and education the very foundational truth has been RAPED by such a Philosophy. In Indian terminology it is better understood as I see no evil, I say no evil I hear no evil. But to say I see good in evil and to say I say the truth in Gods name and to say I heard nothing but the truth when it was a LIE... is Rape to the very Purity of Knowledge.. and Justice system has been the Violater of such acts which the nation bore but it took very less time to bring it down to Physical in the name of Community Living. Sharing everything common is good but to share your wallet with others is considered as a Fool.. or even Bribe... gross violation!!! To share your bed with another man or women is considered as the In Thing live up with time... but to deny a stranger that very sacred thing is considered as Denial needing reproof!!! This is RAPE!!! of Knowledge... Vidhya Mandir turned to Vidhya Mandir of Temple Prostitutes who had been freed from such social evils and nuicense but today that very evil is considered as worship!!!!! and not ytaking this up would rip me from my very roots of my forefathers.How secure am I in this EVIL SYSTEM that is worshiped and desired by many...? When I question such ethos that are already existing I consider myself as a scion unfit for this POLITICAL SYSTEM and therefore wouldn't vote as that would mean to me that I have voted a Govt in to Rape the Constitution and the Preamble of A Free INDIA ,never was it taken over by any Nation or People group or isms. This is the IRON WALL of INDIA... HER Constitution that protects her people from such an Invasive act of Subtility and wickedness in return of the TRUST that we put on such. We should be people walking and signing papers with an open eye and do less talking lesser more listening. It will do good for our Honoured PM elected by the People of India not to listen to Gillani's passionate pleas on ground of anything.... for we are known as a sleeping giant but when awake... we put others to sleep!!!! but infact to invite The Honoured ASIF ZARDARI to hear him joke on International TERRORISM!!! We as one people from Pakistan and Bangladesh would have a Royal Time in the Royal Palace of the Maharaja Mann SIngh Shri Mann Mohan Singh where I think all Royal Invitees alone should be present... to share all of their light times and dark times... its common friends on a Common floor which is Royal... and any act of treason will be immediately sensed and swiftly and politely dealt with.
9 :
Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden practice a form of Democratic Socialism. This basically means that the country controls or influences certain parts of the economy either through regulation, or just owning certain industries. They also engage in higher taxation policy that allows them to provide social services such as education, welfare, health care, utilities, daycare as well as a bunch of others. In a truly free market economy none of these thing would be provided, not even education. Taxation would be kept at a minimum. Only enough to keep a small government and provide defense. So to an extent even the U.S is also a Democratic Socialism. Don't tell them that! All of these things, however, are done through a democratic process. Which would allow them to either become more socialistic or less depending on how the population feels. Australia, in fact most western countries, tend to be more socialistic then the U.S. Australia tends to be like Canada, which Americans always consider to be Pink. Not exactly Red (A Socialism), but close. To fully answer your question. To say that Democratic Socialism doesn't work in the U.S is wrong, because the socialism that they do have does work. You also can't tell if something works if they don't have it? for example: does universal health care work in the U.S? most likely, based on other countries, it would work. Just because they don't have it, doesn't mean it doesn't work for them.
10 :
Well none of these countries are socialist, but they have differing levels of socialism within their democracies, with US the least, Australia in the middle, and the scandanavian countries having the most socialism. But all of them are democracies, so the people have the freedom to alter their own system if they decide it doesn't "work" for them anymore. However currently these countries have high standards of living, health, etc. so it is currently working for them. It's hard to say whether or not having more socialism would "work" or not in the USA without trying it. How well do the current socialist programs work in the USA (i.e. medicare, etc.)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)