It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Socialism Doesn’t Pay: Britain is Poorer Than Any US State But Mississippi

page: 10
22
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I'm recommending HOAX because not only is the UK NOT SOCIALIST by any meaningful measure of the word ...

The GDP of the UK in 2012 was 2.435 TRILLION USD. (Source)

California is the US state with the highest GDP which is listed at 1.95 TRILLION USD. (Source)

That second list shows that technically the UK is the 7th most productive country in THE WORLD.

The OP is completely misleading, incorrect, flawed, etc.

Did you know that when you posted, xuenchen ? Two Google searches bore that information out.

Do you take any responsibility for what you post?


The OP doesn't compare GDP directly, it compares how much can be bought with the money on hand.

GDP/ population * PPP = relative wealth

GDP, population and PPP are always estimates.

Your post is completely misleading, incorrect, flawed, etc...




posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong


How much does health care cost in The U.S. ?

Free Of Charge in The U.K.


Your doctors and nurses are volunteers, and you work with donated drugs and instruments?

That sounds dismissive, but consider. Who has any interest in keeping costs down, reducing waste, being efficient, catching fraud? Not your patients, it's not their money (they think). Not the doctors or staff, they want to keep their jobs and any bonuses (if applicable). Not the administrators, they just say they need more resources, and the government mails over another million pounds.

Nobody cares, because nobody is responsible. Is the National Health Service finally free of the horror stories of the end of life "pathway," which I'd rather not discuss because it sounds like ISIS' health care for infidels?

Please don't think anything is "free of charge," certainly your health care isn't, and the cost is more than just in pounds.

P.s. The sad and frightening part for me, and it should be for you, is that we both know the government never has enough money for everything we want it to do. The day will come when you'll be lying in your bed, surrounded by family, and a nurse will come in:

"Uh, Mr. Williams? That you? Oh, Williamson! Heh, 'nother foul up downtown. Those blokes can't tell a steheoscope from a stereo. Anyways, I'm s'posed to tell you that we can afford one set of cancer drugs this year. We're all on short rations 'til they get this Immigration program figured out at Brussels.

"Oh, yus, there's a guy down the hall who's eight years younger than you are and he's got the same number of kids, so he gets this year's allocation. You can try another hospital if you want (but confidentially, they're all really fouled up) or I s'pose you can try overseas, but we do have regs on that, you know. Besides, you've lived a good long life, ain't ya. Be honest, it's not like 66 is young or anything."

And they will smile as they wheel you into the special ward and your family says good-bye.
edit on 26-8-2014 by charles1952 because: Add a bit.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong


The first category could be almost all Western Europe should be marked down as socialist, even heavily socialist. Some of the Western Europe countries are the most successful countries in the world. They have managed to balance the use of social support systems like health service and schools against the capitalist side to their society. The resulting social environment takes care of the haves and have not’s of society. In most of the countries that have this basic model of fairness the economic gap people that have and people that have less is not that great. The best examples are countries like the Scandinavian countries. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland. Other countries that are great allies to the US are also socialist states. Like Germany and the United Kingdom. They have free health services for their citizens and allow for benefits based on the income you earn. These countries are enjoying very low crime rates as a benefit of the systems in place. The economic environment is modeled after capitalism at the same time. This model of socialism is very successful and should be what the rest of the world should be aiming for.
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Read that anyway you wish.



Government spending leads to slower growth

www.brusselsjournal.com...

The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism Video 17 min
The video presents, with graphs and links, some facts about Scandinavian economies. The wealth comes from capitalism (don't want too much of that) and the debt comes from socialism (let our children pay).

OK for now, coasting on the gains from the Industrial Revolution, which can't happen now because of governmental inflation, taxation and regulation.

Socialism = slower growth rate + increasing debt rate.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: scrog77
List of countries by GDP, Britain is 6th with 2.471.600 that's trillion$ en.wikipedia.org...(nominal)

List of US states by GDP, California is top with 1,891,363 that's trillions$ again.
en.wikipedia.org...

So that's Britain with nearly double what California has GDP, I'm am by no means an expert but to me that would make Britain the wealthiest state would it not.


The report compares per capita wealth times the purchasing power of that wealth.

So if stuff is more expensive in England, having the same amount of money as the US would buy less stuff in England.

Even though you may have more money than various states in the US, your money doesn't buy as much in England.

That is the comparison.


How much does health care cost in The U.S. ?


Hard to say, sometimes free with employment, sometimes at a reduced rate. Price went up with Obama Care.

The real hit to the medical system was illegal immigration. In the 1960's, before the welfare state, hospitals set aside 25% of their resources for charity. Rich customers were typically charged more for the same services. Then the illegal immigrants blew away the 25%, and the socialists used the anecdotal stories of hospital distress to pass regulatory controls.

Now we have $25 per pill of aspirin.





Free Of Charge in The U.K.


Nothing is free.




Social Housing ( or Public Housing ) in the U.S. only caters for 1.5 million families. Everyone else has to pay far more.


And everyone else also pays for the 1.5 million families.

What price is freedom?




Now start taking those costs out of U.S. incomes and then do the sums.


Those costs might be already included, the calculation was wealth per citizen, not wealth after taxes per citizen.

England's real average disposable income might be even lower than the OP shows.
edit on 26-8-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: horseatemymoney

except it looks like Norway is deep in debt....

$115 billion worth.

$22,000 per head of sheep.


Norway Deep Debt


World Debt Clocks


Progressive.Bank.Systems.BustingOut




And the US debt is at $44k per person and rising.....your point is?


Socialism, i.e. inflationary deficit spending because our leaders don't know what they claim to know, is the cause or willing enabler of the debt.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
Did you not see the note underneath the counter stating that the Norwegian government is in a position of net equity. The government has more savings than debts. The Norwegian government could pay of that debt and still have about $730 billion in its oil fund reserve.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I disagree that it is only socialism that is behind deficit spending or debt. Any economic model can experience such if the money is not properly managed.

Also, it is actually good for the government to run a deficit if it is not allowed to run amok. If there is X amount of money in the economy and the government has a completely balanced budget, simply taxing the population will throw off the balance between income and spending and force the deficit on to the people.....not government. I am unable to properly explain that, so I will try to find a link that does a better job.


The calls for cutting the federal government’s budget and perhaps even balancing it have continued and are likely to grow louder during this election year. Don’t listen to them unless you want to see a fall in your net assets! Government deficits, by definition, create private sector wealth, while surpluses drain it. It’s simple accounting.



To understand this, start by imagining a world in which there is no government and no foreign countries. All economic activity in the US would take place domestically and be carried out by our private sector firms and households. As a group, they would earn what they spent. If all American firms and households spent $1000, then–because one of them was standing on the other side of the cash register for each of these transactions–American firms and households would earn $1000. It is logically impossible for them, as a group (though not as individuals), to spend more or less than what they earned–the values must be identical because it’s really double-entry bookkeeping. Every transaction that takes place is both spending (for the person buying something) and income (for the person selling something).


Link

Please read the rest at the link provided.

edit on 8/26/2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: horseatemymoney
a reply to: xuenchen
Did you not see the note underneath the counter stating that the Norwegian government is in a position of net equity. The government has more savings than debts. The Norwegian government could pay of that debt and still have about $730 billion in its oil fund reserve.


So why bust the citizens' butts just to pay banker interest ?

How "Proud" is that ?




posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

The problem is....

They have to keep borrowing more to pay off the old debt.

Not smart.

Or is it?

Depends who makes the profit on the juice and vigorish.




posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Exactly. Our deficit spending was not controlled properly. But where did it go? Was the majority spent on socialist programs to benefit the people......or was it spent on the privatized war machine and bailouts that helped prop-up the failed "capitalists"?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I just can't help it. (I beg your pardon, Charles1952, just ignore me for a quick, quick post.)

Semicollegiate, let's use your impromptu formulas with some real world numbers, shall we?

As you indicated, many of these "factors" are mere estimates. (Which of course, for almost anyone, would suggest that impossibly wide statements as "UK is poorer than any US State except Mississippi" would be entirely hapless, but let's let that rest.)

Using your impromptu formula, let's look at an example and see if it makes sense, eh?

S. Korea GDP/Population (aka per Capita, 2013) = $24,328 (Source - IMF Column)

S. Korea PPP (2013) = 858.216682 (Source - OECD - Source used by OP)

Therefore using your formula, GDP/Population*PPP = 24328*858 = $20,873,424 "relative wealth" per person (I rounded.)

$20,873,424 "relative wealth" per person in S. Korea

Who knew that everyone in S. Korea is a multi-millionaire?

Another one, just for fun ...

Chile GDP per Capita (2013) = $15,775
(Source - IMF column)

Chile PPP (2013) = 355.406546 (Source - OECD

Again, using your formula, GDP/Population*PPP = 15775*355 = $5,600,480 "relative wealth" per person.

$5,600,480 "relative wealth" per person.

So, the Chileans are not quite S. Korean rich ... but they're doing much better than, well, ...

... a lot of folks.

Does it become clear that something is askew with your calculations, and perforce, with the OP's?

Look at it for a few and see if you can spot why.

edit on 19Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:09:25 -050014p072014866 by Gryphon66 because: Formatting.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Well with only two choices,

I think the "bailouts" were loans and paid back?

That leaves only one according to your comparisons.

How far back does that go?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Semicollegiate
In the space of a few posts you have defined socialism as any form social welfare and also total command and control communism.
Not big on shades of grey are you?
In almost every index available the best countries to live in are broadly social democratic.



Its kind of like the hot water and cold water in the plumbing. One is one and the other is the other.

The reason socialism is different is because is always uses coercion, the deadly force assumed by the government, as the " proof" in its arguments.

Capitalism has no coercion. All the coercion blamed on capitalism, comes from people, rich or poor, using the power of the government.

Capitalism really works, socialism rolls down hill.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: alldaylong


How much does health care cost in The U.S. ?

Free Of Charge in The U.K.


Your doctors and nurses are volunteers, and you work with donated drugs and instruments?

That sounds dismissive, but consider. Who has any interest in keeping costs down, reducing waste, being efficient, catching fraud? Not your patients, it's not their money (they think). Not the doctors or staff, they want to keep their jobs and any bonuses (if applicable). Not the administrators, they just say they need more resources, and the government mails over another million pounds.

Nobody cares, because nobody is responsible. Is the National Health Service finally free of the horror stories of the end of life "pathway," which I'd rather not discuss because it sounds like ISIS' health care for infidels?

Please don't think anything is "free of charge," certainly your health care isn't, and the cost is more than just in pounds.

P.s. The sad and frightening part for me, and it should be for you, is that we both know the government never has enough money for everything we want it to do. The day will come when you'll be lying in your bed, surrounded by family, and a nurse will come in:

"Uh, Mr. Williams? That you? Oh, Williamson! Heh, 'nother foul up downtown. Those blokes can't tell a steheoscope from a stereo. Anyways, I'm s'posed to tell you that we can afford one set of cancer drugs this year. We're all on short rations 'til they get this Immigration program figured out at Brussels.

"Oh, yus, there's a guy down the hall who's eight years younger than you are and he's got the same number of kids, so he gets this year's allocation. You can try another hospital if you want (but confidentially, they're all really fouled up) or I s'pose you can try overseas, but we do have regs on that, you know. Besides, you've lived a good long life, ain't ya. Be honest, it's not like 66 is young or anything."

And they will smile as they wheel you into the special ward and your family says good-bye.


Have you ever been to the U.K.? Somehow, I doubt it, because if you had, your little rant here wouldn't be riddled with so much ignorance.

1. U.K. NHS is funded through payroll contributions based on income. Contributions that very few people in the U.K. are opposed to.

2. Despite the anti NHS hype, the NHS was run very well. Hospitals and doctors and clinics as good as the ones in the U.S.

3. Death Panels? LOL! God, you people come up with some funny stuff. I've never seen nor heard of any "death panel" or people being denied treatment. The only "death panels" I have seen are here in America, and they are the insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, ect who won't give advanced treatments because the patient is poor and uninsured. Thanks to this awesome "free market" health system in the U.S., my mother died at the age of 53 because she could not afford the drugs, treatments, and surgeries that would have significantly prolonged her life and improved the quality. Instead, the doctors decided to condemn her to death and put her on hospice. She was on Hospice for FOUR YEARS, and she wasted away when, had she had more money and good insurance, she'd be more than likely still be alive. That would have never happened in the UK. Hell, in the UK, if there is a life saving or disease curing treatment unavailable in the UK, the NHS will pay for you to go to whatever country has this treatment, and pay it for you.

4. The doctors and nurses in the U.K. were a lot better than any medical pro I've dealt with here in the U.S. They were more far compassionate. They did not try to shove drugs down your throat for every minor problem when there were better options. They didn't deny people meds. They just weren't working as part time pushers for the Big Pharma industry, and were more open to alternative medicine when the patient desired it. I know this from my own experience. By contrast, every time I go see an American doctor, I end up having a new prescription pushed on me, one I ultimately throw away because the side effects are worse than the original problem.

On top of that, when I bring up alternatives to drugs (not alternative medicine, just alternative treatments that have better results with fewer negative effects), the doctors here rarely, if ever, will respect my wishes and give me choices. It's always pills, no matter how many times I explain I am not interested in taking them when they are not necessary. By contrast, in the U.K., the doctors there were not only thorough in their exams, after they had made their diagnosis, the offered me a whole bunch of options on how to handle my complaint.

If you think you have any real choice or freedom in your own healthcare in this country, you are deluded. The DEA has more say in your treatment than doctors do.

As far as money goes, the NHS has been running successfully for over 50 years without major issues. Only recently has there been any money troubles for the NHS. And the reason the NHS is getting overwhelmed is do to the large number of illegals, immigrants, and health tourists sneaking in the UK and getting treatment on the NHS, yet not making any contribution. And that is not a problem with the NHS, it's a problem with border control, anchor babies, the E.U., and other European countries trying to push their illegals and "undesirables" into Britain so they don't have to deal with them.

When it comes to the NHS, however, I have zero complaints, and came to respect it greatly. So instead of parroting the propoganda of whatever paranoia rag you've read, it might be a good idea to actually find out how it really works.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: Semicollegiate



Austerity is proof of incompetent political management, which is socialism.


Are you saying that incompetent political management only comes from socialism?

Perhaps you could clarify because that statement is obviously incorrect.


Capitalism is not of form of government.

So all incompetent political management is socialistic.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: Semicollegiate



Austerity is proof of incompetent political management, which is socialism.


Are you saying that incompetent political management only comes from socialism?

Perhaps you could clarify because that statement is obviously incorrect.


Capitalism is not of form of government.

So all incompetent political management is socialistic.



Socialism is not a form of government either. It is a socio-economic system that exists within a form of government such as a republic or communism.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247


I disagree that it is only socialism that is behind deficit spending or debt. Any economic model can experience such if the money is not properly managed.


Our level of debt is only possible by mandatory "flexible"(inflationary) fiat money. Mandatory fiat money is only possible by governmental usurpation and abrogation of real commodity money.

Socialism is the means and maintenance of governmental control of money.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: xuenchen

Can you show that they're Socialist?


Any political body that takes wealth and redistributes it is socialist.

All western countries are socialistic.

Socialism is the "Middle of the Road" now.


Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, this is an economic model not a program. Capitalism is an economic model in which private entities own the means of production. Welfare is redistributive.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
I didn't say the Norwegian government was smart. They are like those people who have savings, but get a bank loan so they can have a nice holiday. Who knows maybe the Norwegian government are saving up to pay for their aging population to have a decent retirement pension, so they wont have to eat cat food or freeze to death.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate



Mandatory fiat money is only possible by governmental usurpation and abrogation of real commodity money.


Not so. Fiat money is also possible by implementing a central banking system that does not adhere to a tangible commodity who's value dictates the value of the currency.



Socialism is the means and maintenance of governmental control of money.


It appears we do not have a common understanding of what socialism is to begin with....making it hard to converse on the issue.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join