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: 9
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Unless things have changed dramatically over the past 5 years ( which i doubt) there is not one single state in The U.S. that is " richer " than The U.K. ( which this chart shows) :-

www.economist.com...




posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Dear ScepticScot,

Absolutely, I agree with you that American defense spending is exceptional. It is massive. No question. And in this one particular post, I'm not going to support or attack those levels. It's something that the US has had many internal arguments about. What is the right level? No one knows, but we seem to have reached an uneasy agreement, that Obama has lowered it to just about it's bottom limit.

Where does it go from here? 2014 and 2016 will decide, but I don't think those elections will be decided by meaningful discussion on the proper defense spending levels.

Now this, honestly, is not meant as a criticism, but I've always had a schoolboy's romantic crush on Her Majesty's Navy. The history of exploration, control of the oceans, the whole bit. As an outsider it appears that it's fallen on (I hope, temporary) hard times.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Still waiting for answers....

Why haven't "Socialists" solved

the big Debt problems yet ?


But then again, there's no such thing as "Socialism".





Which socialist country do you refer to? You called the UK one while all the responses you have received show it's clearly not. So, why hasn't any capitalist country solved the big debt problems yet?

ETA: You do know the concept of servicable debt, don't you? Anyone who has a loan/mortgage or credit card is servicing debt. Countries are little different, it's when you can no longer service the debt it becomes an issue, ask Detroit.
edit on 26-8-2014 by uncommitted because: as per ETA



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
Even the Nordic countries aren't really Socialist, they're more redistributive capitalism. Any nation that is claimed to be Socialist but does not have an economic model in which workers own the means of production... is a false claim. Billionaire puppeteers sure do love those muddy waters.


A Capitalistic government would not have the power redistribute anything, because it would have no legal claim to anything.

Any government that can claim ownership of the property of its citizens is socialist/totalitarian.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: pirhanna
a reply to: xuenchen

Denmark is wealthy, and is more socialist than Britain.
So this isn't really a very good argument is it?


Socialism makes no wealth. Denmark is wealthy in spite of socialism, not because of it.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Britguy
a reply to: xuenchen

The UK is Socialist? When did that happen?


Seriously, we are run by the same bankers and corporate interests as the US, so no Socialism here.

I thought the US was a Capitalist run country, but it sure doesn't look too good over there either. Not that most people would realise that given the amount of "cooking of the books" that goes on to paint a rosier picture than in fact exists in reality.


Socialism happened at taxes.

Why not buy subscriptions or insurance instead?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I get frustrated by this type of OP and the people who run with it as fact.

We all like to think we are intelligent and informed - do we not?

1. This is such a selective and simplistic comparison as to be insulting to anyone who have the ability to question what is stated.
2. The term "socialism" is so misused and it means different things to different people. The UK is not socialist.
3. Question the motives of the website writing such nonsense.

Regards



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted


Which socialist country do you refer to?


Any would do.

Assuming there's any left.




posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

Is there a suggestion that "Socialism" has been hijacked by somebody ?

If so, who and why ?

What's the "fine print" ?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: xuenchen

It's funny that you say Socialism when they've been under austerity for how many years now? You really get off on people suffering if you can twist it to support your demonizations, don't you?


Austerity means something is being cut back, how can that happen unless it is given first?

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



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


Capitalism is a failed system when applied to the whole economy (pro capitalist KNOW this and are fighting a reargaurd action, like this thread). It is perfect for non essential goods and services like a TV or Car or Sweets or Sports clothing etc etc. It is appalling bad when applied to essential goods and services like transport infrastructure, water, fuel, health care , education etc.


Socialism claims to want to do better than Capitalism. Nice Idea.

Please explain how socialism actually does better than capitalism.

Socialism assumes that the entire economy and all of the wants and needs of everyone can be managed by a few human beings. How is that possible?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   
I'll use my totally subjective personal experience as a scoreboard. That'll be so unfair that no one will feel obliged to take it seriously.

1. Kitchens.
Kitchens in European homes are tiny, like the galley of a sail-boat. And it's rare to find a dishwasher (machine) and garbage disposal in many of them. Fridges that would fit inside R2D2. No espresso machines--just a little cup with a handle that sits on one of the stove's burners. Hell, a lot of times a friggin' toaster is the centerpiece of the room.

2. TVs
I'd like to see a comparison of TV sizes between UK and US. A lot of the ones I've seen over there were so small it was like watching an oscilloscope! Do they make them so small in case the police search for illegal TV's, and you can hide yours so they won't find it? On the other hand, maybe size is inversely related to content....

3. Bathrooms
What's up with a rented "flat" (meaning a high-rise) sharing one bathroom with the entire floor? RICH means not putting your cheeks where the neighbors put theirs. And bathtubs with what looks like an old telephone: turns out that's the shower-head. You have to hold the freaking nozzle over your head the whole time you shower. You get better facilities in a state park in the US, than in a lot of Brit apartments. If there is something your host calls "the shower", it's smaller than a coffin, with plumbing from before 'the war'.

4. No heat.
I would understand not having air conditioning, since Ukes don't have a temperate climate; and most of the US seems tropical in comparison. But I said NO HEAT. What the Hell. Britain only seems like an island; it's actually just a dirty iceberg. It's colder than Canada at Christmas! And a lot of apartments have No. Heat. British pajamas are actually parkas and mukluks. Seriously; how rich can you be if you have to go to bed fully clothed? That was the whole point of the industrial revolution....

So in summation, you can show all the numbers and statistics you want. You can even rant about American excess. But Americans exceed because they CAN. fine. I'd rather be snug than smug any day.



edit on 26-8-2014 by tovenar because: provincialism goes best when it's self-righteous



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

originally posted by: xuenchen
Can anybody show us some real figures that show Britain's "Wealth" in comparison ?

So far only seeing many deflections.

Maybe it's all about *Debt* and *Credits* ?





It's tough to find an equal comparison because the way this article came to their conclusion is through manipulating the numbers by injecting the PPP's of GDP...which are based on the US dollar. So of course the US would have a perfect score of 1.00, while the UK has a score of 0.70. There is a reason that the PPP measurements are bad to use because it's only considered a theoretical way to measure wealth and there are many differing theories on which calculation method is best to use.

We could look at income disparity, but you would not like to measure the UK against the US based on the Gini coefficient because wealth in the UK is more even among it's citizens and the US ranks in income disparity towards the top on par with fricken Mexico.

In 2012, Credit Suisse produced a report that stated there were 15 or 17 (sry, cant remember off the top of my head) countries that a citizen had a better chance to make money. Included was France, Germany the UK and Norway and Singapore.


What numbers and methodology did Credit Suisse use to get their estimate?

Maybe they used socialist numbers for their socialist customers.

Mostly the OP says that things cost more in Great Britain than they do in the United States.

Most people would assume that.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   

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. ?

Free Of Charge in The U.K.

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

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



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: tovenar
And your visit in the 1950's must have really made an impression.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   
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.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join