92% of Americans prefer Sweden's "socialistic" economic system

obviously socialism is what is mixed in the kool aid these days.

if you followed the question of, located Sweden on a map, how many people do you think will point it out?

If you cannot find it on a map, how much do you really know about it?

I respect the good propaganda, but I cry because people believe the propaganda

a reply to: Edumakated

There will always be people who are more successful than others. Always. Some work harder. Some are lucky. Regardless of the reason, there will never be equity.

The problem isn't a lack of "equity" it is the global domination of wealth and power. CEO's make 274-352 x more than the average person (on average). Have you met many CEO's? Most of them are really not that bright. But they are smart enough to know that when you determine who gets the pay rise you can suddenly start earning alot more money.

Head CEO: "So everyone I have called this meeting to determine who will be getting the extra funds in regards to pay increases".
.......
Everyone: "Hahahahaha...Good one".

Even forgetting the issues of wealth distribution Corporate takeover is bad for everyone in society. And that is what has happened. They make the rules, they make the laws, they choose the leaders, they choose everyone else rights. # that. No one elected them and no one with any sense would want an elitist overlord type of Governing. If you allow people to determine your rights, you allow those same people to take them away.

Enjoy the next 10 World wars. We all know how much bankers and corporations love wars.

a reply to: Puppylove
That isn't remotely close to how the Pareto Principal is applied.

a reply to: thinline

So is the coe/average worker's pay equitable? Or is that propaganda as well?

originally posted by: JAY1980
Have any of you actually talked to people from Sweden?
Well I have and most are not very happy with their social programs, and have been moving back to a capitalist model over the last few years.
Collective socialism doesn't work!

Funny that... I mean, considering the top ten happiest countries in the world are all highly socialized (free healthcare, federal dole system, ect...).

World Happiness Report

Kind of contradicts your claim, yeah?

a reply to: peck420

So break it down for me how it's applied in terms of production.

Create an example like I did. Break it down for me, how 20% of the population is physically producing 80% of the product. Please.

Give something we can look at and consider. Give us it being applied in a way that's tangible and not just abstract numbers saying "because studies"

If studies have been done, then there must samples from that study of how this actually works.

Educate our dumb asses.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Kind of contradicts your claim, yeah?

I would'nt of even called it a claim. "I spoke to a couple of people in sweden" isn't much of a game changer.

Edit: Lol, I like how some of the Gangster run countries on that list have higher trust in government values than the US

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

92% of Americans dont understand their own system

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Edumakated

Having read that, I'm firmly in the belief that it does not apply in terms of productivity in a way that's reasonable to determine wealth earned.

Using it in this way is putting way too much emphasis on the initial cause while ignoring the effort involved in creating the effect.

An example of how it's being used and why doing so is effed up ten ways to sunday.

Susan looks down at her paper, oh hey look, people are looking to by Widgets, ok hey Frank, George, Peter, Rosy and Shakira have your factories fire up the workers. We need to get our Widgets out so we can compete with Widget kings our competitors.

Ok boss!!! they say and fire up their factories. Each putting their supervisors in motion to get their workers to start production on the parts.

Now Widget Kings the competitor of Susan's company is doing the same thing, so are other competitors.

Now here's how the math you're using is determining who's producing.

Susan's and her competitor companies decision resulted in their people starting their factories up, who then directed their supervisors to get their workers to build widgets.

It's saying that since Susan's action, deciding to produce more widgets, results in her underling starting up the factories, and then the supervisors doing their part to get their workers to create the widgets. She deserves credit for the production of all the widgets her company makes, while each of her factory owners deserve for the production of the widgets built in their factory, and then supervisors, ect down the line til we get to workers at the bottom. Who do the actual making of said Widgets.

Same is true for the other company.

Now using this totally screwed method of determining worth.

20% is responsible for 80% of production, because it's giving Susan and her competitors full credit for the production of everyone under their command simply because their action of deciding it needed to be done resulting in the effect of everyone under them down the chain producing all the companies widgets.

So essentially why this is effed up. Because it puts all the focus on effect from action, it's saying Susan saying hey guys make widgets is worth most of the profit, despite the people at the bottom being the only ones actually doing the physical production.

The people doing the actual work are getting screwed up the ass, not because they aren't working or producing but because someone else told them to work and is getting credit for everything they produce without actually doing it, while they are only getting credit for what they produce, which they are actually physically doing.

So yes, your 20 / 80% thing is true when looking at cause and effect, but total BS when you look at it in terms of effort taken to actually create said production. The workers, which encompass the 80% are the ones putting in the most effort to produce, but you want them to get almost nothing for it because Susan runs the company and tells them what to do at the very top.

I'm sorry but I'm not going to discount the actual work done by the 80% because of semantic BS.

No one has discounted the work of the 80%. We are talking wealth creation. Stay focused.

A widget maker in a factory is only worth so much to the manufacturer. Let's say $20/hr. it is a fairly low skilled job and there is ample supply of workers available so that the market wage is $20/hr. Let's say this person has no ambition and pretty much works in this position for 25 years. They save a little money and have a 401k worth say $100k.

On the other hand, we have the CEO who is also the company founder. He pays himself $1,000,000 a year and is worth $50 million. He started the company in his garage 20 years ago by mortgaging his house. he had a few years where he teetered on bankruptcy, but through making the right moves he has grown the company into the success that it is today. As a result, he employs 500 widget makers and maybe 25 other administrative positions. Most of the CEOs net worth is tied up in the value of the company (meaning if he sold the company, he'd get $50 million, but he may only have say $5 million liquid (cash).

The widget maker while important is easily replaced, the CEO is not.

When you hear of 20% owning 80% of the wealth, all that is being said is the following. Let's say you have 100 people total. Total wealth is $1,000,000.

20 people are worth $800,000 because they created businesses or did something that generated that kind of value. The 80 remaining people are only worth $200,000 because whatever it is they do does not generate as much value. This has nothing to do with how hard someone works or anything. The free market determines what someone's labor is worth in wages and depending on how they use that money, they may generate additional wealth through investments, etc.

As I pointed out to you in the link, this rule tends to carry on in most things in life. Sports. Nature. Anything. You will never have equality of outcomes and some people are just able to generate more wealth than others. There is nothing evil or unfair about it. It just is...

Wealth creation has NOTHING to do with how hard someone works. NOTHING. Working hard by itself does not create wealth nor does it generate a high salary. A bucktooth fat stripper is not going to get the same tips that a buxom hot blond stripper gets no matter how good she can twerk. Should the blond share her tips with the bucktooth stripper?

92% of Americans have the following 2 things pop up in their heads when you mention Sweden.

- Weed
- Redlight District

I'm quite sure that if you explained to those same people what kind of economic system Sweden has, they wouldn't vote for it.


By the way... 92% of the people reading this article swung the opposite way. I think your poller is broken.

a reply to: Puppylove
You aren't seriously asking for someone else to do your work for you (research), while arguing that you should be deserving of all of equal rewards?

Interesting.

Pareto's principal is widely documented, do your own homework.

a reply to: StallionDuck

So its better to keep weed and prostitution illegal and help maintain a criminal culture and prison for profit system?

Im sure prostitutes love working for violent pimps instead of a regulated employer?

I'm quite sure that if you explained to those same people what kind of government Sweden has, they wouldn't vote for it.

Or better yet explain to them what government they currently have and see if they want that.

a reply to: peck420

If you present a "Factual" argument it is your responsibility to justify it.

originally posted by: WanderingNomadd
a reply to: StallionDuck

So its better to keep weed and prostitution illegal and help maintain a criminal culture and prison for profit system?

Im sure prostitutes love working for violent pimps instead of a regulated employer?

I'm quite sure that if you explained to those same people what kind of government Sweden has, they wouldn't vote for it.

Or better yet explain to them what government they currently have and see if they want that.

Zip Zero Ziltch to do with my response.

Re-Read. Engrish well?

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: peck420

So break it down for me how it's applied in terms of production.

Create an example like I did. Break it down for me, how 20% of the population is physically producing 80% of the product. Please.

Give something we can look at and consider. Give us it being applied in a way that's tangible and not just abstract numbers saying "because studies"

If studies have been done, then there must samples from that study of how this actually works.

Educate our dumb asses.

The problem is you are confusing two entirely different things. Wealth creation is not the same thing as physical production or making something.

originally posted by: WanderingNomadd
a reply to: peck420

If you present a "Factual" argument it is your responsibility to justify it.

Facts were provided. We can't force some of you to read or even comprehend what you are reading.

a reply to: StallionDuck

Lol why did you change your original OP for, to make me seem wrong? I thought you are a BS detector not a BS distributor?

According the quote. This was a game of probabilities not a realistic model. Congratulations 92% of people are risk averse gamblers while 8% are high risk gamblers. Wow, blows my mind. Can you believe it. Would I rather have 100% chance at 50k or a slim chance of being rich with great chance of being poor.

1. Sweden tops the US in the private property index. Private property index(the opposite of socialism) prevents wage inequality. Any country touted by leftist is a private property index haven. Meaning despite their national healthcare and high taxes they still respect private property rights higher than the US does.

2. Sweden up until very recently are very homogeneous in race and culture. This means that people are not going to deviate in their outcomes very much. Think about it, common sense. the US is competitive multiculturalism, where the superior cultures(Whites, east Asians, Jews) rise to the top while inferior cultures with inferior values for socioeconomic outcomes fall to the bottom.

3. The US dominates in international companies, meaning that a lot of the best companies or at least their CEO's live in the USA. These companies have global market share where these CEO's are going to be able to ask for a lot higher compensation, not all of them are american but they move to america for HQ. Please remind me of these giant multinational swedish companies( hint Ikea, Volvo, Ericsson)???? How about Swedish Wall street??? Swedish oil??? Swedish Hollywood??? Swedish google???? facebook???? Swedish Ford and GM?

originally posted by: StallionDuck
92% of Americans have the following 2 things pop up in their heads when you mention Sweden.

- Weed
- Redlight District

I'm quite sure that if you explained to those same people what kind of economic system Sweden has, they wouldn't vote for it.


By the way... 92% of the people reading this article swung the opposite way. I think your poller is broken.

Then 92% of Americans are retarded because that would be Holland that had the weed & red light district.
Not Sweden.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: StallionDuck
92% of Americans have the following 2 things pop up in their heads when you mention Sweden.

- Weed
- Redlight District

I'm quite sure that if you explained to those same people what kind of economic system Sweden has, they wouldn't vote for it.


By the way... 92% of the people reading this article swung the opposite way. I think your poller is broken.

Then 92% of Americans are retarded because that would be Holland that had the weed & red light district.
Not Sweden.

I was reading the comments wondering when someone was going to catch that.