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.

 

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

page: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: dismanrc

People take European countries as example because socialism was mentioned.




posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Winstonian

As far as I know the antitrust legislation was first created in the US to control monopolies only made possible by the free market, unregulated market, in use back then.

You americans are so brainwashed by the virtues of the so called "free-market" that you don´t realize that that kind of economy is all but free.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: LittleByLittle

Thanks for the reply.

So its not that far away from what I´ve said, except that you don´t pay directly to the Kommunal skatt and Landstingsskatt but they end up receiving via the Skatteverket

VAT, about 20-25% ? goes to the central state and possible to the EU.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

And what system does not reduce people to plain numbers?

Socialism?
Communism?
NAZISM?

In fact all those systems goal is to reduce EVEYBODY but the ruling elite to a plain number.

"Come on comrade 182 get your kibble and go back to work for the greater good of socity."



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: CrapAsUsual
a reply to: dragonridr

Money as potatoes, as grains of sand are not infinite. So if there are two of us and I have 9 out of ten, you will necessarily have one.

You can argue:

"There is nothing inherently wrong with this... Please explain how your neighbor's net worth affects you personally. It doesn't other than making you jealous. "

But no, this is the top of the pyramid argument planted in your head and you just repeat it because you don´t want to be seen a a jealous person. In fact this has nothing to do with wanting something that belongs to other, this has all to do with allowing someone to exploit a sustem that was conceived to allow all to live with dignity.

I ask you. Would it be possible to have a Bill Gates in Djibouti?

It wouldn´t because the Djibouti socio-economic environment is not developed enough to allow someone to generate that kind of wealth.

Millionaires/Billionaires are a product of the society they live in and they owe their wealth to the society where the fortune was achieved.

The hard work of countless people was necessary to evolve a society to a point where these fortunes could be made and societies evolve to provide better living conditions and a life with dignity to the general population, not to germinate billionaires.

Billionaires just take advantage of their power and the society they live in to grow their wealth mercilessly, shamelessly.

What difference would it make to Bill Gates to have 1 billion instead of 50 billion? Or to your wealthy neighbour to have one million instead of 10 million?

The difference is none. So why don´t they stop when they achieve a comfort level?

Because they are greedy and greed is a real sin, not jealousy, if you want to take the discussion that way.




Are you really arguing that America's economic system creating millionaires and billionaires is bad? This is what make capitalism so great. ANYONE has the ability to make themselves wealthy through hard work and creativity. It isn't like before where you had to be born into the right family or be one of the chosen few selected by the government to be an elite. I was born to a police officer and a secretary. My grand parents never finished elementary school. I'm black. Not even a generation ago, my parents were told they couldn't drink out of water fountain. Now, through my own hard work, I am literally close to be a millionaire. I haven't gotten to this point from exploiting people or do anything other than working hard and taking control of my own life. I know several people who are first generation successes.

Wealth does not have a limit because it is infinite. The fact someone is worth billions does not mean they necessarily set out to have that much wealth. It just means that whatever they created is worth that much to society.

Many of these people give away large portions of their wealth. None of you ever want to talk about all the philanthropic things that these people do.

Many of our universities, hospitals, arts, museums, etc are funded by people who look to share their wealth with society.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated


"Are you really arguing that America's economic system creating millionaires and billionaires is bad? 2

YES. It should create dignity, not millionaires. Millionaires are smart asses who took advantage of an imperfect system of government.

"ANYONE has the ability to make themselves wealthy through hard work and creativity."

So you just didn´t worked hard and weren´t creative enough right?

"isn't like before where you had to be born into the right family or be one of the chosen few selected by the government to be an elite."

Of course it is, you are rich because your parents are rich and they are rich because their parents were rich, just like before. Barons are one in a thousand or less.

"Not even a generation ago, my parents were told they couldn't drink out of water fountain. Now, through my own hard work, I am literally close to be a millionaire."

So the epitome of evolution, for you it´s getting rich.

"Wealth does not have a limit because it is infinite. The fact someone is worth billions does not mean they necessarily set out to have that much wealth. It just means that whatever they created is worth that much to society. "

No its not. Resources are finite, a country cannot print money or even make it out of thin air at will. For every millionaire thaere are thousands who must live n poverty.

Just look around you how many millionaires do you see? How many poor? So whats the ratio? Is it just a mater of hard work, imagination?

"Many of these people give away large portions of their wealth. None of you ever want to talk about all the philanthropic things that these people do. "

Don´t let your genes fool you. People do not live from crumbles. Beside that, how many of those benefactors didn´t wanted to see their glorious name stamped on top of those magnificent buildings they made for the populace?



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   
15% of what I say gets misinterpreted, while the 85% is just my opinion and is at least 90% understood. I'm nearly 100% sure that 50% of my friends agree at least 60% with my opinions.

I'm sure ATS is also divided nearly 60-40% with 60% of a liberal base.
92% huh........ well 100% or the surveyors failed to ask me a single question, and in my book that's a 100% fail.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: CrapAsUsual

I get the impression that you're from Sweden. So am I, but I'm far away from you when it comes to opinions on this. Let me give you my view on this, whilst replying to your quotes from your discussion with Edumakated.



YES. It should create dignity, not millionaires. Millionaires are smart asses who took advantage of an imperfect system of government.


You are talking about putting an ethical and moral obligation into economy. Economy is the production, consumption, trade and distribution of goods and services. With it comes ethics, but there is no moral obligation in an economy to create what you call a "dignified" society. Also, your role in an economy is to produce, consume, trade etc., and in this role you both make money for yourself and others by contributing to the whole system.



"ANYONE has the ability to make themselves wealthy through hard work and creativity."

So you just didn´t worked hard and weren´t creative enough right?


Yes, this is 100% true. Who else is there to blame really? Society? Is society stopping your from being creative? Is society stopping you from education?

I grew up in a family where money wasn't something that we had much around. My parents decided to change that, so they made sound investments and worked hard to be able to give me a good upbringing where I didn't have to starve. My parents now have enough to live a happy life with more money than they need. Good for them, they deserve it. Deciding for myself that I didn't want to be dependant on strangers or the government, and to be able to raise a family with more than enough money, I sought out higher education. During my time in college, I worked every single weekend and in the weekdays whenever I had the chance, for a couple of years.

Finishing college with no debts and landing a good job with a high salary, I can now look back happier than ever knowing that I put myself where I am today, not society. You cannot blame anyone else for your failures, because frankly, they're all yours and nobody likes a sore loser.




"isn't like before where you had to be born into the right family or be one of the chosen few selected by the government to be an elite."

Of course it is, you are rich because your parents are rich and they are rich because their parents were rich, just like before. Barons are one in a thousand or less.


Eh, yeah, read what I wrote above one more time. Change comes from you, not from anyone else.




No its not. Resources are finite, a country cannot print money or even make it out of thin air at will. For every millionaire thaere are thousands who must live n poverty.


Yes, a country can certainly make money out of thin air. Of course, this isn't to protect the citizens, but instead to regulate the reserves. You should read up on how the US Federal Reserve works, and how the increasing debt of the US is created. In common terms, what's done is that the Fed buys up on treasury securities by writing a check on itself. When the seller of the security deposits the check in a bank, the sellers deposit is increased. The bank then in turn deposits the Feds check to the Fed Reserve bank, i.e. increasing it's reserves. Then it can loan out more money thanks to fractional reserve banking. I am not defending this system, though I wanted to make it clear for you how it works in the real world.




"Many of these people give away large portions of their wealth. None of you ever want to talk about all the philanthropic things that these people do. "

Don´t let your genes fool you. People do not live from crumbles. Beside that, how many of those benefactors didn´t wanted to see their glorious name stamped on top of those magnificent buildings they made for the populace?


Who are you to tell me what to do with my money? If I work hard, educate myself, get a job and then goes on to start my own company, am I not entitled to the money that the company earns?

What is enough for you? Isn't it enough that I employ hundreds of people, making it possible for them to raise kids in decent living conditions, instead of having them live on well fare from the government since they don't have any jobs?

Who are you to decide how much money is enough for one person? Perhaps I want a bigger house? Perhaps I want take my kids on summer and winter vacations? Perhaps I want to indulge myself with expensive cars, food and wine? Who are you to tell me that I cannot have that, because I have to give up my hard earned money to other people who haven't accomplished what I have?

---

To all other people, do not believe the myth of the glorified Swedish or scandinavian socialism success story. A huge problem as I see it is that Bernie Sanders has convinced alot of people that America has to embrace the socioeconomic system that seemingly works very well in the Scandinavian countries. This all under the assumption that these countries are way better off than America, and that they are in fact countries under a socialist flag. This couldn't be further from the truth.

Universal healthcare, social safety nets and a good welfare state does not equate socialism. This is called social democracy and is enforced through high taxation while stimulating a high spending. It still fits into the capitalistic framework.

As a libertarian, I don't like this at all, and even though you may not agree with me on other levels, I don't think you would want this system either.

Just to put some numbers into the discussion.

I pay 30% taxes on my income (income taxes).
If you make more than $51500 a year, you'll have to pay an additional 25% tax on all above that.
My employer pays 31% in taxes just to employ me.
Then we have 25% VAT, on money that we already have paid 61% taxes on.
On top of this, I pay property tax, alcohol taxes, fuel tax and alot of other fee's that can be viewed as a tax.


Trust me, you do not want this, because it's utter madness.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Plotus

Thanks for the reply.

I´m not from Sweden

From all that you wrote I got the impression that:

1) You are not rich, you live well but you don´t have millions.
2) You, as I don´t know what is to fall into an hospital bed and leave with a bill of tens of thousands dollars, euros.
3) In your country, with more or less issues, things work very well, it´s when things fail that you notice they were there.

Your family history is exactly the same as mine, we are both rich when compared to a middle class person from africa, in our own countries we are middle class.

No one needs more than a decent home, a decent car, decent food, and not much more. No one needs a business jet, no one needs a diamonds necklace, no one needs a rolex. But everyone must have the bare minimum to have a decent life, specially someone who gets out to work everyday.

Measuring the success by the amount of money someone have its completely wrong, its glorifying the greed and that´s not healthy.

Why would someone hoard resources from a society just because have created hundreds of jobs? Why should the prize be a pile of money? Is that the only way to recognise someones talent and efforts? Or is money the only drive that matters today?




edit on 24-8-2016 by CrapAsUsual because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: CrapAsUsual

Make no mistake of it, if not challenged the forces behind this ideology and most of the wars of the 20th century will target other cultures later for destruction. They don't want strong traditions, they want 21st century popular culture.

In Asia the strong family traditions would probably be considered a threat. And in South America, well, South America has been kept down with routine regime change and disaster just like the Middle East. The big difference here I suppose is how fundamentalist Middle Eastern cultures are. South America is all about the drugs instead, the American CIA drug plantation.

And now Western politicians are completely scuttling even their own countries. Good luck with the future, all our recent history has been a long protracted process of intentionally sabotaging relations between countries, but also routinely totally destroying and crippling the infrastructure of the Third World. They get war and disaster and we get immigration and terrorist attacks.

I mean, destroying the countries of so many people.. and then inviting them home to the countries that destroyed their countries. I mean, yes, great way of doing things if you want #ty relations and trouble and even terrorism. You don't rape someone's sister and bomb their house and then invite them over to live with you. They're going to try and kill you. But we never chose to rape the Third World. Our leaders did that and protest didn't help much. Democracy never really worked at all in the whole of the 20th century.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: CrapAsUsual

Once again, how do you know what I need? In your world, no one is allowed to be happy in a materialistic way unless everyone is. I might be a collector of old veteran cars, and maybe getting that special one makes me happy! No, that car wont feed me or fulfill any other purpose than completing my collection and making me happy, but does it have to?

Take a step back and look at everything you own. As in your own phrasing, do you need exactly everything? If so, I assume you've accomplished true happiness by the measurement that you and the other leftist abide to, and that you don't own anything that actually doesn't help you get you through your life.




No one needs more than a decent home, a decent car, decent food, and not much more. No one needs a business jet, no one needs a diamonds necklace, no one needs a rolex.


Let us turn your twisted logic the other way around, since you apparantly are the one who deems what people need or do not need. (Why would you need a decent car? Isn't the most simple and cheap one sufficient?)

Do you drink? If so, give it up, because do you really need it? There's hopefully tapwater that you can drink where you live.
Do you take the bus, own a car, ride a bike? If so, give it up, because you have two (in general) good legs that can take you anywhere by walking. Is work to far away? Well, get up earlier in the morning.

How come a person doesn't need a business jet? If a CEO of a large company is expected to be in many places in a short period of time, she might be saving more money and time by using a business jet that the company owns. But yes, I do see your point when it comes to a billionaire flying around the world in a business jet just because he can, ut only because that can be considered immoral and not friendly to the environment. Though frankly, who are we to tell her what to do with her money? If she has obtained it legally, we have no right whatsoever to tell her to give the money up! This is the beautiful thing called property rights, and if you want to take her money by force, then you are no better than a simple thief.

On a sidenote, I do not in any way measure success by the amount of money a person is good for. I measure success in real accomplishments, e.g. "He finished college and got a nice job at a good firm, now he's a successful lawyer fighting for the poor!". It's as when it comes to sports, the one who wins isn't necessarily the one with the biggest paycheck. The fact that the people that society and media choose to call successful has a lot of money doesn't mean that is a criteria to be successful.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

The vast majority of people don't understand the wealth distribution in the US. When people are asked to describe the ideal and how they think it currently is, they think those on top are taking a little extra but they don't realize how much. The reality is further divorced from peoples pessimistic views, than those views are from the ideal.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
In life, 20% of the people will have 80% of the wealth.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this... Please explain how your neighbor's net worth affects you personally. It doesn't other than making you jealous.

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.

I'd love for one of you to tell us when we ever had "income equality". It simply doesn't exist because it is an arbitrary measure.


Wealth distribution does not follow the 80/20 rule. It's closer to about 98%/20%.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: jellyrev
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.


If you offer most people a 10% chance of 1 million and a 90% chance of 0 or a 100% chance of 400k they'll take the 400k. The entire insurance industry works on the margin between what people will settle for and the average. However, when you lower the stakes such as a 10% chance of $20 vs a 100% chance of $8, they'll shoot for the $20 every time.

Sweden's economy (and all socialist nations for that matter) work on this principal by increasing the minimum. In the US you either strike it rich or you're destitute, there's very little middle ground. Under Socialism it's more like a 10% chance for 600k, and 90% chance for 45k, rather than the US's higher risk/reward system.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Zyril

You are confusing needs with desires. I think everybody deserves to have his needs fulfilled and perhaps a few of his desires too but obviously not all because the resources are limites, everything is limited on this planet.

A decent car its a decent car, not a junk not MB its a car that does not consumes too much resources to build and to operate and takes a certain number or people from point A to point B.

If a ceo or whoever needs a BJ to do his job he can use a BJ and leave it for the next person to use.

Legality has nothing to do with this, what is legal at one point is illegal a few years later. Private property may also be an issue for future generations to solve. I think it will be abolished and this will have nothing to do with stealing but with sharing scarce resources.

We spend so little time on this earth, why would someone inherit land or goods, why not make everything available to everyone?

This model of society we live in was not invented by a genius or a god, it became like this as the result of a set of rules we all accepted at some point in the past. This model has served us well and will serve us for a few more years but it will have to change into something of a different nature. Something closer to communism.

It´s inevitable and may even happen in our lifetime.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Actually, we used to use a rationing system with price fixing. When goods were in short supply it was rationed, rich and poor suffered from the same shortage. Shortages were alleviated by the fact that their goods were in higher demand, which would encourage more people to produce them.

Modern day capitalism brought about the idea of rationing through price, which allows those with the means to get their goods sooner while those who are poorer (and likely making the goods) permanently rather than temporarily go without. If there is a shortage there is no encouragement to produce more of a good because the price rises to provide the same income.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Puppylove

Well that comes with morality, but we're not allowed to teach that anymore. It's to religious.

So we threw that baby out with the bathwater and now we try to legislate it (socialism) which obviously doesn't work.

You want a society that cares about others and respects them, then you need one that is moral and morality is not an issue of economics.


So I expect you're at the front of the line in demanding the right for Sharia to be practiced as a form of morality?



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsukoI remember the story about the financial agency whose job was to safeguard against the financial crisis of 2008. They found out that the people who were supposed to be watching against it were busy spending up to 8 hours every day surfing porn on their government computers rather than watching for signs of impending crisis. In typical government fashion, the answer was not to fire them down to where they had enough work to keep one official busy 8 hours a day ... Nope, it was to hire a new position to watch the others to make sure they weren't surfing porn!

This sort of thing is why social programs fail.


No, in that case what happened was the regulators couldn't do anything. Regulatory positions are appointed and change at the whim of the President, they also change when the administration changes. In order to be hired in one of those positions you need to be an expert in the field, which means working in it as your career. However, it's also a temporary job, once your term as a regulator is up you have to go to the very companies you were regulating in order to get a job. It means that if you say no to them too much (or sometimes, even at all) you're out a job and your career is over.

The only way to fix that is to have an actual alternative career path which is based on the public sector, but does the same thing.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Since people insist on removing morality out of the equation and insisting that there's no social responsibility and everyone is in it for themselves and only work together when it's necessary. Then we'll take the cold hard facts of nature the other way.

When a wealth gap reaches a certain point, desperation takes over, it's happened time and time again. There's only so far the majority will let their standard of living fall before they hit "# it" that point where fighting and dying is the better option than living. Some will start fighting back, then more and and more as everyone looks around once again realize, "oh right we're the overwhelming majority," and then #ing kill you all. Most of them die as well as society has to drag itself back out of the mud.

So you all can decide, is it worth it or not to give up at least enough that people won't hit "# it?" cause people are seriously starting to consider it.

Cold hard reality, yeah you can ignore the majority so a few people can live in excess. But in the end all your rationale will not matter, no amount of convincing will stop people from putting your heads on pikes when pure instinct takes over.

So if you won't listen to reason, how about some damn self preservation? It takes a lot for people to hit "# it" we're asking for you to work with us, so we can stop considering it stop trying to rationalize why your right, it has no effect on a starving belly or people starved for personal contact with their family or living in their own refuse. We're not asking for much. Ignore it at your own peril.

Are we on the same page now?

I'm not trying to tell you what people deserve. I'm warning you what's necessary to keep some of the worst points in history from repeating.

Learn from the past already. All the signs of civil unrest are here, because people keep pretending that the common man will just sit back and let themselves be exploited forever.

Let's stop the cycle already and come to a workable and maintainable compromise.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Of course. It´s an abuse, an obscenity.

I see people defending the existence of the rich and super rich like if it was the natural capitalist way and like if one day everybody could become that 1% or even 20%

They don´t realize that this logic only favours the rich and is adverse to the general population, what this logic does is to make the 99% work much harder for the 1% with the belief that one day they might get there. Its like the carrot hanging in front of the donkey.

Capitalism has many virtues, absolutely, but generating the obscene wealth some few can experience it´s certainly not one of them.

If I´m not mistaken, in the US it was after the thirties in the last century that the taxes on income were severely lowered for the highest paying contributors.


edit on 24-8-2016 by CrapAsUsual because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join