Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Those "socialist" countries? They're happy!

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   
This is very shocking to read. I had to stop eating my dinner. I never had seen this posted on ATS yet. I would to see everyone's opinion on this.

www.dailykos.com...




posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Reporting from Finland (supposedly 2nd happiest country).

I've always thought that my individual happiness does not depend on country. It's more about attitude, but certainly the general atmosphere which perhaps is encouraged by politics may be affecting this attitude. Might be harder to be happy in North Korea, as self expression and realization could more difficult.

-v



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   
New Zealand number 8? WINNNNNAAAAAAAA!!!


I've got a few American friends....and every single one has said they would prefer to live in New Zealand rather than the United States ANYDAY.

Sorry to say it, but America doesn't sound to flash these days. Just in terms of general living. Look on the bright side, least your country can still rape us (NZ) in warfare terms.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Jordan_The_Maori
 


Thats okay bro...

...we're (NZ) ranked 'The Most Peaceful Country'...
Global Peace Index

Denmark ranked 7th in the GPI...

Australia...19th...hahahaha...Ozzies suck!

...America...well...waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back on 85th...







[edit on 19-7-2010 by alien]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   
Forbes article linked from the link in the OP.

To answer that question, the OECD used data from a Gallup World Poll conducted in 140 countries around the world last year. The poll asked respondents whether they had experienced six different forms of positive or negative feelings within the last day.


Some further reading on the group who conducted the poll and published this, the OECD:

en.wikipedia.org...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If the World Trade Organisation (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank are the body of globalisation's dark side, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is its head. [2] Although not such a post-Seattle household name as the others, the OECD is the source of the ideology which drives them. It is the crude, lumbering think-tank of the most wealthy nations, bulldozing over human dignity without pause for thought. Its tracks, crushed into the barren dereliction left behind, spell 'global free market'.
source



The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is a cartel conformed by the countries of the European Union, plus Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Canada, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Switzerland and the United States. So it is, basically, a club of wealthy countries that includes the members of the G7 who, in turn, have created organizations such as the Financial Stability Forum and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), and with decisive influence in the economic organizations of the United Nations.

The genesis of the so-called "black lists" is found in documents of the OECD which evidences that they came to existence as a reaction of its members to the lawful competition that small countries and jurisdictions, aided by the technological revolution, started against the traditional financial centers, mainly England and the United States. Fearing competition, the brains of the OECD designed strategies that may only be called Machiavellian, seeking total destruction of the viability of emerging financial centers. To such end, they resorted to all kinds of imaginable resources, without any moral considerations, among them, the fabrication of fallacies and all sorts of tricks to hinder and discredit their new competitors. These plans, designed in the seventies, were kept secret until the year 2000 when the Committee of Financial Affairs of the OECD decided to make them public in a document called, Improving Access to Bank Information, which may be consulted at the OECD's Internet site ( www.oecd.org). The plot's confession is particularly obvious in paragraphs 36, 37 and 38 of this lengthy document where they state, with the impudence characteristic of their arrogance, that the liberalization of the financial markets was promoted by them as "a response to the threat to financial markets posed by offshore financial centres. Such financial centres in the 1960's and 1970's were able to attract foreign financial institutions by offering a minimally regulated banking system and minimal taxation at a time when technological advances made them more readily accessible. As capital flows to offshore financial centres threatened to undermine the traditional financial markets, a number of regulatory reforms were undertaken to level the playing field between onshore and offshore banking. Exchange controls were eliminated. Some countries established markets to compete directly with the offshore financial centres. In addition, efforts were made to harmonise the regulation of financial markets on a global basis." (36) In paragraph 38, they acknowledge that "although the liberalization of financial markets has facilitated economic growth, it also has increased opportunities for non-compliance with the tax laws. Once most of the non-tax barriers to the integration of financial and capital markets had been removed, individuals and legal entities gained access, at little or no cost, to banking systems around the globe through which to conduct both legitimate and illegitimate transactions. This access has made it easier for them to avail themselves of the benefits offered by jurisdictions that limit access to bank information for tax purposes. It also has made it harder for tax administrations to detect non-compliance unless they have adequate exchange of information with the relevant jurisdictions."
source


Sounds like an untrustworthy group at best.


TheAssoc.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Leave it to DailyKos to speak the truth.

I would love to get 50 ordinary American adults in a room and test them on a few key words. I would say the word and ask them to rate the word

0 = Neither Negative or Positive
1 - 10 = Positive
-1 - -10 = Negative

And Socialism would be one of the words, I bet at least 35 would say it's negative.

They have Americans pretty well trained really, the right has kept them in constant fear of everything that is good for humanity. They have taught them that everything ranging from Atheism to Socialism is anti-American, anti-freedom and a threat to their liberty. America is not the land of the free and home of the brave it is the land of the ignorant and home of the gullible.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


Linking to the mongoloid fascist site daily koos is not acceptable. Those people are the most wretched hive of group-think scum on the internet (of which you are one, I assume).

If you have an argument, present it in a manner other than through a link.

Re: thesis.

Many of these countries are European, democrat-socialist, very small (



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by tetrahedron
 


Do you know what a mongoloid and a fascist is? Please explain with out a link. You seem like you know it all. :/



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by tetrahedron
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 



Re: thesis.

Many of these countries are European, democrat-socialist, very small (



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands are top 3.

All three are historically Christian, 2/3 are racially heterogeneous (white) and the 3rd is majority white; all 3 have populations < 10 million. They are all European and have cold climates.

Hey, maybe there are some variables other than socialism that apply here.

A mongoloid fascist is someone who cannot proffer other explanations than regurgitated talking points (ZOMG look at dem socialissmss!!).

Try instituting the same welfare state that 6 million Fins use for 300 million Americans = Scalability disaster.

There are concentrated areas of socialism in the US that take the form of a patchwork. The Northeast, California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Detroit etc.

Socialism in Northern Europe takes the form of a mono-linguistic, encapsulated welfare state for a small population.

Socialism as envisioned by the tards at dailk koos and their political fellow travelers for the US involves a top down beast control system for 300 million Americans.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Let's break this down, via wikipedia:



Originally posted by tetrahedron
All three are historically Christian,


The Netherlands is one of the most secular countries in Western Europe, with only 39% of the population being religiously affiliated.

Most Finns are members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (79.7%).

80.9%[101] of the population of Denmark are members of the Lutheran state church.

Two out of three ain't bad for your first assumption.


2/3 are racially heterogeneous (white) and the 3rd is majority white;


Denmark, Finland, or the Netherlands don't list race.


all 3 have populations < 10 million.


Denmark and Finland have about 5.5 million but the Netherlands has about 16.6 million. Once again, two out of three.


They are all European


Someone passed geography class.


and have cold climates.


Average temp. for each:
Netherlands: 9.8C
Finland: 7.5C in the south and 0C in the North
Denmark: 0C in the winter and 15.7C average in the summer.

So let's look at your assumptions for the optimum setting of a socialist state: Cold, European, small, white and Christian.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Let's break this down, via wikipedia:



Originally posted by tetrahedron
All three are historically Christian,


The Netherlands is one of the most secular countries in Western Europe, with only 39% of the population being religiously affiliated.

Most Finns are members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (79.7%).

80.9%[101] of the population of Denmark are members of the Lutheran state church.

Two out of three ain't bad for your first assumption.


2/3 are racially heterogeneous (white) and the 3rd is majority white;


Denmark, Finland, or the Netherlands don't list race.


all 3 have populations < 10 million.


Denmark and Finland have about 5.5 million but the Netherlands has about 16.6 million. Once again, two out of three.


They are all European


Someone passed geography class.


and have cold climates.


Average temp. for each:
Netherlands: 9.8C
Finland: 7.5C in the south and 0C in the North
Denmark: 0C in the winter and 15.7C average in the summer.

So let's look at your assumptions for the optimum setting of a socialist state: Cold, European, small, white and Christian.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


Happiness has quite a bit to do with "wealth" it would seem. I do know a few people from Switzerland. They tell me the one thing they don't have to worry about is being unable to pay their bills if they get sick, or not being able to go to the doc or such. Security adds a lot to one's happiness it would seem.

As for the whole "It can't work in the U.S." thing. I'd agree with that. Most people in the U.S. are so frightened of changed they must have difficulty getting changed in the morning lol. I don't think it's impossible to do here. It would require a serious overhaul of how people think about government in this country though. Humans are our best resource. Instead of wasting our money dropping bombs all over the place perhaps we should consider investing in Humans.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by tetrahedron
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands are top 3.

Try instituting the same welfare state that 6 million Fins use for 300 million Americans = Scalability disaster.



If the US spent those 600 billion dollars they spend on the military...each year..., on welfare instead, how would that affect the welfare and overall happiness?


Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 

As for the whole "It can't work in the U.S." thing. I'd agree with that. Most people in the U.S. are so frightened of changed they must have difficulty getting changed in the morning lol. I don't think it's impossible to do here. It would require a serious overhaul of how people think about government in this country though. Humans are our best resource. Instead of wasting our money dropping bombs all over the place perhaps we should consider investing in Humans.


My emphasis

[edit on 19-7-2010 by scratchmane]

[edit on 19-7-2010 by scratchmane]

[edit on 19-7-2010 by scratchmane]



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 

Hi RR
Canada is a decent country
We do like our system.
We do work our Butts off - laziness is frowned upon here, and gets you no where.

Our problem:
IMHO
We could have it completely together...
Except our government has been co opted into the fascist police state movement and does NOT represent the people any more.

At this time that is the bug bear in the oinkment- fascist bankers can't allow a successful state to be an example to the rest of the world, if they did they would be hunted down and....diciplined...
with extreme prejudice.

PS our rank on the peace list reflects this exactly






[edit on 19-7-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I am EU native and those are not socialist countries, not in purity of the term, at all. I mean those countries are not like the extinct Soviet URSS at all.

I understand they might be regarded as "socialist" from the west shore of the Atlantic because of the intense intervention in many affairs the State Administration has in our countries via the tax system.

We EU citizens pay quite high taxes to get in exchange several services provided by the state: public and free school, public and free healthcare system, public (but not really free) transport, and the state is there to give you money when you have a baby, when you lose your job, or you retire.

But you can always (and wealthy people do) choose private school (or open one if you got money enough, which you couldnt even dream of in exticnt URSS), private healthcare (the same as before), or engage in private retirement plans (this last almost everybody does).

Maybe the one big difference lays in the fact that European states are relatively small in terms of population with an average of 40 Milion citizens maximum per state.

Number 1 Super-Happy Denmark (besides an awful weather) is not even merged in the EURO system. So strong their economy is they decided not to engage in it.

There have been a number of wars in the last 300 years within our borders and this EU thing brings a slight sense of union here, but it's gonna take more than a two or three generations to assume the union as a whole.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


I'm glad that a news source is still available for the gullable.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 

Glad to see a thread on this. I posted in another thread about how democratic socialist countries are among the most successful countries in the world, that the people in these countries are happier, healthier, more well educated, and more family oriented if not necessarily wealthier. I don't think a single person responded.

I think the mere word "socialism" scares a lot of people because that's how the meaning and connotation of the word and some of the concepts it represents has been programmed into them. Plain and simple.

Of course, the DailyKos will immediately probably be labeled liberal and socialist by these very people, and no true discussion of this concept and it's pros and cons is likely to happen here. (I'm posting this before reading the other comments in the thread so as not to lose my thoughts lol but that's my prediction.)

You'll get the high taxes argument, but talk to almost anyone from these countries, and they might surprise you about the costs versus the benefits.

Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont is a democratic socialist and has some speeches and writing on this topic, using these nations as success examples.


[edit on 7/23/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by tetrahedron
Re: thesis.

Many of these countries are European, democrat-socialist, very small (



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
America could be Capitalist and top that list of happiest, wealthiest countries if it weren't spending billions on wars and the system hadn't been co-opted by corruption.

America really once was top cock in the hen house; ask yourself what changed. It's not that America isn't happy because it isn't socialist. Look at the country when it was on top and compare it to where it is now.

Size of government.
Primary spending policies.
Foreign relations policies.
Value of the Dollar.


Flipping the light switch only makes the cockroaches scatter into hiding; it doesn't get rid of them.





new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join