Yes, but a nation of your wealth could easily take care of its own citizens, and let the red cross worry about people in situations even graver. But the US doesn´t take care of its citizens. It´s like a big no mans land, where everyone is left on their own. The strong get unimaginable riches and the weak have to seek aid from the red cross.
...and that's why I love this country!! A country like, say Sweden, suffers from the huge economic distortion that is 50% income tax rates to feed its socialist state. They have proven that socialism is the most efficient way to achieve widespread mediocrity. Meanwhile, the United Stats' silly economic system has led to it being the only superpower in the world. Funny how that stuff happens, isn't it.
I didn't know Luxembourg used the Red Cross. What disasters have the Red Cross helped with in Luxembourg?
have you ever been to the US? do you have the first clue of what you're talking about? the united states does a ton to take care of its own. no nation is perfect. not even sweden.
I am also against high income taxes and too much state intervention but there are two flaws in your post: 1) Sweden is not really a socialist state, although it has clearly more state intervention than the US (too much for my taste, but they also have less poverty at the lower end of the spectrum, and that's a fact. I have been to Sweden many times and lived near Scott Street and the area around UH (just to throw out a random example) and you would not see that kind of poverty in Sweden). Their per capita GDP compared to the US is lower, but has been pretty stable since 1960. 2) To contrast Sweden and the US and to say Sweden sucks because they are too socialist and our economic system has made us the only superpower is a little unprecise. Sweden has about 8 mio. inhabitants while the US have about 290 mio. so I think that Sweden cannot really compete with the US on that level, no matter what economic system they would have .
Actually, I am pretty sure the Red Cross has a presence in Luxembourg (I grew up about 15 min. from the border). I think they operate first aid vehicles (for car accidents and stuff).
The US is not the only superpower in the world because of its economic system. It´s a superpower beacause it´s very large (geographically and populationwise) and very developed. Actually I would say that the US economic system makes it less of a superpower, because a lot of its power does not come from the state but from large corporations (who also have political power). The rest of the power (which is a lot) comes from the very oversized military. So, maybe you don´t think all people deserve a decent life. Sweden could never be a superpower (hmm.. maybe with lots of nuclear weapons) no matter what economic system we had. Luxemburg may be the richest country in the world in that only rich people live there. But the USA is the richest country in the world. It has the most money.
Now there's a classic for all of you. Ladies and Gentlemen, the appropriately renamed United Stats of America. Love it. Actually, before everyone piles on our Swedish Rockets fan, someone might want to look up poverty statistics in the US. They are quite grim, and they are getting worse. Look these up, please, and compare them to other "first world" nations. Some celebrate this, apparently, but some find it disgraceful. Ghandi said, I believe, that you can only judge a society based on its treatment of its least fortunate members. But, screw Ghandi, right? We don't need to change anything, right? I don't really see the need to have the concentrated wealth that we do in the US of A, but that's just little old me.
But the military is fairly corporate too. You are just playing semantics now. Where do corporations end and federal institutions start? Here, of course, the lines are blurry, but you're kidding yourself if you think those lines aren't blurred in many, many places. Sure, you can trot out the Il Duce quote about defining fascism as "corporatism," but we selected corporatism a long, long time ago. That's who we are.
You are right in what you are saying. I just believe that all power that is not earned through public elections is wrong. If someone is gonna have power over me I wan´t it to be someone democratically elected, and I want noone to have power over the democratically elected except the voters, through voting (and other democratically elected people. Say a parlament overseeing the work of a government). That´s democracy to me. I know you probably can´t get all the way to what I was describing without something going wrong. But you can try to go towards that.
I don't even know where to start. 1) The maxi-min philosophy of overall welfare is trash. This is the philosophy that states that the quality of a state is judged by the welfare of the poorest citizens. How ridiculous is this? So in other words, we are supposed to *not* encourage achievement and *not* encourage excellence, instead striving for mediocrity across the board? This will make us better? Ludicrous. With the appropriate incentive and motivational structure in place, every citizen of a free market economic system feels as if they have the ability, should they put forth the effort, of maximizing their potential. High tax rates and income redistribution programs remove these incentives and completely undermine the rewards for hard work and success. This leads to underdevelopment. 2) Legendary21 (Marx) seems to think that the reason for the United StatEs being the world's only superpower is because it is the largest country land-wise in the world, as well as population-wise. Oh is this not true? Nope. Oh well, so much for your little theory. And I also suppose the a free market system had nothing to do with A) the growth of the US, primarily immigration and B) the development of the US. Guess you've never heard of the American Dream. Sigh
I agree with this as a general statement. I would add that high tax rates and income distribution also increase the danger that a lot of money gets lost in bureaucracy (the redistribution system). However, I think that a country still needs to do things to take care of the weakest in their society (Trader_Jorge, do you agree with this at least as a basic statement?). The United States do, Sweden does. They do it to a different extent. A lot of countries with similar, "free" economies are somewhere in between. Ultimately, the difference if you are not either super-rich or very poor (in other words, if you are part of the middle class) for your quality of life will not be enormous. A lawyer or a trader or a craftsman will be similarly rich or poor in the US as in Sweden compared to the rest of that country's population. Oh, and Swedish girls are hot.
I said it´s very large. NOT the largest. China has the most people. I´m not really sure which is the largest land-wise. Russia? China? Canada? Brazil? (probably one of the first 2) What is achievement to you? Do you only value technological and economical advances. Don´t you think empathy, equality, justice, and democracy are important. Don´t you think those would be criteria by witch you could judge the health of a nation? Here in Sweden politicians and the news are only talking about economical growth and percentages, while the rich are getting richer and te poor are getting poorer and the people who are making the decisions are loosing contact with the people. It sickens me.
A couple of big myths in this part of the post. 1. Lack of incentive has nothing to do with biggest part of welfare spending. The largest group receiving welfare are elderly, and the largest expense is medical. That has zero to do with lack of incentive or laziness on the part of recipients. 2. Socialism doesn't allow incentive for people to try and earn more is also false. Just because more taxes are being taken out and the poor don't starve doesn't take away from the basic premise, that in socialism just like in capitalism the more you earn, the more money you have. If I make 2 million dollars in socialism, I'll still keep more money than if I make ten thousand dollars. So the incentive to make 2 million still exists.
I think a brewing problem in the US, is that the number of poor is starting to get out of hand. Or maybe rather, that you can have a fulltime job and still not be able provide for yourself and one child.
But it is so much smaller that you will, depending on how much smaller it is, not put out the effort to get there. Since you will make less effort, the economy benefits less from your effort, which is bad for the overall economy. That is, unless it is actually better for the economy that you do nothing.
I am not criticizing the US. I am just pointing out that there is a tradeoff between trying to protect the weakest as much as possible (with the clear potential of abuse of a system like that as well) and trying to maximize overall economic growth. Sweden tends to do the former whereas the US tend to do the latter. Which one is best? My tendency is more towards the solution in the US because I am a liberal, economically. Do the US do enough to help the poorest? I don't know - but the poorest in the US are poorer than the poorest in similar economies in Europe.
Dude, you guys are figuring it out! Here's whatya do... 1. Personally, just don't pay much attention to those social trends and politics. Try to just watch a few news reports on TV. Otherwise, work as much as you can and when you're not working, spend that income to buy as much stuff as you can. 2. As a nation, you guys really need a big, kick-ass military! This will create lots of jobs, and if you'll suplicate in front of us, we'll let you join in on our wars, and that will be good for your at least one segment of your economy. Get back to me after you've done that.
But it certainly has an impact on the non-elderly, non-medical welfare recipients. You have also ignored the impact of motivational incentives on those who strive to earn high wages. Clearly, taxes distort their reward structure and therefore distort their behavior. You can obviously see that under a system in which much higher tax rates exist, it would take substantially more effort to earn an equivalent amount of money as one could earn under a system of lower tax rates. If you can't see that this will have motivational impacts on the populace, then I don't know what to tell you. This is perhaps the most accepted premise in the entire field of taxation.
