Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[fqllve]

Does "true" here mean "according to my definition"?

Is there any other meaning of true?

Only if you're a false Scotsman.

[Darvi]

I'm a Schrödinger's scotsman: you won't find out until you Look under my kilt

[Criptfeind]

Yeah grow is unimportant...

Point is, the U.S GDP is 14 trillion dollars. Sweden's is 450 billion. Sweden has a growth of (as low as -5.1 depending on who you ask but we will be going with) 4.1. The U.S has a growth of (as low as -2.1 depending on who you ask but we will be going with) 2.1.

So, then. Taking these figures, the U.S will gain 294 billion dollars. Sweden will gain 18.5 billion.

Yeah, growth is important, but make sure you show it in a none deceiving way.

Wait. Why are we comparing these countries again? They are not really on the same level anyway... Any comparison is pretty useless.

No, I was speaking of the EU as a monetary entity.

So? It has 166% population compared to the U.S and 103% GDP.

Still unimpressive.

Of course, of course... but a belief is nothing more than a belief and never fixed an economic system. Actually these belief are driving you into the ground. But hey whatever float your boat. What bother me more is that a) you are our allies b) The people that deceived you are trying the same thing here.

Well, beliefs are much harder to change then a economic system. Or rather, they are tied together in anything like a democracy.

And, they served us well for a long time, so you can understand if it will be hard to change.

Also, yeah, perhaps the U.S has a less regulated economy then many, but, as I said, it served us well for so long, and it IS NOT some unregulated hell hole of apocalyptic capitalism, and you would be best to to not say it is.

Does "true" here mean "according to my definition"?

Is there any other meaning of true?

Only if you're a false Scotsman.

Right, and I am not even from Scotland (unless you count Ireland! IRSCOLANDIA!)

[CoughDrop]

I think I heard a statistic that if we taxed all workers 100% of their income, we still wouldn't be able to pay the INTEREST of our debt.

This is, quite simply, incorrect.

American GDP significantly exceeds American debt, let alone the yearly interest.

US Debt Clock

I think I heard a statistic that if we taxed all workers 100% of their income, we still wouldn't be able to pay the INTEREST of our debt.

Sorry, that is a lie. It is not even close.

I now feel very ashamed.

...At least I know about 200% more than I did on the subject prior to today.

[Criptfeind]

Eh, think of it this way, you being ashamed of not knowing something makes you a better person then everyone else on this thread.

[Phmcw]

Bah, only time will tell us, but I think that those who advocate free market are dooming America's economy and destroy America's society. And keep in mind that they think America is TOO socialist. I'm not only speaking about what the situation is now, but what it is becoming.
As for Europe, strongly socialists countries are doing well (Northern countries mainly), neutral are mostly doing ok (France, Germany, Belgium as a whole, stupid linguistics problem notwithstanding) and right wing one have huge problems (UK, Island, Greece...).
My point is no "Europe rule", it's not even left wing rules, but "what pass for right wing policies nowadays are pure nonsenses".

[Criptfeind]

Yeah. We will see then?

Fundamentally I agree with you. Of course.

[lemon10]

I think I heard a statistic that if we taxed all workers 100% of their income, we still wouldn't be able to pay the INTEREST of our debt.

This is, quite simply, incorrect.

American GDP significantly exceeds American debt, let alone the yearly interest.

US Debt Clock

I think I heard a statistic that if we taxed all workers 100% of their income, we still wouldn't be able to pay the INTEREST of our debt.

Sorry, that is a lie. It is not even close.

I now feel very ashamed.

...At least I know about 200% more than I did on the subject prior to today.

To be fair, you are correct. If we taxed people for 100% of their income, no one would pay taxes/have jobs (since it would be pointless).
That's not what you meant, but your statement was technically true.

[Earthquake Damage]

To be fair, you are correct. If we taxed people for 100% of their income, no one would pay taxes/have jobs (since it would be pointless).

In reality, the underground economy would boom as tax evasion, cash transactions, and so forth replace legal business.

In theory, if the government provided enough services (e.g. ensuring basic necessities like food, shelter, and so forth) despite 100% taxation, the people (as a whole) could still benefit more by paying into the system (by working) than letting it go bankrupt.  There's still a risk that the free rider will rear its ugly head and ruin everything.

FYI I wasn't implying cash transactions are illegal.    Just noting the black market relies more on them since they're harder to track.

[Criptfeind]

In theory, if the government provided enough services (e.g. ensuring basic necessities like food, shelter, and so forth) despite 100% taxation, the people (as a whole) could still benefit more by paying into the system (by working) than letting it go bankrupt.  There's still a risk that the free rider will rear its ugly head and ruin everything.

It is not a risk. It is a guaranty that most people would become free riders.

[Earthquake Damage]

It is not a risk. It is a guaranty that most people would become free riders.

Some things work only because most people are not free riders.  I'm pretty sure farming cooperatives work this way.  It depends on the population.

[de5me7]

The thing is : we know that neither work, but we know what could work ok. The problem is, what would work is avoiding cheating, and make working been paid its real cost. There should be paying for the community, taking care of the disabled, the elders and other non productive.
And of course, a lot of rich poeple are better of with the benefits of the work of the community as a whole in their own pockets.

"The problem is, what would work is avoiding cheating, and make working been paid its real cost." How realistically would you enforce this? Self interest is at the very core of human nature.

[Criptfeind]

It is not a risk. It is a guaranty that most people would become free riders.

Some things work only because most people are not free riders.  I'm pretty sure farming cooperatives work this way.  It depends on the population.

Right, because the system fails with free riders or the free riders get kicked out of the system. It is self correcting.

Now apply that to a country. The country will fail or most people will be needed to be kicked out of the country. Nether is a pretty sight.

[Phmcw]

"The problem is, what would work is avoiding cheating, and make working been paid its real cost." How realistically would you enforce this? Self interest is at the very core of human nature.

Basically, look at Sweden. You tax income proportionally and make the govs do his work. You'll need transparency and a fairly direct democracy, but it work.
The thing is : people want to live well, not just to survive. All you need to give as social security (and it also avoid you economy to collapse in time of trouble) is survival money. Here it's something around 1000€. Ok to live, but no well,everyone want more.
Everyone have free healthcare and education (including very inexpensive university). And incomes are taxed accordingly. Of course that means you pay for everyone's children and every disabled people ; but those children will pay for your retirement and the infrastructure. It all mostly even out.
Of course you could argue that the rich are less rich, so it's not fair. But that a bad point since once you're rich, getting richer is very easy ; you're advantaged. So it "even out" (actually it doesn't but it is a bit more fair).

[Lagslayer]

The way I figure it, Socialism is the theoretical state-controls-everything system. In theory, everyone does what they can to help and gets what they need in return. The government also theoretically can be just as efficient as the private sector in organizing these businesses and making fine adjustments.

In practice, however, the people in power will take advantage advantage of everyone. Those with connections get more and more, while those at the bottom get the shaft. The common people are less inclined to work harder because it won't improve their own lives or those close to them. The government is a big entity, and can't give the little details all the attention they need (think a whale trying to thread a needle). This is Communism.

Pure Capitalism is where the government has no authority over the doings of business. Individuals prosper or suffer depending on their opportunities and how they are exploited. Favoritism and redistribution may still happen, but is not government mandated or sanctioned. What sets Capitalism apart from the other systems is choice.



In my experience, Socialism is the shortest lived (especially on anything but the smallest scale), and both Socialism and Capitalism will gravitate towards Communism. Communism will eventually become volatile and break down into either of the other forms.