C
curtix
Guest
I know your a real smart guy and all, but all of the above aren't actually words.
C
curtix
Guest
Check this out:
From this guys blog.
He makes some good points.
http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2006/07/norway-part-2-repost.html
Tell me what he says cus I don't want to spend too much time reading your ****.Check this out:
From this guys blog.
He makes some good points.
http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2006/07/norway-part-2-repost.html
C
curtix
Guest
....
And the results are what wed largely expect. Norwegians only work about 75% as much as Americans, and thus when you take away their cash cow, they enjoy standards of living of roughly 75%.
This further confirmed something Ive always suspected of Norway, and thats if you took away the oil, they wouldnt be materially different than any other Scandinavian country.....
I've got to answer this post again. Go back and reread my post. One time it says "dumbasses" so that both of you will see that your argument about Norway and Sweden is crap as they're not capitalist. The second time it says only "dumbass", meaning you, as you claim L.A. , Africa and what not is socialist.
C
curtix
Guest
Ok. Either way thanks for your input.
But they have the oil, so you can't take it away, it's like arguing about taking away the air you breath.....
And the results are what we’d largely expect. Norwegians only work about 75% as much as Americans, and thus when you take away their cash cow, they enjoy standards of living of roughly 75%.
This further confirmed something I’ve always suspected of Norway, and that’s if you took away the oil, they wouldn’t be materially different than any other Scandinavian country.....
Why are you pissed because the natural resources of all Norwegians, as it is their shared country, go to better infrastructure and lower taxes (therefore more in their pockets) to all of them, instead of just a few hundred or thousand persons who are lucky enough to afford to by shares?
So you've realized that you claimed foolish things and now you don't want to answer my answer to them...
C
curtix
Guest
Sorry - rockwool, maybe your confused. You didn't ask any questions.
But I will try to answer you the best I can if you do.
Do you want to start a new thread - click the new thread button once you are in the main part of this forum area. Type in a title, and then your question. hit submit.
Good Luck.
C
curtix
Guest
Lets all hope that you keep that thought and act on it.
Please.
Now how many are you, you, your self, and Irene?
Hey, I'm not the one spoiling your fun, it's him, he don't dare to engage..
I'm not saying they are socialist countries, I have told him so many times that they are capitalist countries that I just stopped trying. He said that countries that are welfare states or have things like UHC, and more social programs become totalitarian, and I'm pointing out that they aren't.
C
curtix
Guest
PLEASE site me saying that.
I didn't read the last few pages before I posted out of time shortage. I now see I don't need to spend any more time in this thread.
Now, from your past posts, you consider countries like Sweden, Norway, Finland, etc. socialist or at least close to socialist. However, your quality of life argument falls flat on the Human Development Index, which is used to determine quality of life, where Norway is tied for 1st.
C
curtix
Guest
I've said it before and I will say it again.
There are no truly "Socialist" or "Capitalist" governments.
Can we agree there.
Yes, but you consider them closer to socialist, correct? And in the post above, you said the closer we move to socialism, the more power government gets from you. Would you agree that if A=B, and B=C, that A=C?
C
curtix
Guest
I told you I don't know much about Norway and that I would do some research.
Got to run for now.
Reengaging to shoot this boogey down. If an economic system, like the ones in Norway, Finland and Sweden, fundamental function is to "make the money multiply", or likewise to "create money out of thin air", it is a capitalist system. End of story.
When he is referring to capitalist, he is probably referring to pure laissez-faire capitalism
FARM SUBSIDIES!Compared to freedom-fries capitalism?
What timely nonsense this is. Celebrating the failure of socialism as the stock market approachs free fall. What Roman Emporer am I reminded of...?
I'd link to see the primary source of that statistic, cos it flies in the face of everything else I've seen about wealth in the US.
Unless it includes property values, which, let's face it, are pretty much irrelevant when it comes to real-world wealth; you have to live somewhere, and if the property market is sufficiently absurd as to render a large degree of house-owners as paper millionaires, it makes a nonsense of the term in this context.
The definition of HNWI individual I've always seen used is $1M in net assets not including primary home. Best I can find offhand is that in 2008 there are about 4M millionaires in the US, according to CapGemini/Meryll Lynch (oh, the irony) which is a pretty conservative report (TNS says something like 9M). What I can't find is an indication of who is self-made and how that's defined.
Really, I have no idea if the 80% figure is even remotely accurate. It wasn't the point of my post. I was concentrating on the follow on and just used that to try to separate portions of the argument.
I also think it's funny how people forget that socialist programs created the middle class in this country, the G.I. bill helped ALOT of people
Those programs are not socialist, socialism is the collective or government control of the means of production. Welfare and social safety nets are not socialist.
Yeh, how socialist isn't that...Or imperialist, if we take into account for what reason they exist and what effect they have on the rest of the world (same goes for EU's farm subsidies too).FARM SUBSIDIES!
BIG UP, drawing similies of the US empire with the Roman dito, I see culcha has grown on you mon!
Didn't one of the old liberal thinkers also agree that a society needed stuff like welfare and social safety nets? Who was it, Adams, Smith, I know I read it in social science back in the day..
Bump to post this, since this is relevant http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12342127
Our survey is not, by any means, a scientific poll of all economists. We e-mailed a questionnaire to 683 research associates, all we could track down, of the National Bureau of Economic Research, Americas premier association of applied academic economists, though the NBER itself played no role in the survey. A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party breakdown may reflect academias Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats greater propensity to respond. Still, even if we exclude respondents with a party identification, Mr Obama retains a strong edgethough the McCain campaign should be buoyed by the fact that 530 economists have signed a statement endorsing his plans.
Curtix, if you are still around, just wanted to remind you about Norway.
Our survey is not, by any means, a scientific poll of all economists. We e-mailed a questionnaire to 683 research associates, all we could track down, of the National Bureau of Economic Research, Americas premier association of applied academic economists, though the NBER itself played no role in the survey. A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party breakdown may reflect academias Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats greater propensity to respond. Still, even if we exclude respondents with a party identification, Mr Obama retains a strong edgethough the McCain campaign should be buoyed by the fact that 530 economists have signed a statement endorsing his plans.
Curtix, if you are still around, just wanted to remind you about Norway.
economists are all liberals anyway! *harharhar*
Academic economists, generally speaking, are well educated and intelligent.
Well educated and intelligent conservatives are few and far between these days, for the same reason that well educated and intelligent pastors or mullahs are rare: When you postulate a dogma as your starting point, you inevitably wither intellectually.
In defence of dogma, it does speed up the decision-making process somewhat, removing the need for data-gathering, analysis & thought and all that other intellectual drag.
Those mullah's may not look very aerodynamic, but, man, they're intellectually streamlined.