Ultra-Capitalist Countries

TS: Paying a huge chunk of your wage in taxes toward big government programs (e.g. 50% or higher in many socialist-friendly countries around the world) or keeping more of your money and ending up saving more money in the end with private entities and market competition-driven lower prices (ending up with only having to pay maybe 20% in taxes at most).

but the US does end up having a massive poverty problem cos of this, private entities don't provide saftey nets. And most of the tax you do pay over there is ill spent on insane military projects too is it not? maybe it could be redirected to more pressing social issues...

Aside from that, and working entirely on selfish grounds, your choices seem to be a matter of deciding where the least corruption and waste exists: the government office or the boardroom. I'll pick the first any day of the week, though I imagine you're the opposite :)

Also I'm sorry if I sound a bit defensive, but I didn't think I was asking for anything, I was answering the question. Do you agree with the answer? I'm guessing that Toumas is speaking about that big-C capitalism, rather than asking about pro-barter countries.

Oh dearie me, I'm starting to sound like a politican on a campaign, aren't I?

And the U.S. doesn't exactly have a "massive poverty problem". Sure, we do have a lot of poor people in this country, but so do a lot of other post-industrial countries around the globe. And our poverty situation is such that even some of our poorest are luckier than some of the regular "they're not even leading particularly hard lives there" people around the globe, in those pre-industralized countries.

Oh yes, and being a "conservative" in the classical sense means that you contribute to charities. I don't think enough people ARE contributing to charity, even though quite a few people DO and I'm happy about that. I would be even happier, though, if more people donated food, clothing, supplies, money, etc., to food banks, shelters, donation places, workforce empowerment programs, etc., etc., etc., so more people can get more help on their road to hopefully standing on their own two feet.

Ok, I'm back to sounding like a politician, hm?

Andrew: You and I can disagree on these points time and time again, but I do believe that in the capitalist society I live in, there are plenty of things set up to help out individuals throughout their lives, and that it's really a matter of motivating the individual himself or herself to ensure that all people get a fighting chance.

And yes, there is corruption with private enterprise, but there can also be dangerous corruption with government. I think we see differently with government because your idea and my idea of what government is is totally different. Your government official could be the man or woman down the street and so you could trust him or her more. Mine isn't as near to me and so it's a lot harder for me to trust that person, who could live anywhere from several dozen to 1,500+ miles away.

I agree with your answer for this specific thread, btw. Though I do have to mention that I stated, quite tongue-in-cheek if you will, that you had "asked for it" because of something you'd mentioned on ANOTHER thread, how you'd wanted me to be more consistent if I were to become the resident conservative on the forum, instead of just doing the whole "silence, blurt, silence" routine. So I'm blurting more often. Ta-da.

I do believe that in the capitalist society I live in, there are plenty of things set up to help out individuals throughout their lives, and that it's really a matter of motivating the individual himself or herself to ensure that all people get a fighting chance.

Okay a) I don't believe that, and b) this means that they have the right to take a shitty job somewhere and work their way up the slippery pole. What, quite simply, if they don't want to? What if they'd rather do something that the main branch of society doesn't see as useful, like J.K.Rowling writing her first book on the dole? In pure Capitalist society, she's of no use while writing her first book, but once she's made her money off that, the market will carry her on its shoulders to greater heights.

Or in terms that might be more attractive to you, why should the government decide what a successful productive life is?

To me, it sounds like "motivating them to go for a fighting chance" vs "giving them a fighting chance".

My government official is as faceless as yours - in fact my board member is a lot less so. Which is maybe the reason I don't trust them: I've seen some of the evolutionary pressures that they're under, and I just don't see any reason why soemone who wishes to do good would go work for a corporation rather than a government agency.

Yeah, I don't think the US has ever had socialized medicine. They'll get around to it eventually, probably after it makes any difference to me.

the other thing is relying on private companies for stuff like health care seems very dangerous. in the US there are adverts for drugs on TV, drug companies peddling hypochondria to the masses. and health insurance! im not sure i can remember anyone i know dealing with any insurance company without the company trying to screw them at least a little. Im not saying the UKs NHS is perfect, but at least access to most health care is free and you know it will provide in the end, and you dont have to worry about policy caps, increasing premiums if you are in need of long term care.

i guess all im saying is its easy for us to say that everythings free and easy under with capitalism and theres no need for state intervention, but just be prepared to see others less fortunate struggle out on the street.

ok manifesto for the bob party over.

A lot of the Americans who say that stuff just don't talk to homeless people that much, I guess.

In Finland we have virtually no homeless people; free childcare for everyone; free schooling even at university level, plus free student aid (so even poor people like me can study as much as they want to); free healthcare so even the poor get proper treatment; a minimum wage that actually provides a decent living; a relatively small drug problem and a relatively small number of violent crimes and robberies (because the society actively tries to fight marginalisation), relatively small number of convicts, etc. etc. Compares to the USA Finland seems to have a lot less societal problems, and I can see no other reason for this than the fact that we think rampant capitalism isn't a blessing for everyone.

I do believe that in the capitalist society I live in, there are plenty of things set up to help out individuals throughout their lives, and that it's really a matter of motivating the individual himself or herself to ensure that all people get a fighting chance.

Mind my language, but this is just complete Neo-Darwinist bullshit. Life should be so much more than a mere "fight", and if some people lack the skills to participate in that fight, is it really their own fault, or the fault of a society which believes that competition is king? Do you really want to live in a world where only the strong survive and the weak get trampled?

A guy went to pick a friend up outside a bank. The friend wasn't there and parking was difficult so he drove round the block and stopped again. Still no sign, so he did it again. Armed guards at the front of the bank shot the guy dead. There were no repercussions for the guards. They were considered to be within their rights in shooting a guy who was acting so suspiciously near a bank.

I don't actually know, but I'm betting that if that is true it's a state-specific law or ruling.

like arfarf, my first thought was singapore, but its free market operates within an aggressive state lockdown which wd be anathema to many free-marketeers, randians, hayekians etc (ok not all, but the ones who like it like that are free-loaders before they're utopians)

- the US has spent heavily on socialized medicine but it's not really a universal, one-payer system. The notable example is the Veteran's Administration system of hospitals, which are completely socialized. Medicare/Medicaid are also forms of socialized medicine, but they only apply to certain groups (i.e. the poor and the elderly.) Additionally, states in the US have experimented with one payer systems over the years (Tenncare, for example) but again they have not been universally covering type of systems. The US is also heavily involved in the market of pharmaceutical drugs and most health care services through the use of various price controls and insurance regulation; this massive influence of regulation and intervention is much more akin to socializatoin than capitalism. The US is also on the cusp of adding prescription drugs to the list of freebies, and once that is in place it is almost a certainty that benefits will be extended to the rest of the populace within a decade or so.

But back to capitalism: many (if not most) evaluate capitalism by the economic freedom available to its citizens. The Heritage Foundation--pretty much as pro-capitalist as they come--ranks countries every year on this. For 2003 (http://cf.heritage.org/index/indexoffreedom.cfm):

1 Hong Kong
2 Singapore
3 Luxembourg
3 New Zealand
5 Ireland
6 Denmark
6 Estonia
6 United States
9 Australia
9 United Kingdom

(repeated numbers reflect ties)

You can check out the whole chart to see where the data comes from.

Gun and self-defense laws differ depending on where you are in the US; there are different codes for municipalities/states/etc. In some areas it is considered lawfully self-defense to kill someone while defending property; it's probably not related to using a gun, a claw hammer, a knife or your bare hands. Not urban legend.

How would property be valued higher than human life?

How would property be valued higher than human life?

You've answered your own question there.

Yeah right, thats why we got states coming to Canada to buy our drugs for their own employee drug plans.

As I said, the question is not so much about whether or not a state has free markets, as to what the state/society does to lessen the inequality caused by capitalism. Regarding that, the countries in that list seem to differ quite much. Countries like Hong Kong or Estonia don't have much of a safety net (or am I wrong? Tiit?), New Zealand and UK used to be(?) more social democrat but nowadays have turned towards neo-liberalism, whereas Denmark is a full-fledged welfare state. Actually, I'm a bit surprised to see Denmark on that list. I'm pretty sure that Denmark (like Finland and Sweden) has, for example, progressive taxation. Isn't that considered a restricting factor to economic freedom?

Erm, I think that even the most fanatic capitalists think that state should exist, if only that it can provide and oversee the regulations that allow the free market to run smoothly. Even though according to liberalist theories the market should regulate itself automatically, in practice this doesn't seem to work. Where capitalism is let truly free, there is a tendency for some folks to exploit the situation. This can be seen in many developing countries, who have been pressured to free their markets by the IMF and the World Bank, but who lack the means to regulate them in any way. If Adam Smith would've had a glimpse of those countries, I'm pretty sure he would've reconsidered his view that free markets provide the best results for everyone.

There was a pretty interesting story I heard on the BBC world service about a year ago about the yearly Chinese Communist Party meetings where Jiang Zemin stated that the next evolution of communism was to mirror the US system of employee corporate ownership and their social/health sytems...or something to that effect. Mao and Nixon are probably be laughing in their graves.

Also, Adam Smith was aware of the problems that developing markets pose, but I can assure you that he still felt that free markets are still the best solution.

A reason to fear the state's involvement is the political nature of the state. The state is not a logical decision-making machine, it is a system of plunder and redistribution subject to the whims of its policy makers. It subjects the economy to political gamesmanship before anything else. It rewards those in power for reasons of politics over merit in nearly all situations; even mundane ideas like "health care for all who need it" is intrinsically corrupted by the pols who govern it. The governing party will serve itself (and its supporting constituency) before all else.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index

The state is not a logical decision-making machine, it is a system of plunder and redistribution subject to the whims of its policy makers.

c/state/company, seriously. Except that the company is intended to be a logical decision making machine, towards the end of plunder and redistribution etc.

T/S: hoping that the politicians aren't so bad at their job they fuck you over vs hoping the companies are too bad at their job to fuck you over?

A catch-22 of capitalism is that those who have been able to use the system to their advantage have accumulated enough wealth to have the time and power to preach the virtues of capitalism. Those who have fallen through the cracks of the capitalist system are too busy trying to survive to preach against it.

A bit morally relativistic isn't that?
"Well, our poverty is OK, because we're better than Ethiopia!"

(Normally I wouldn't say anything about relativistic views, but they're incompatible with Christian conservative dogma.)

The US does have a "massive poverty problem." 40 million Americans (15% give or take) don't have access to quality healthcare. Our child poverty rate is in the high-teens, our total poverty rate slightly lower. The number of people just barely outside of poverty (the working poor) is quite a bit higher, and arguably worse (ie people who are one paycheck away from being completely fucked - but who then don't qualify for what little social welfare we have left, people who don't have insurance, can't afford doctor's fees and prescriptions but don't qualify for Medicaid).

TS: Paying a huge chunk of your wage in taxes toward big government programs (e.g. 50% or higher in many socialist-friendly countries around the world) or keeping more of your money and ending up saving more money in the end with private entities and market competition-driven lower prices (ending up with only having to pay maybe 20% in taxes at most).
These are rather useless statistics. Yes, you pay higher taxes in Sweden - but in return you get services, because their taxes are going to healthcare/education/environmental concerns/etc. rather than spending money to invade a country that poses no threat.

Conservatives like to pretend that tax money just gets funnelled into a great black hole never to be seen again, when that's patently false. What you pay in, you get back in services. Sometimes a worthy investment, but in the United States' case we (the average person) get little or nothing in return for our tax investment.

Chomsky always brings out that "80% of all stock is held by 1% of the populace" - which is believable, given that 1%s control over all the other wealth, but I've never seen it verified.

The government has no such compelling interest. Bush and his cronies (like Clinton et al) reward their supporters and design the redistribution/plunder as such. There is no greater interest other than retaining power. And if the government fucks up, there's no other alternative. The choices in a capitalist economy may be few or even rare on occasion, but there is almost always a choice. Government sets itself up for perpetual strength and the ability to challenge it is comparably nil, not to mention unlawful in many instances. That's why over 95% of incumbents never get defeated. It's that caste system of injustice that works against the free market each and every day.

BTW teeny, how does efficiency come at the cost of being "humane"?

Chomsky's figure is a red herring and avoids the fact that 75% of Americans, at the very least, have at least an indirect involvement in stock through the banking institutions.

The reason conservatives think that tax money goes into a black hole is because the beaurocracy is incredibly inefficient. As an example, for $1 of money directed towards social services, less than $.10 goes to the actual receipient; I can't remember what the big charities disperse at but I'm think it's usually above 30%. But sure, for the money you pay in, you get back services. It's just that a) you're getting a shitty value for the transaction, and b) since barely 50% of the populace even pays taxes, a whole lot of people are getting something for nothing. And this rule of inefficiency is true within most larger corporations, which become extremely inefficient with their growth and don't have a whole lot to brag about.

As for the 40 million people who allegedly are without health insurance, that's a very misleading political slogan.

at the risk of invoking some old usenet law, i've heard nazi germany called "ultracapitalist," outside of the general war apparatus, does anybody know about this?

[quote]I mean, if everyone in the world were paid a living wage none of us would be able to afford anything, right?[/quote]
Not necessarily. What's a 'living wage' in Thailand? I suspect it's a great deal more than $.25/day, but a great deal less than the $10ish/hour it is in the US.

[quote]Chomsky's figure is a red herring and avoids the fact that 75% of Americans, at the very least, have at least an indirect involvement in stock through the banking institutions.[/quote]
Which 75% is that? What "indirect involvement" that makes stock matter to average people?

The reason conservatives think that tax money goes into a black hole is because the beaurocracy is incredibly inefficient. As an example, for $1 of money directed towards social services, less than $.10 goes to the actual receipient; I can't remember what the big charities disperse at but I'm think it's usually above 30%.
It's quite a bit less than that. Under 10% for many charities.

But sure, for the money you pay in, you get back services. It's just that a) you're getting a shitty value for the transaction, and b) since barely 50% of the populace even pays taxes, a whole lot of people are getting something for nothing.
Bollocks. Everyone pays taxes. Social Security, FICA/payroll, income taxes (getting back money at the end of the year doesn't mean much when you need to pay rent), sales taxes, property taxes (which poor people pay indirectly through rent), on and on and on.

As for "value of transaction," that's not much of an argument against taxes and in favor of private industry. An argument in favor of government reform, yes. But I noted to start with, in Sweden you pay higher taxes but get a return on your investment.

Americans get very little return on their many tax investments - from buying baseball stadiums to funding invasions.

The government is inefficient because it has to be. Human lives deserve multiple safety nets.

Stocks matter to average people because a) the government is invested in the markets, b) all banks are, which affect every service at a bank, c) virtually all pension funds/retirement funds are invested in the market. Tell me why, indirectly, every single person in the United States is not affected by the market.

"Everyone" does not pay income taxes. Barely half of the population pays income taxes.

Considering Hitler was a socialist and their economy was set up as such in 1930s, that seems like a stretch Tracer. Stalin was an even bigger party animal from the same political persuasion.

But Tracer your earlier point is a bit muddy and I have trouble understanding how it addresses the core of the issue, which is: how does a government provide "basic needs", who gets to define those needs, who pays for those needs, and most importantly, who discerns who needs what? Who sets the limits and who enforces them?

The answer is obviously the state, which is then afforded enormous power to interpret the whole basic needs issue. In other words, the "basic need" for protection gave us the Patriot Act I & II. It gave us sanctioned prayer in public schools for a long time. The government disperses billions in contractual awards every year to cronies and worse, mandated quotas that are completely without merit. If government had a goal of being limited in scope, I'd be more trustworthy. But what happens is pols get in office and don't ever want to leave DC. It doesn't keep them long to figure out how to be there permanently.

IF the government was as efficient as even the United Way (which is not one of the most efficient charities) in the area of social services we'd probably be able to afford free health care AND free beer to all Americans. But the political nature of the state prevents this from happening.

I'm not arguing the weakness or strength of the private sector vs. the state; I'm arguing the state's inherent political nature.

But United Way claims that its overhead costs are covered by an endowment fund, which isn't the case with most charities (where the pool being spent and overhead are drawn from donations).

Stocks matter to average people because a) the government is invested in the markets, b) all banks are, which affect every service at a bank, c) virtually all pension funds/retirement funds are invested in the market. Tell me why, indirectly, every single person in the United States is not affected by the market.
Because most don't own any.
Because most don't have any direct relation to the market.

You've got some tenuous claims - my $450 checking account is federally insured. The market could tank tomorrow, and it wouldn't effect the bank's service to me tomorrow. That's the case with almost everyone.

You claimed "75%" of Americans have a direct, important stake in the health of the "stock market," but haven't borne that out.

"Everyone" does not pay income taxes. Barely half of the population pays income taxes.
"Taxes" != "income taxes"

You said half of all people don't pay taxes. Which is, of course, completely false. Everyone pays taxes, everyone who works pays income taxes, even if that still becomes a refund at the end of the year - the government still had your tax money to use. Everyone pays sales taxes, property taxes, Social Security/FICA/Medicare/aid taxes.

(That's another part of the tax statistics that gets ignored. Most Americans have multiple levels of taxes that other nations may not have, with weaker 'states'.)

Considering Hitler was a socialist and their economy was set up as such in 1930s, that seems like a stretch Tracer. Stalin was an even bigger party animal from the same political persuasion.
That would be a good claim if Hitler had been a "socialist," and had the post-Weimar economy been "socialist." Neither is true.

By the time he took power, Hitler had purged all elements of the socialist group the party started out as before he joined. Many of the problems of the Weimar Republic came from running battles between Hitler's fascists and the Bolsheviks. He used the Reichstag fire to eliminate Bolshevik involvement from the government and the only party left to vote against his Enabling Acts were the (Marxist) Social Democrats.

Hitler was brought to power in cahoots with the center-right and Christian Right of Germany, who thought they could control him. His backing and support came from wealthy industrialists (including some outside of Germany, such as Henry Ford). He broke the independent labor unions and replaced them with company-run labor unions.

Then there's that whole alliance-with-Franco against the left-wing Popular Front government in Spain.

It is tragically ignorant to claim that Hitler was a socialist.

I claim that every individual in the US is INDIRECTLY affected by the market. It's not debateable. And it's relevant. If you or anyone else thinks that you are far removed from the markets because you don't own stocks indirectly, you are completely uneducated on how the US economy functions. Yes, you'd still have your $450 tomorrow, but an adverse market ("tanking") has pointed effects on how your bank operates. It's never affected you because the market has always come back. Where do you think the government gets money to do things like federally insure banks, anyway? Hint: it's not all tax dollars.

As for taxes, you're parsing my words to mislead; sales tax is rhetorical. The income tax issue is, however, quite relevant. And I didn't even bring up taxes that business pays. Go check out a tax table and figure out what portion of the national treasury is fueled by excise taxes. And while Americans are taxed on multiple levels, so are many other countries. The fact remains that the inefficiencies of the federal government are a bad value for taxpayers--you may think reform is the answer and maybe you're right. I just don't see how a political system ever truly reforms itself without near-revolutionary change.

Also, we can debate the involvement of Hilter or Germany's economy with the Socialist party in the 30s but maybe it's better to just leave that to academics, where the jury is decidedly mixed. You conveniently ignore figures like Stalin (or Mao or Lenin) who used the tenets of socialism and created a nightmarish world of communism that resulted in the state sponsored death of millions. "To each according to their needs", indeed.

Your comments on charities are also misleading. Most if not all major charitable giving organizations are funded by endowment--you know, at one point the Social Security "Trust Fund" was supposed to be an endowment but it has been pillaged for the past 3 decades by the general budget. Endowment--wow, here we are once again discussing the realm of the market and how it vastly affects citizens--would be a great goal for Social Security if only the pols could keep their greedy fucking hands off the money. And you still haven't come up with one big charity that has overhead in the 90% range...there aren't any. Sure, there are foundation trusts that are set up as charities and only disperse the 5% required by law, but those are the exceptions to the rule.

Government is a very, very necessary evil. Capitalism did not give us corporate welfare, tariffs, trade policies, the Patriot Act, the Family Leave Act, the House bank, the UN, or the 2000 Points of Light. Politicians did all that. They did all that not for the better good or long-term prosperity but to get re-elected.

I'm not advocating wide open capitalism a la no rules or oversight. I'm all for keeping the water supply, the air, and hookers clean. The problem is the government has been turned into an instrument of plunder far beyond meeting the "basic needs" of its citizenry. What I'm saying is I'm a lot more afraid of "let the big dogs eat" style government intervention that is merely a tool to keep politicians in office, especially on a federal level. The open market, even in a monopoly situation, must answer questions of profitability as a lever against extinction.

The imperial federal government has no such opposition. It's players make up the rules of competition, the standards of play, and put the chairs on the deck however they see fit. It's almost completely artificial. Oh sure, every coupla years they let us go out and vote (which less than half usually do, and when they do vote the districts are arranged so that 95+% of incumbents are reelected) but let's face it, it's pretty much pissing in the wind to think that some kind of reform is ever going to happen with inmates running the asylum AND the cash register. Fuck, at least I can sue Microsoft for being a monopoly; try suing the federal government a.k.a. the world's largest, richest law firm. Bill Clinton found out the hard way that it's a very expensive battle.

I claim that every individual in the US is INDIRECTLY affected by the market. It's not debateable. And it's relevant. If you or anyone else thinks that you are far removed from the markets because you don't own stocks indirectly, you are completely uneducated on how the US economy functions.
Uh-huh. That's a direct link. If a market failure is tied to non-owning individuals, that's a "direct" impact.

You're claiming one thing ("I said indirectly") and arguing another (describing directly).

Yes, you'd still have your $450 tomorrow, but an adverse market ("tanking") has pointed effects on how your bank operates. It's never affected you because the market has always come back. Where do you think the government gets money to do things like federally insure banks, anyway? Hint: it's not all tax dollars.
The FDIC is funded through premiums from participating institutions. Kinda like every other insurance out there. So, how, exactly, does a bad market compromise my bank account?

As for taxes, you're parsing my words to mislead; sales tax is rhetorical.
No, I'm not.

You said, and I quote: "b) since barely 50% of the populace even pays taxes, a whole lot of people are getting something for nothing."

In your next post, you altered that to "income taxes," when bullshit got called on your claim.

Everyone pays sales taxes. Everyone who works pays income taxes, payroll taxes. Everyone who owns property or pays rent pays property taxes.

Everyone pays taxes.

And everyone pays income taxes - but some people (let's see that 50% number) get that money back after a year. During which time the federal government has used it.

The income tax issue is, however, quite relevant. And I didn't even bring up taxes that business pays. Go check out a tax table and figure out what portion of the national treasury is fueled by excise taxes. And while Americans are taxed on multiple levels, so are many other countries.
Businesses pay relatively little in tax, compared to the middle of the 20th century.

The fact remains that the inefficiencies of the federal government are a bad value for taxpayers--you may think reform is the answer and maybe you're right. I just don't see how a political system ever truly reforms itself without near-revolutionary change.
What's your argument?

Yes, I've agreed that US taxpayers get little return on their investment. I was the one who said that first. Because we spend $400 billion a year and billions more soon for the military and our adventure in Iraq. $500 billion could pay for a lot of social services.

You said that "The reason conservatives think that tax money goes into a black hole is because the beaurocracy is incredibly inefficient." You're blaming "bureaucracy" rather than priorities, with no evidence.

I'd also note Teeny's response - the government is inefficient because it has to be. Charities get to pick and choose who they serve and when. Charities can choose to let people starve if they won't come to the church services. Government social services don't get to make that choice.

Also, we can debate the involvement of Hilter or Germany's economy with the Socialist party in the 30s but maybe it's better to just leave that to academics, where the jury is decidedly mixed.
No, it's not. Which "academics" will even entertain a discussion of Hitler as a left-wing figure? David Horowitz doesn't count.

You conveniently ignore figures like Stalin (or Mao or Lenin) who used the tenets of socialism and created a nightmarish world of communism that resulted in the state sponsored death of millions. "To each according to their needs", indeed.
I "conveniently ignore them," because they weren't at question. You want a condemnation of Stalinism, Maoism and Leninism? Great, many leftists have been repudiating them from the start. (I'll point you to Debs' condemnation of Lenin circa 1919 for American democratic socialism, fights between Marxists and anarchists dating into the 19th century, etc. etc.).

But your argument was that Hitler was a "socialist." Hitler was no such thing.

You're now attempting to pivot that to "Hitler's involvement with the economy" and "Germany's economy with the Socialist party." When did "involvement with the economy" become "socialism"? The United States government is heavily involved with the economy - are we "socialist"? Franco and Mussolini and Pinochet were all heavily involved with the economy (Pinochet not so much at the beginning when he let Milton Friedman's boys run Chile into the ground, economically). Were they "socialists"?

And what "Socialist party" are you referring to? Germany's? No "Socialist party" existed in Germany after the Enabling Acts. The Bolsheviks and Social Democrats (the latter being the "socialist" party of Germany at the time) were dispursed and persecuted. The "National Socialist" party lost all connection to its "socialist" origin when Hitler purged them in the late-20s and early-30s, though you can date the disconnect much earlier in the 20s, though some stuck around.

You haven't explained why capitalist industrialists were so quick to support a "socialist" like Hitler. Socialism would deprive them of their power. Were they economic masochists?

And you still haven't come up with one big charity that has overhead in the 90% range...there aren't any. Sure, there are foundation trusts that are set up as charities and only disperse the 5% required by law, but those are the exceptions to the rule.
Now you're pivoting that, and going from any charities to "big charities," while admitting that they only have to disperse 5% by law, and are no more efficient inherently than government.

See also, teeny's previous comments on necessary inefficiency. The United Way has no obligation to feed and clothe a family of four who are struggling in New York City.

Government is a very, very necessary evil. Capitalism did not give us corporate welfare, tariffs, trade policies, the Patriot Act, the Family Leave Act, the House bank, the UN, or the 2000 Points of Light. Politicians did all that. They did all that not for the better good or long-term prosperity but to get re-elected.
You seem to think that "capitalism" and our government can be separated.

I said that every person in the US is INDIRECTLY affected by the market, meaning, I thought obviously, that you don't have to personally own stock to be affected by what happens in the market. And that's why saying "80% of stock is owned by 1%" is a red herring. It's misleading. You misquoted me outright.

I'm not sure where you want to go on the subject of taxation, but in 2001 only 64% of filers paid any taxes. The number of non-filers varies wildly but I've seen it as high as 8% (actually, it's probably much higher than that in certain states). Additionally, the number of non-paying filers has been going up for the past five years (source: Cato Institute.) Furthermore, while non-paying filers are likely paying income tax in their payroll, with EIC and kid credits, their tax refund easily covers the interest on the loan they gave the government. And then there's your argument about how businesses are undertaxed...compared to the 20th century. Not really sure what you're trying to imply or argue there.

Next, you mince my words again by asserting that I somehow equated Hitler with "left wing figures." Your words, not mine, and really, it's hard to continue a discussion with someone who makes so many assumptions and outright misrepresentations and misquotes. I mean, what am I supposed to say about your little jab about "big charities"? HEY MILO--THAT'S HOW I QUALIFIED THE CHARITY COMMENT IN THE FIRST POST. Why do you have to misquote me? While I admit that yes, a charitable foundation is required by law to disperse at 5%, those kinds are the exceptions. The reputable ones, the ones that make up the VAST majority of charitable dispersion in this country, disperse at a much higher rate than that. The Better Business Bureau recommends 35%. The fact remains that the government--while admittedly burdened with a degree of overhead that is always going to be bigger than that of a private charity--still has a lousy record of inefficiency. I'm not sure if you think that inefficiency is simply due to the required burden of service or if you would admit that the political shenanigans that go on have anything to do with it. And unlike you, I'm not going to make any assumptions or accusations what you think about it.

Finally, you need to read more than just the info page at the FDIC before you brag about how it's funded. Saying it's merely "funded" by premiums and not subject to the market isn't the full story, nor does FDIC insurance make your bank's operations immune to the whimsy of the market. (I'm going to suggest you take a look at the 2002 Annual Report of the FDIC, Page 82-83 for starters and Page 85 for the money shot. Then get the Annual Report for your bank and read that over. I'm getting the impression you don't understand banking or insurance or finance too well and I really don't have the time to explain it all to you.)

Milo, I'm sure you're a kindred soul but I don't like you making specious assumptions--your last line in the above post is particularly offensive to me. And I don't like the way you've twice outright misquoted what I've posted. I really don't like all the parsing, either. So dude, you win.

Actually, it's perfectly irrelevant to the reason why the stock market was brought up in the first place. It's not that most people are affected by the market, it's that 1% of the public own 80% of the stock. In other words, most people have very little control over the market.

The comment was an indication of the divide between the very rich and the general public, not a comment on how stock prices affect our lives.

but back to the question at hand: the idea that screams out at me from questions of these sorts (usually posed by European leftists, ha!) is that "gee if the Americans just were more rational like us smarty-pants (usually Northern) Europeans, all their social problems would melt away." I'm sorry, Mr. Helsinki, but it's not that simple. America is not a monolithic society, culturally, and certainly not a geographically small (and therefore easy to govern) country. Even if Finland-style (or Sweden-style or take-your-pick-style) governance was swept in overnight by some miracle, things would not sort themselves out as nicely as you may think. America is a big, chaotic, mess of a country that prides itself, in a way, on being intractable. So nyah.

Also, the idea that everything is "just peachy" over in those advanced Scandinavian countries just makes me sick. How about the stabbing of the Swedish foreign minister, perhaps tied to the vote on the Euro? What about those other European nations that have similar social systems but still don't "have it together," like Spain or Portugal or god-forbid Italy? Does Europe still end at the Pyrennees? Why, with a decent (at least better than the States) social net did I see so many junkies in Madrid last night? Is it just that the Finns and Danes and *gulp* Germans are superior?

(that's a joke, btw.)

As Chris Piuma pointed out, the stock market number isn't irrelevant or a 'red herring' (and all I've said is that I've never seen it substantiated, and wouldn't know where to look for the numbers directly - though I trust Chomsky not to make it up)

I'm not sure where you want to go on the subject of taxation, but in 2001 only 64% of filers paid any taxes. The number of non-filers varies wildly but I've seen it as high as 8% (actually, it's probably much higher than that in certain states). Additionally, the number of non-paying filers has been going up for the past five years (source: Cato Institute.)
Again, you're conflating "taxes" with "income taxes." Which is a convenient way to dodge how much people actually pay in taxes. The working-poor spending 8.25% of their total income in sales taxes is just as legitimate a tax as 39.6% levied against someone making $800,000 (not that anyone making $800,000 actually pays that amount).

Everyone pays taxes.
Everyone pays income taxes. Some people get a refund, after their money has been used for the year. That refund in April ain't paying Johnny medical bills in October.
Everyone pays sales taxes. Everyone pays property taxes.

So on and so forth, as I've repeatedly said.

The claim that "half of all Americans don't pay taxes" is complete and utter bullshit.

Furthermore, while non-paying filers are likely paying income tax in their payroll, with EIC and kid credits, their tax refund easily covers the interest on the loan they gave the government. And then there's your argument about how businesses are undertaxed...compared to the 20th century. Not really sure what you're trying to imply or argue there.
That businesses didn't have a hard time during our other major peacetime expansion paying higher tax rates while receiving a lower amount of corporate welfare.

Perhaps that had to do with the government's active involvement in making the economy better for everyday people - the GI Bill, for instance - rather than simply aiding the bottom line.

Next, you mince my words again by asserting that I somehow equated Hitler with "left wing figures."
I have no idea why you put left-wing figures in quotes, since I never used that term. Bizarre.

Do I really need to quote you calling Hitler a "socialist," though?

Finally, you need to read more than just the info page at the FDIC before you brag about how it's funded. Saying it's merely "funded" by premiums and not subject to the market isn't the full story, nor does FDIC insurance make your bank's operations immune to the whimsy of the market
But I don't care how my bank's operations go. My $450 is insured. Nothing to do with the whims of the market. Not even a little.

Which actually goes back to - the stock market, in and of itself, is irrelevant to most people. You, though, are trying to make an argument with the stock market being analgous to our economy.

People affected by economy - yes.
People affected by 'stock market' - not really.

***

Also, the idea that everything is "just peachy" over in those advanced Scandinavian countries just makes me sick. How about the stabbing of the Swedish foreign minister, perhaps tied to the vote on the Euro? What about those other European nations that have similar social systems but still don't "have it together," like Spain or Portugal or god-forbid Italy? Does Europe still end at the Pyrennees? Why, with a decent (at least better than the States) social net did I see so many junkies in Madrid last night? Is it just that the Finns and Danes and *gulp* Germans are superior?
That's a bit of projection and oversimplification. I've never seen anyone claim that European social democracy cured all (or most) social ills, only that it eased many.

Government-assisted higher education and government-funded healthcare would go a long way toward easing our social burdens, as higher education gets more and more expensive (and thus limits itself to fewer and fewer people).

I tend to take issue with the idea that the US is separate from the rest of the world, and what works elsewhere (and doesn't work, for that matter), will or won't here. There has to be a reason that crime rates are lower in nations with lower poverty, and life expectancies are longer in nations with universal healthcare, and lower rates of crime/addiction/death where minor drugs aren't criminalized and junkies sent to prison instead of rehab.

I haven't got the time to delve into this right now, but I'll answer this one, since it was directed at me. I wasn't saying I have a miracle cure for the societal ills of the US, I just said that I'm happier to live in a social democrat rather than an ultra-capitalist country. I'm an anarcho-socialist myself, so I'm not saying social democracy is the best possible solution, but between that and neo-liberalism I'd choose the former anyday. I would argue, however, that if the US would become more socialist some of those ills would be cures. Providing homes for the homeless, for example, has little to do with cultural diversity or the lack of it.

Also, Finland wasn't always the monolithic culture it is nowadays. We used to have a very deep class division, and we even had civil war in 1917 between The Reds (the working class) and The Whites (the owner class). And even though The Whites won that war, deep division between the leftists/working class and the rightists/capitalists existed for decades after. But it was social democracy exactly which bridged this division, since it was able to (at least partly) level down the economic and other inequalities brought about by capitalism. Even though there are other factors contributing to the monolithic Finnish culture (ethnic and linguistic homogenity, mainly), one could argue that the monolithic culture is a product of social democracy, not the other way around.

What about those other European nations that have similar social systems but still don't "have it together," like Spain or Portugal or god-forbid Italy? Does Europe still end at the Pyrennees?

Actually, there are big differences between different sorts of European welfare states. The South European welfare state isn't nearly the same as the Nordic one. I haven't got the time to delve into this right now, but I'd suggest you'd read any basic article or book on different welfare state models. I can provide you with references/links later on.

But as I said, I'm not an expert on Southern and Middle European welfare states, so if some other posters have more info on the subject, please tell us.

Indeed it isn't. The logic of the current neo-liberal capitalism seems to be that the richest section of the population becomes more and more and more rich compared to the poorest section, and this is happening both on world and country level. There are lots of statistics to prove this, and you certainly can't call them "red herrings", since they show what's going on in the world right now. The question is, why isn't the trickle-down effect of economic growth or Adam Smith's "best results for everyone" working as it's supposed to. The answer: maybe, just maybe, capitalism isn't the ultimate answer. Maybe we aren't witnessing "the end of history", but a sordid intermediate phase, which will hopefully pass to reveal better days.

how homogenous is Finland? don't you have a Swedish-speaking minority of around ten per cent or something, plus some Samis?

Denial makes me chuckle.

A highly ignorant statement, right there.

Also, Dee to thread.

Yes! I'm sorry that I used swear words on you, Dee, it was nothing personal, it's just that whenever I hear anyone say "poverty is the fault of the poor themselves", I get mad. But since you seem to be the only one with a clearly right-wing view on this subject, I'd like to hear more of your comments. Constructive discussion is always better than labeling someone "ignorant".