Why I Hate Capitalism by SignyM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"While the U.S. spent the most in absolute dollars, it ranked tenth in education spending as a percent of GDP at 4.8 percent. Saudi Arabia ranked first investing 9.5 percent of GDP in education. The top five include Norway, Malaysia, France and South Africa. All five countries spent in excess of 5 percent of GDP on education. The United Arab Emirates came in 29th at 1.9 percent of GDP."

Please note that this is TOTAL spending - public and private. Most other developed countries besides the US fund college and post-graduate\ medical \professional education publicly.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 6:27 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I still affirm that greed is not specific to, or even more likely to appear in, any economic or political system."

Then one must look at results to see which system facilitates greed the most. Where is the greatest economic gap between the wealthy and the workers ? Between the powerful and the powerless ? Between average income and the top 1% ?

What are those results, Geezer ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 7:24 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Ain't what you spend, so much as how.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 7:38 AM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"While the U.S. spent the most in absolute dollars, it ranked tenth in education spending as a percent of GDP at 4.8 percent. Saudi Arabia ranked first investing 9.5 percent of GDP in education. The top five include Norway, Malaysia, France and South Africa. All five countries spent in excess of 5 percent of GDP on education. The United Arab Emirates came in 29th at 1.9 percent of GDP."

Please note that this is TOTAL spending - public and private. Most other developed countries besides the US fund college and post-graduate\ medical \professional education publicly.

Your data is probably more up to date than mine but it still shows that the US is heavily invested in education.

I think we focus to much on four year colleges and not enough on technical education. Not everyone can be a brain surgeon, we need to train people for specific specialties that we know will be in demand in the future and stop turning out liberal arts majors with high expectations and no qualifications.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 7:41 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
we need to train people for specific specialties that we know will be in demand in the future and stop turning out liberal arts majors with high expectations and no qualifications.

Agreement here, Kirk.

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 8:00 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Your data is probably more up to date than mine but it still shows that the US is heavily invested in education."

Just not publicly. If there was enough public money, it would be adequate and available to everyone.

"I think we focus to much on four year colleges and not enough on technical education. Not everyone can be a brain surgeon, we need to train people for specific specialties that we know will be in demand in the future and stop turning out liberal arts majors with high expectations and no qualifications."

The chemists who are coming out of college today:

There's a reason why the US is slipping in R&D. Look at any scientific graduate program today and who do you see ? Chinese. Russians. Some Indians. (Who btw take their PhDs we so nicely provide and go home.)

The US kids coming out of school today have a much better idea of how the world works and what we REALLY value than I did. We value money. And you'll never get rich working, either at a technical job or a scientific one. You'll never get rich busting your a$$ on difficult stuff. You'll get rich by going into business, or by becoming a media star - an entertainer or sports figure.

If we want that drive to an education to 'take', we need to value the result. Which means we need to value something more than we value money.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 8:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I still affirm that greed is not specific to, or even more likely to appear in, any economic or political system."

Then one must look at results to see which system facilitates greed the most. Where is the greatest economic gap between the wealthy and the workers ? Between the powerful and the powerless ? Between average income and the top 1% ?

The problem with this approach is that disparity of power is measured in different ways. It think Geezer is considering "greed" in the more general sense, as in a lust for power. That doesn't go away when an economy is socialized, it just changes form. Things like party affiliation and political connections replace cash as a means of measuring, or gaining, power and wealth.

I prefer a system that placates these desires with money as a focus, rather than politics. The power represented by money, if framed by a proper set of rules, limits the efforts of the greedy to voluntary interactions. They can't increase their wealth unless they can convince people give it to them voluntarily.

Political power, on the other hand, is generally coercive in nature. You can't voluntarily follow laws. You can have some effect on political decisions, through voting or whatever scheme exists in the particular form of government, but you're compelled to play along once a decision is made.

The worst problems begin when these two forms of power are allowed to mix. When you can buy political power with money, or when you can use political power to enhance wealth, all bets are off. Once this begins, it's usually a short road to a situation where neither can exist independently - you can't succeed in politics without lots of money and you can succeed in business without strong political connections. That's what we have now and, though I find the "hope" of the Obama administration inspiring, I don't see any realistic plans for change. In fact, it looks like we'll only get much more of the same.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 9:32 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"It think Geezer is considering "greed" in the more general sense, as in a lust for power. That doesn't go away when an economy is socialized, it just changes form. Things like party affiliation and political connections replace cash as a means of measuring, or gaining, power and wealth."

Not really. Look at ANY system of differences: in authority, in money, in standing. They ALL lead, eventually, to differences in access to resources. The fight is about THINGS - material, quantifiable things. And therefore these differences can be measured in units of differences in things.

And BTW this in particular "That doesn't go away when an economy is socialized, it just changes form" is particularly not supported by real-world data. Looking at Sweden (Fletch2's example of choice): greed is lower there than here.

But I don't expect you to agree to ANY social cooperation at ANY level. It's a 'thing' with you.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 9:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But I don't expect you to agree to ANY social cooperation at ANY level. It's a 'thing' with you.

Then you clearly don't know me at all. I consider social cooperation paramount in anything we can call a civilization. But what you often consider "cooperation" is mob rule in disguise. The majority forcing it's will on the minority is not what I call cooperation.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 9:38 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"While the U.S. spent the most in absolute dollars, it ranked tenth in education spending as a percent of GDP at 4.8 percent. Saudi Arabia ranked first investing 9.5 percent of GDP in education. The top five include Norway, Malaysia, France and South Africa. All five countries spent in excess of 5 percent of GDP on education. The United Arab Emirates came in 29th at 1.9 percent of GDP."

Please note that this is TOTAL spending - public and private. Most other developed countries besides the US fund college and post-graduate\ medical \professional education publicly.

Do all countries figures include private education?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 9:48 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Do all countries figures include private education?"

Yes, it's total spending. I couldn't find comparative figures with public and private spending broken out. Maybe someone with more time can dig them up.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 9:50 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"The majority forcing it's will on the minority is not what I call cooperation."

You will never get 100% consensus on anything. If you demand 100% consensus before society does anything, then you are demanding society does nothing. As I posted earlier.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 10:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You will never get 100% consensus on anything. If you demand 100% consensus before society does anything, then you are demanding society does nothing.

Social cooperation doesn't require 100% consensus, nor 100% participation. I know you assume it does, but I consider that a fundamental error.

We always seem to end up here. I acknowledge that there ARE issues and situation that require 100% participation. But, since in general the only way to get that is through coercion (the opposite of cooperation), I think this approach should be reserved for only extreme issues (warfare, violent crime, etc...). Other social issues should be addressed through real cooperation, with voluntary participation.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 10:07 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

If you are willing to live without ANY of the benefits of society, then it doesn't require your input.

But if you want on drive on its roads, write to a reading audience, be protected from toxins, or benefit in any way from any public or societal good, then you must not only participate in it, but support it. Or be willing to leach off of socially derived resources. Or prevent society from doing anything at all until there is 100% consensus.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 10:17 AM

All or nothing huh? I don't buy that. Cooperation is bit more flexible that that.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 10:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Advanced technology is a societal good. So unless you dig the ore to smelt the iron to forge the axe to hew your own lumber, the shovel to dig your well, and the plow to grow your own food; and raise the sheep to card the wool to spin the thread to weave your cloth .... Well, you're benefiting from society* whether you want to or not. (*Division of labor, transportation, technology,etc.)

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 10:25 AM

Not sure what you're getting at Signym.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 10:33 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Go away into the deep woods or desert, into remote mountains or out in the middle of the ocean, far away from human habitation. Get stripped of your clothes. Using repeated ECT, have your mind erased of all you've been taught. There. You will have received no benefit from society. Good luck.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 10:38 AM

????

Hmmm

I have no idea where you all are going with this. Rue claimed that I oppose social cooperation. I made the point that I quite like social cooperation. What I oppose is coercion when it isn't absolutely necessary. In fact, I don't even consider it "cooperation".

From there, I don't think I understand what you're getting at.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 10:49 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You owe your very life to society. Without it you would be naked, unknowing, un-cared for, and very soon dead. You are benefiting from society at all times and in all ways, from the beginning of your life to the end. A simple recognition of that fact would be a good start for discussion.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 11:02 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You owe your very life to society. Without it you would be naked, unknowing, un-cared for, and very soon dead.

Not me, sis. I was born with the innate ability to question gravity, to work with it, understand it, and to use it to beat contentious peeps up in harmony with it.
I would be a king by my own hand without the conscience provided to me by James Kirk & Kwai-Chang Caine.

EDIT TO ADD:

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You owe your very life to society. Without it you would be naked, unknowing, un-cared for, and very soon dead. You are benefitting from society at all times and in all ways, from the beginning of your life to the end. A simple recognition of that fact would be a good start for discussion.

huh... I thought that was implicit in my comments, you know, the being in favor of social cooperation part. I certainly don't deny it. (although the "at all times and in all ways" bit seems over-the-top). Anyway, yeah, humans are social animals. Seems obvious.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 11:20 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Every moment you are NOT naked, unknowing and uncared for, and that you are therefore still alive, you are benefitting. Hence: "at all times and in all ways".

So, we've established that you are benefiting from society, not just in trivial limited ways on specific things, but with your very life. And that you are benefiting from your parents' benefits, from your clan's benefits, from your community's benefits, and all the way out.

Which of those things do you wish to stop participating in ? Which of those benefits do you wish to give up ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 11:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

To continue... altho possibly not in the direction Rue had in mind: Because other people have invested effort in you, you owe them in return whether you want to or not.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 11:24 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I was pretty much going that way.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 11:47 AM

Listen, you can go whatever way you want, but you're ignoring my statements and riffing on something else entirely. I'm not interested.

You claimed I was against social cooperation. I'm not. I'll leave it that.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 12:03 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SergeantX

You seem to have no problem benefiting from society at large, while at the same time maintaining society should have no expectation of you.

We owe you everything, you owe us nothing. Got it.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 12:16 PM

I didn't say that. I've said the opposite this entire time. But that's clearly the argument you want to have, so go have it. With yourself.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 12:40 PM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I would be a king by my own hand without the conscience provided to me by James Kirk & Kwai-Chang Caine.

I grow so humble in awe that I may loose the ability to walk upright. Those two were like Fathers to me!

"No more bla bla bla"...Kirk in "Miri"

"Indulging in hate and revenge is like drinking saltwater...the thirst can only grow."...Kwai Chang Caine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 12:50 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SergeantX

Your argument is that you decide when, or if, you will reciprocate with society. A society from which you, nevertheless have benefited from, continue to benefit from, and claim benefit from . Ie: You owe nothing, but are owed --- everything.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 1:04 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Listen, you can go whatever way you want, but you're ignoring my statements and riffing on something else entirely. I'm not interested. You claimed I was against social cooperation. I'm not. I'll leave it that.

I guess the concept is that we're past the "cooperation" stage. It's no longer as simple as "If you give me a spear-tip I'll give you a basket". The benefit that you derive from society isn't given to you specifically and voluntarily; it comes from people far away, "following the rules", "paying their taxes", showing up on-time, seeing to the education of other people's children, cleaning up other people's messes etc.

Unless you can somehow extract yourself from those benefits which are derived sometimes-cooperatively-and-sometimes-coercively, it doesn't seem fair to insist OTHER people follow the rules but that you don't have to. Nor does it seem realistic to think if there were no rules whatsoever we'd be able to enjoy the material well-being that we have today.

But maybe I misunderstand your point.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 1:39 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Voluntary social cooperation.

Legally mandatory coerced "cooperation".

VERY different things.
VERY different purposes.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 1:45 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
Those two were like Fathers to me!

Kirk was my Dad, Caine was my brother.
I came out Luke Skywalker, go figure.

And Mal is who I am when I am very stressed out.

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 3:18 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Voluntary social cooperation.
Legally mandatory coerced "cooperation".

Between voluntary cooperation and coercion is conformity.

Voluntary: Hey, I'll show up to work when I feel like it, even if the guy ahead of me has been on-shift for, like, 12-hours straight.

Coercion: Show up on time or we'll jail you or fire your *ss!

Conformity: Well, time to get to work!

I guess what I'm saying is, a certain amount of conformity is required. People have to refer to the same clock. Speak the same language. They have to drive on the correct side of the road ands stop at red lights. They need to show up to work when other people do, if they're going to be working together. They should be kicking into the common pool of resources if they're drawing from it. Some of the conformity does have an element of coercion behind it: Try driving on the wrong side of the road and see how far you get! Some of it doesn't: You can be a somewhat of a slacker at work for a long time, as long as you're not TOO outrageous about it. But it seems to me that thumbing your nose and saying "Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! You can't MAKE me".... or, one step more "Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! You SHOULDN'T be able to make me" is... well, silly. Like an adult throwing a temper tantrum.

Because a society, even a cooperative one, needs to be able to isolate dangerous individuals and to cut off parasitic members. Ideally, that would be by excluding them, but how do you do THAT in a large complex society where nobody knows anybody? Implant them with an RFID????

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 3:57 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SergeantX is gone from this thread. He will never admit that if he takes benefits from society he owes it in return.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 5:27 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I still affirm that greed is not specific to, or even more likely to appear in, any economic or political system."

Then one must look at results to see which system facilitates greed the most. Where is the greatest economic gap between the wealthy and the workers ? Between the powerful and the powerless ? Between average income and the top 1% ?

What are those results, Geezer ?

Can't find top 1%, but for top 10% look here.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_inc_dis_ric_10-economy-income-di
stribution-richest-10

Strangely enough, Socialist paradises such as Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador show the top 10% holding much more of the total wealth than the U.S. Even stranger, the U.S. and China show about the same level, below the weighted average. Pretty capitalist Japan is almost at the bottom of the list.

Same for richest 20%, with the U.S. about average.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_inc_dis_ric_20-economy-income-di
stribution-richest-20

Also note no figures for North Korea, Burma and a few more of the probably most imbalanced countries. Wanna bet the U.S. would rank farther below the average if they were included?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 5:39 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Places I'd like to live:

#1 Swaziland: 50.2% NO
#2 Nicaragua: 48.8% NO
#3 Brazil: 48% NO
#4 Central African Republic: 47.7% NO
#5 Burkina Faso: 46.8% NO
#6 Colombia: 46.1% NO
#7 Guatemala: 46% NO
#8 South Africa: 45.9% NO
#9 Chile: 45.6% NO
#10 Paraguay: 43.8% NO
#11 Sierra Leone: 43.6% NO
#12 Lesotho: 43.4% NO
#13 Honduras: 42.7% NO
#14 Guinea-Bissau: 42.4% NO
#15 Mexico: 41.7% NO
#16 Zambia: 41% NO
#17 Nigeria: 40.8% NO
#18 Papua New Guinea: 40.5% NO
#19 Mali: 40.4% NO
#20 Zimbabwe: 40.4% NO
#21 El Salvador: 39.5% NO
#22 Russia: 38.7% NO
#23 Malaysia: 38.4% NO
#24 Gambia, The: 38.2% NO
#25 Dominican Republic: 37.8% NO
#26 Cameroon: 36.6% NO
#27 Philippines: 36.6% NO
#28 Venezuela: 36.5% NO
#29 Kenya: 36.1% NO
#30 Panama: 35.6% NO
#31 Niger: 35.4% NO
#32 Peru: 35.4% NO
#33 Armenia: 35.2% NO
#34 Costa Rica: 34.6% MAYBE
#35 Ecuador: 33.8% NO
#36 Cambodia: 33.8% NO
#37 Ethiopia: 33.7% NO
#38 India: 33.5% NO
#39 Senegal: 33.5% NO
#40 Burundi: 32.9% NO
#41 Uzbekistan: 32.8% NO
#42 Uruguay: 32.7% NO
#43 Saint Lucia: 32.5% NO
#44 Thailand: 32.4% NO
#45 Turkey: 32.3% NO
#46 Bolivia: 32% NO
#47 Guinea: 32% NO
#48 Guyana: 32% NO
#49 Tunisia: 31.8% NO
#50 Mozambique: 31.7% NO
#51 Turkmenistan: 31.7% NO
#52 Morocco: 30.9% NO
#53 Laos: 30.6% NO
#54 United States: 30.5%
#55 China: 30.4% NO
#56 Jamaica: 30.3% NO
#57 Ghana: 30.1% NO
#58 Vietnam: 29.9% NO
#59 Trinidad and Tobago: 29.9% NO
#60 Nepal: 29.8% NO
#61 Jordan: 29.8% NO
#62 Estonia: 29.8% NO
#63 Uganda: 29.8% NO
#64 Cote d'Ivoire: 28.8% NO
#65 Bangladesh: 28.6% NO
#66 Madagascar: 28.6% NO
#67 Mauritania: 28.4% NO
#68 Portugal: 28.4% MAYBE
#69 Israel: 28.3% NO
#70 Sri Lanka: 28% NO
#71 Georgia: 27.9% NO
#72 Azerbaijan: 27.8% NO
#73 United Kingdom: 27.7% YES
#74 Pakistan: 27.6% NO
#75 Ireland: 27.4% YES
#76 Kyrgyzstan: 27.2% NO
#77 Algeria: 26.8% NO
#78 Indonesia: 26.7% NO
#79 Kazakhstan: 26.3% NO
#80 Latvia: 25.9% NO
#81 Yemen: 25.9% NO
#82 Lithuania: 25.6% NO
#83 Australia: 25.4% MAYBE
#84 Greece: 25.3% NO
#85 Spain: 25.2% MAYBE
#86 Tajikistan: 25.2% NO
#87 Switzerland: 25.2% YES
#88 Netherlands: 25.1% YES
#89 France: 25.1% YES
#90 Romania: 25% NO
#91 Egypt: 25% NO
#92 Poland: 24.7% NO
#93 Mongolia: 24.5% NO
#94 Korea, South: 24.3% NO
#95 Rwanda: 24.2% NO
#96 Canada: 23.8% YES
#97 Germany: 23.7% YES
#98 Croatia: 23.3% NO
#99 Ukraine: 23.2% NO
#100 Belgium: 23% YES
#101 Slovenia: 23% NO
#102 Bulgaria: 22.8% NO
#103 Austria: 22.5% YES
#104 Czech Republic: 22.4% NO
#105 Luxembourg: 22% YES
#106 Italy: 21.8% YES
#107 Norway: 21.8% YES
#108 Japan: 21.7% MAYBE
#109 Finland: 21.6% YES
#110 Denmark: 20.5% YES
#111 Hungary: 20.5% YES
#112 Sweden: 20.1% YES
#113 Belarus: 20% NO
#114 Slovakia: 18.2% NO

Without exception, the places I'd like to live are first world countries with socialistic wealth redistribution. I rest my case.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 5:40 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Look at ANY system of differences: in authority, in money, in standing. They ALL lead, eventually, to differences in access to resources. The fight is about THINGS - material, quantifiable things. And therefore these differences can be measured in units of differences in things.

Thanks, Rue, for expressing just what I've been saying. All systems have differences: CEO and consumers, Commissar and proletariat, Minister and workers, chief and tribe. Capitalism isn't unique in folks trying to get things. The difference with capitalism is that it allows folk to get things without being part of the government.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 5:43 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The difference is that in capitalism it allows you to run the government if you have things - or you support the people who do.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 5:51 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Advanced technology is a societal good. So unless you dig the ore to smelt the iron to forge the axe to hew your own lumber, the shovel to dig your well, and the plow to grow your own food; and raise the sheep to card the wool to spin the thread to weave your cloth .... Well, you're benefiting from society* whether you want to or not.

But there's more than one kind of society. Consider how well the society in the former Soviet Union provided for, or current North Korea provides for, their citizens. Even your favorites such as Sweden only have the resources to provide for their citizens by taxing the income created by capitalist businesses.

Note also that the richest 20% in the U.S. pay more of the total taxes than in Sweden; somewhat over the world average.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_con_by_ric_30-taxation-contribut
ion-by-richest-30

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 20, 2009 5:58 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The difference is that in capitalism it allows you to run the government if you have things - or you support the people who do.

Proof? George Soros might be your best example.

Communism allows - requires, actually - the government to run everything, for the exclusive benefit of the State. Do you consider that better? Socialism allows the government to run what it chooses, for what the government considers the benefit of society. Do you really trust government that much?

BTW, how 'bout those Nationmaster figures?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 21, 2009 2:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Couple of comments:

What Frem and Sarge seem to disagree with is the ability of society (ANY society) to impose rules (ANY rules) whatsoever.

Right, guys? Or is that a mis-read of your reactions?
------------------------

Quote:
BTW, how 'bout those Nationmaster figures?

Geezer: Income distribution is a tricky thing. Even if you have a very flat income distribution, there will always be a "top 10%". Note, that top 10% may only make three times more than the bottom 10% or they make 300 times more. Just pointing to "the top 10%" doesn't say anything about income distribution. It's a very misleading statistic and as a tax guy, you should have known.

You've brought this up before and I've caught you in it before. So try to remember that next time. m'kay? Otherwise I'd begin to suspect that you were lying.

But the real test of income distribution is not the top quintile or top 10%. Basically, those measures are too broad and non-specific. If you want to know a nation's income distribution, you should look at the RATIO of the top centile to the median. In the USA, the top centile makes about.... oh.... a million times more than the median.

Or, you can look at standard of living indicators versus per capita GDP. Some standards are sensitive to unequal income distributions: infant mortality, lifepsan, literacy etc. A nation with a high per capita GDP (ie average wealth) but high infant mortality or relatively short lifespan is a good indicator that the wealth is NOT equally distributed.

OR, you can look at the gini index.

"Top 10%"?

piffle!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 21, 2009 3:53 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Without exception, the places I'd like to live are first world countries with socialistic wealth redistribution. I rest my case.

So you want to live where the world's wealth is concentrated (generally due to capitalist enterprises), there's infrastructure to keep you comfortable, and you can live off someone else's dime. Not so different from me, except I'm willing to live off my own dime.

I guess you're conceding the point about money held by the top X percent being an indicator of desirability, since you leave several of the lowest numbers off your wish list just because they're in Eastern Europe. Not comfortable enough, I suppose.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 21, 2009 4:07 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer: Income distribution is a tricky thing. Even if you have a very flat income distribution, there will always be a "top 10%". Note, that top 10% may only make three times more than the bottom 10% or they make 300 times more. Just pointing to "the top 10%" doesn't say anything about income distribution. It's a very misleading statistic and as a tax guy, you should have known.

I provided those figures in response to a request from Rue.

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
Where is the greatest economic gap between the wealthy and the workers ? Between the powerful and the powerless ? Between average income and the top 1% ?

What are those results, Geezer ?

I agree that they aren't a reliable predictor of social conscience, what with the U.S. and China being about the same on the scale. Rue also sorta proved it by failing to choose the countries with the lowest top 10% as places she'd like to live.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In the USA, the top centile makes about.... oh.... a million times more than the median.

Source, please.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 21, 2009 4:14 AM