U.S. Politics, Elections & Culture issues

[Vangelovski]

What's a 'social democrat'?

[Gocka]

A Social Democrat is typically a socialist who is also for a parliamentary democracy.

You seem to blur the lines between Communism and Socialism, which is typical for someone who leans right. They are similar but in the end more different enough to requite distinction.

Your explanation above about what is the purpose of socialism, its a bit narrow and also crosses into Communism.

Also even if this while thing about Muslim enclaves is true (highly unlikely), its hardly a reflection on the success or failure of the Scandinavian semi Socialist model. Lets face it, if you put these Muslim Extremists in a Utopia, they will probably burn it to the ground.

Its hard to deny that as a whole the Scandinavian socio-economic model is quite balanced and successful. I also wouldn't quite call it socialism either. The means of production certainly are not owned and controlled by the public.

The Scandinavian model is a cross between Socialism and Capitalism, taking the better parts of both systems to benefit the majority of its society.

The public owns only the basic institutions like utilities, roads, education, and health care. Which give its society a steady baseline. They ensure people dont end up in poverty and that they have a basic existence secure. Then they incentivize working, with strong focus on workers rights. They still allow for individual growth and innovation without allowing wealth to become to centralized.

To date no one has came up with a more well balanced system.

What's a 'social democrat'?

[George S.]

how about the socialist criminal who supposedly takes from the rich and gives to the poor.

[DraganOfStip]

A Social Democrat is typically a socialist who is also for a parliamentary democracy.

According to Wikipedia:

Social democracy is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving welfare state provisions, collective bargaining arrangements, regulation of the economy in the general interest, redistribution of income and wealth, and a commitment to representative democracy

Or,watch this video of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftungs's Academy for Social Democracy explaining what Social Democracy is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvJ8YDma7Wk

[Vangelovski]

A Social Democrat is typically a socialist who is also for a parliamentary democracy.

So he's still a socialist?

You seem to blur the lines between Communism and Socialism, which is typical for someone who leans right. They are similar but in the end more different enough to requite distinction.

I haven't blurred anything, quite simply because I haven't even commented on communism. But yes, socialists do claim there is a distinction between the two and I agree to a degree.

Your explanation above about what is the purpose of socialism, its a bit narrow and also crosses into Communism.

I noted that it was only ONE objective of socialism. I did not intend to provide an overall explanation of socialism. It does cross into communism because its an ideal they share. You shouldn't forget the socialism is only a stage of development towards "full" communism, so they do tend to share ideals.

Also even if this while thing about Muslim enclaves is true (highly unlikely), its hardly a reflection on the success or failure of the Scandinavian semi Socialist model. Lets face it, if you put these Muslim Extremists in a Utopia, they will probably burn it to the ground.

Well, evidence that it is true was presented and I know for a fact that there are a lot of no-go zones across Europe. Given that socialism is mean't to destroy national and religious loyalties and worldviews, it has certainly failed on those counts - namely, radical islamists and the continued existence of a Swedish national identity.

Its hard to deny that as a whole the Scandinavian socio-economic model is quite balanced and successful. I also wouldn't quite call it socialism either. The means of production certainly are not owned and controlled by the public.

You'd have to define what you consider "balanced" and "successful". Not all of the 'means of production' are owned/controlled by the public, but about half (if not more) of the wealth created by those 'means of production' is certainly appropriated and redistributed (from those according to their ability to those according to their need) by the state/public. Its effectively the same thing.

The Scandinavian model is a cross between Socialism and Capitalism, taking the better parts of both systems to benefit the majority of its society.

You'd have to define what you consider as "benefit" because I'm not entirely convinced of that, nor that its benefiting a majority.

The public owns only the basic institutions like utilities, roads, education, and health care. Which give its society a steady baseline. They ensure people dont end up in poverty and that they have a basic existence secure. Then they incentivize working, with strong focus on workers rights. They still allow for individual growth and innovation without allowing wealth to become to centralized.

To date no one has came up with a more well balanced system.

From the Australian experience, privatisation of public utilities like water, electricity, phone companies etc has only resulted in better and cheaper services. Some will argue not, but the choice and lower cost now compared to before privatisation is enormous. So I'm in no way convinced that public ownership of utilities is a good thing. Nor am I convinced that only public ownership of education and health care is the best way to deliver those services. Again, my experience in the Australian system, which is mixed, shows me that while state involvement in education and heath care can be beneficial, it certainly cannot replace the private sectors in these industries without a serious decline in quality.

You've presupposed that the "centralisation of wealth" (as you refer to it) is a bad thing. What exactly is that though - the centralisation of wealth?

[DraganOfStip]

The Scandinavian economy model explained (note that Bernie Sanders is also mentioned in the article as one of the supporters of this system):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

[Vangelovski]

The Scandinavian economy model explained (note that Bernie Sanders is also mentioned in the article as one of the supporters of this system):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

I'm not sure as to the accuracy of the figures from the Wikipedia article that Dragan provided, but this is insanity in practice:

Sweden at 56.6% of GDP, Denmark at 51.7%, and Finland at 48.6% reflect very high public spending.

To the socialists on here, if you're into this sort of thing, why not just give me half your income and I'll spend in on your behalf and in your interest (as I see it). It would be much more efficient (and I'd probably be closer to the mark) than providing it to the state to spend on your behalf and in your interest (as it see's it). Ultimately, the state is nothing more than a bunch of un-elected and unaccountable bureaucrats who neither care about public spending or have any substantive knowledge about the allocation of funds for which they are responsible.

Alternatively, you could keep your own money (or as much of it as possible) and spend it yourself and in your own interest (as you yourself know it to be).

[DraganOfStip]

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/sep/02/11-examples-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-hol/

[DraganOfStip]

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/11/why-nordic-nations-are-a-role-model-for-us-all/

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571136-politicians-both-right-and-left-could-learn-nordic-countries-next-supermodel

https://www.hertie-school.org/fileadmin/images/Downloads/working_papers/41.pdf

[Risto the Great]

To the socialists on here, if you're into this sort of thing, why not just give me half your income and I'll spend in on your behalf and in your interest (as I see it). It would be much more efficient (and I'd probably be closer to the mark) than providing it to the state to spend on your behalf and in your interest (as it see's it). Ultimately, the state is nothing more than a bunch of un-elected and unaccountable bureaucrats who neither care about public spending or have any substantive knowledge about the allocation of funds for which they are responsible.

Is this fellow your twin?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M689xuNgJyA

The hilarious thing is that he works in a government department.

[Vangelovski]

Is this fellow your twin?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M689xuNgJyA

The hilarious thing is that he works in a government department.

You're meant to be an expert Chris, how much tax do you think we should pay? What proportion of your income would you say goes to the state?

[DraganOfStip]

Nevermind the Nordic system dudes,Nordic countries are nr 1 in metal bands per capita in the world.
How cool is that?

http://www.metalinjection.net/around-the-interwebs/which-country-has-the-most-metal-bands-per-capita

[Risto the Great]

You're meant to be an expert Chris, how much tax do you think we should pay? What proportion of your income would you say goes to the state?

I think we're not far off. Personal and corporate rates could come down by 5% and consumption taxes (GST) should also be levied on the exclusions that presently exist. The rate of GST could even come up a little.

But wasn't that guy above hilarious? Working for a government department and espousing capitalistic libertarianism.

[Gocka]

Its when wealth becomes more and more consolidated in fewer and fewer hands. Every single economic system from human history has eventually crashed and erupted into violence when the wealth grew too large in too few hands.

The problem with full on privatization of everything can be summed up in one word; profit. Any private institution in order to exist needs to make a profit. This profit not only tends to make things more expensive but also prioritizes needs differently. For example, take American style healthcare. Doctor, insurance provider, and patient. The doctor must make a profit, the office the doctor rents must make a profit, the insurance company that pays for the services must make a profit, in the end the consumer the patient, pays for all the profit. The insurance companies may goal to pay out as little claims as possible, not to make sure you get the best care, or the fastest. The main goal of the doctor, is to see as many patients in as little time as possible, his main goal isn't to make sure you get the best care and most attention. In the end the patient pays a lot of money so that the middle man (insurance) makes a profit, the doctor makes a profit, and the patient gets hurried through the exam and then their insurance denies the claim because of some ridiculous stipulation you had no idea existed.

Your claim that the "government" cant possible allocate better where the needs are is flat out wrong. First of all the government isn't some rouge boogie man, it is comprised by the people and fulfills the will of the people so long as they are active in the process. A private institution can never prioritize better than the government because a private institution has one priority and one priority only, profit. As an accountant I can tell you that every single business decision boils down to one factor, and that is profit. If a company calculates that by reducing quality by X, they will lose Y amount of customers but reduce costs by Z, as long as Z is greater than Y, then X is irrelevant. If a company can calculate that dumping chemicals into the river will cost X in fines, and will cost Y in reputation (also monetized), and Z is why it costs to dispose of these chemicals properly, again as long as X plus Y is less than Z, then that is what you do. A private companies job is not to help society, or to protect the environment, its to make a profit. People who can not admit this are delusional.

My only problem with government is that it is not inclusive enough, it is not transparent enough, and it is to easily swayed by money.

Places where I like the government to take control are those that affect peoples basic needs, Food, shelter, education, health, and security. I dont care if if apples charges ridiculous prices for gadgets, I dont care if people use drugs. What I do care about is that everyone can see a doctor when they are sick without losing their shirt, that people dont starve or live on the street, that everyone has access to education without signing over their future. The only other place where I would want the government to intervene is environmental and labor issues. Someone has to protect the environment, that never goes hand in hand with profit. I think governments should impose strict labor laws, high minimum wages, strict caps on working hours, and mandatory vacations and maternity leaves.

I agree that government is inefficient, but that's because way to many people want it to be that way. You cant start out with the notion that no matter what you do, it will suck, and then be shocked when it sucks.

Conservatives hate to hear about Scandinavia, because it works, and they base their entire stock in the idea that government is bad and that privatization can solve every problem. Every worldwide poll taken always finds Scandinavia in the top few places in every category. Happiness, healthiness, standard of living, education, crime, poverty, cleanliness. I doubt you can find one study that finds Scandinavia is last in anything that can be considered good. Unlike a country like the USA which might be number one in average wages, but last in health, crime, depression, obesity, etc. This is what I meant by balanced.

Pure Capitalism will be just another failed system eventually.

You've presupposed that the "centralisation of wealth" (as you refer to it) is a bad thing. What exactly is that though - the centralisation of wealth?

[Vangelovski]

I think we're not far off. Personal and corporate rates could come down by 5% and consumption taxes (GST) should also be levied on the exclusions that presently exist. The rate of GST could even come up a little.

What do you reckon about that Phoenix? Corporate taxes down, GST up!

How much would you put the GST up by Chris? And what would the net effect be? Would we be paying more tax or less?

I'm wondering the average proportion of an Australian's income paid in taxes is - including all direct and indirect taxes, such as income tax, GST, import duties, fuel excises etc etc? I have no idea how to even calculate that, but I would take a guess that its anywhere between 25 and 60 per cent, depending on your income. I take it other than those adjustments you mentioned, you think we've got it about right?