U.S. Politics, Elections & Culture issues

[Vangelovski]

Sounds like a great theory, what page can I find that on?

You won't find it anywhere because 'no one' said it.

[Vangelovski]

In your view, how much do you need to earn on a yearly basis, or accumulate in wealth to be considered part of the top 1% 5% 10% 20% AND 30%.

I commented on this above somewhere. People naively think that even if they become successful that they will be part of the top 1%, not realizing that what they have in mind probably doesn't even put them in the top 30% let alone the top 1%.

The bracket you belong in does not mean much unless you put it into context. I think you claimed that the top 1% own 90% of the wealth (which I disagree with), but you fail to state how much wealth there is - how big is the pie?

[Tomche Makedonche]

Yes,as I said no one can deny the role of the pre-1991 system,but just look at the examples I gave you.
Former Eastern block countries (which had an even more opressive style of communism) are far better than Macedonia is today.
According to 2014 data,average salaries in these countries are: Slovakia 708 eur, Czech Republic 754 eur, Latvia 606, Poland 698, Estonia 871...
Even in our closest surroundings we have Croatia with 775 eur and Slovenia with 1092 eur.
Now,comparing these numbers with the 2000+ average salaries in most western European countries it may seem bad,but compare that with the 350 eur in Macedonia (even though it's hardly the realistic average salary since around 75% of the people receive less than that) it's far,far better.
So you can't just attribute today's condition in Macedonia to consequences of socialism (simply because most former communist countries are doing way better),but also to the lack of leadership (I will allow myself to use our own word АПАШЛАК) and the trade embargo of the early 1990's,not forgetting also the 1999 Kosovo refugee crisis + the conflict of 2001,which also costed our economy dearly.
In my opinion,at least.
And yes,it perfectly fits in the "idiotism" label too.

Well I think we can both agree that the current economic situation of an individual country can be attributed to a number of individual factors, usually specific to that country alone. However, whilst you like to point out the 7 or so ex-socialist European countries that have recovered reasonably well economically (which is a good thing for the people of those countries), I think limiting your point on average monthly salaries to only those select countries does not provide a total reflection of the current economic situation the majority of people in ex-socialist countries in Europe experience.

In light of the above, and in the interests of providing a more complete picture, I have listed below the current average monthly net wages of other ex-socialist European republics.

Albania
€353

Bulgaria
€356

Romania
€417

Moldova
€181

Armenia
€314

Azerbaijan
€319

Belarus
€308

Georgia
€307

Kazakhstan
€310

Kosovo
€360

Lithuania
€554

Ukraine
€141

Russia
€395

Bosnia Herzegovina
€425

Serbia
€363

Whether any current economic trends amongst the above countries listed can be attributed to the effects of socialism, I’ll leave for others to debate, however, as I said previously, I am personally of the opinion that the effects of socialism in Macedonia (specifically), has had a significant impact on the way Macedonians view the role government plays over the administration of their lives, including the disconnection of accountability between the citizenry and government.

[Vangelovski]

I'm digging around a little deeper on this whole Nordic model and I'm even less convinced of its relative merit.

Firstly, no country even comes close to the net national wealth of the United States:


images

The Nordic countries don't even make it into the top ten and some of them don't even make it into the top 30 (according to these estimates).

In terms of mean wealth per adult, only Norway ranks higher than the US. Sweden is roughly on par, while the others fall behind:


pic upload

This does not suggest to me that the Nordic economic systems are somehow economically more productive relative to the US or other capitalist countries.

[Vangelovski]

Well I think we can both agree that the current economic situation of an individual country can be attributed to a number of individual factors, usually specific to that country alone. However, whilst you like to point out the 7 or so ex-socialist European countries that have recovered reasonably well economically (which is a good thing for the people of those countries), I think limiting your point on average monthly salaries to only those select countries does not provide a total reflection of the current economic situation the majority of people in ex-socialist countries in Europe experience.

In light of the above, and in the interests of providing a more complete picture, I have listed below the current average monthly net wages of other ex-socialist European republics.

Albania
€353

Bulgaria
€356

Romania
€417

Moldova
€181

Armenia
€314

Azerbaijan
€319

Belarus
€308

Georgia
€307

Kazakhstan
€310

Kosovo
€360

Lithuania
€554

Ukraine
€141

Russia
€395

Bosnia Herzegovina
€425

Serbia
€363

Whether any current economic trends amongst the above countries listed can be attributed to the effects of socialism, I’ll leave for others to debate, however, as I said previously, I am personally of the opinion that the effects of socialism in Macedonia (specifically), has had a significant impact on the way Macedonians view the role government plays over the administration of their lives, including the disconnection of accountability between the citizenry and government.

Here's GDP per capita - West vs East:


post image

[Risto the Great]

Here's GDP per capita - West vs East:


post image

Surely Macao is the cradle of communism!

I looked up the same statistics. Looking at average earnings without looking at GDP seems to be only telling half the story. I would contend that the countries that missed out on the benefits of the industrial revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries were more likely to be at the bottom of the list. Not sure we can blame the commies for everything, though I am sure some of that stench has stuck.

[Gocka]

Numbers are not your forte my friend.

So lets start out with the first chart. Net wealth in billions. I'm going to assume that this basically means the net worth of all assets held by citizens of each country.

In any comparison its always important to make sure you compare apples to apples. In this case in order for the numbers to make any sense you first need to account for population differences. Sweden for example has only 9.5 million residents compared to the USA which has 320 million. A quick calculation shows that if Sweden were the size of the USA its wealth would be 82054 billion which would basically put it level with the USA in new wealth. So we've established the wealth per capita is basically the same. Now lets dive into some specifics. The USA is blessed with an abundance of resources, almost every type of resource on the planet can be found in the USA. Oil, gas, coal, farmland, coasts, rivers, iron, copper, silver, gold, timber, minerals, you name it they have. You can grow anything, tropical foods in Florida and California, corn, wheat, and potatoes in the Midwest, cold weather foods in the north west. No other country on the planet, other than maybe Russia (limited to energy and minerals) can boast so much variety and quantity of resources. Even China which is a massive land mass, has only a tiny fraction of the resources, primarily energy that the USA has. What does this all mean? It means that no matter what kind of system you Have in place, the USA has a massive advantage to create wealth, it has shit to sell. Now what if you confined the USA to only one region within its current borders, what if the USA was only the Midwest, or only the north east, or only the west or south? Sweden on the other hand has very limited resources, it exports 0 oil. So it has to work much harder to generate economic activity. Still it manages to hold as much wealth per capita as the USA, that has basically every competitive advantage possible over Sweden. So Sweden for "communist nightmare" is actually quite the capitalist. Frankly after being forced by you to actually dig deeper, I was surprised at whole wealthy they are, and how well they have done with so few resources.

Norway either divided per capita (5 million citizens) or multiplied up to the US population, is actually wealthier than the USA at 86080.

Denmark is the weakest of the Nordic trio with a scaled wealth of 71500. Putting it still firmly right behind the USA and Sweden with Norway leading.

Japan 58,400

China 4897 (third on the chart) but in real terms is probably near the bottom. This is a perfect illustration of why simply posting numbers, charts, and statistics, without context, or details is utterly useless and misleading.

France 74200 (another supposed socialist hell hole not far behind the USA while again also not have a fraction of the resources and having many times more government benefits and very low amounts of hours worked.

Canada 68571 Another socialist hell hole not too far behind the USA with a single payer healthcare system

Switzerland, 142000, not that is not a typo, they have 70% more wealth per capita than the USA. Again a country with strong social benefits or a Social Democracy.

Netherlands 51000

Belgium 73570

Austria 57300

Some of these are land locked and most have no natural resources to speak of and significant restrictions on what can be planted and produced, yet they still maintain high levels of wealth and social benefits. The USA ranks last in social benefits among the those top few.

So thank you for proving that some socialist ideas, can be successfully implemented and integrated with capitalist economies.

I wonder how well the USA would do if it were the size of Macedonia, land locked with no energy or minerals. They would probably eat each other.

The second chart is a better way of looking at it which is basically what I calculated above, the only difference it says per Adult instead of per capita. Again context. Europe has an aging population, a larger proportion of their total population is an "adult" and that means you mathematically they are disadvantaged by that kind of calculation yet still Norway ranks higher than the USA and Sweden almost on par.

Clearly the number show that despite Norway being "socialist" it hasn't harmed personal wealth, and economic success. I have to again stress it is amazing how well they do with in such a limited ability.

There is a reason you never see Swedish or Norwegian people other than tourists, its pretty nice where they come from.

Finally I'd even dispute the validity or at a minimum the relevance of these figures given that Greece, GREECE, let me say that again GREECE when factoring for population is 30,000??? So the the average Greek has 2.7 times less wealth than an American? Greece is a mere step above Macedonia in terms of salaries and wealth,

Do you have any more nice charts to share?

I'm digging around a little deeper on this whole Nordic model and I'm even less convinced of its relative merit.

Firstly, no country even comes close to the net national wealth of the United States:


images

The Nordic countries don't even make it into the top ten and some of them don't even make it into the top 30 (according to these estimates).

In terms of mean wealth per adult, only Norway ranks higher than the US. Sweden is roughly on par, while the others fall behind:


pic upload

This does not suggest to me that the Nordic economic systems are somehow economically more productive relative to the US or other capitalist countries.

[George S.]

So what happened to the thousands of tons of gold thats in the ground on rom territory or is that a bs claim.Wouldnt that raise the gdp.

[Gocka]

I dont know, I think there may be, and if there is not than there should be. Its a pointless question which you have latched onto like a leech. At worst its an idealized scenario, which is not unlike most of what you say.

Its not a question of only doing things that have been done before. Its a question of your suggestion working in practice. I gave you an example from Australia. There are many other examples across the world. So it has been tried unsuccessfully. Can you provide an example where it has been successful?

[Gocka]

This time all the Nordic countries and even Australia made it ahead of the USA, and Ireland is right behind. Again the numbers are not in favor of your argument. Despite supposed horrible socialistic polices the Nordic countries boast better GDP per capita, which is the same as what you like to call "productivity". So I guess they are not just a bunch of lazy welfare suckers, but actually more productive than capitalist Americans, with limitless potential and resources.

Here's GDP per capita - West vs East:


post image

[DraganOfStip]

Numbers are not your forte my friend.

So lets start out with the first chart. Net wealth in billions. I'm going to assume that this basically means the net worth of all assets held by citizens of each country.

In any comparison its always important to make sure you compare apples to apples. In this case in order for the numbers to make any sense you first need to account for population differences. Sweden for example has only 9.5 million residents compared to the USA which has 320 million. A quick calculation shows that if Sweden were the size of the USA its wealth would be 82054 billion which would basically put it level with the USA in new wealth. So we've established the wealth per capita is basically the same. Now lets dive into some specifics. The USA is blessed with an abundance of resources, almost every type of resource on the planet can be found in the USA. Oil, gas, coal, farmland, coasts, rivers, iron, copper, silver, gold, timber, minerals, you name it they have. You can grow anything, tropical foods in Florida and California, corn, wheat, and potatoes in the Midwest, cold weather foods in the north west. No other country on the planet, other than maybe Russia (limited to energy and minerals) can boast so much variety and quantity of resources. Even China which is a massive land mass, has only a tiny fraction of the resources, primarily energy that the USA has. What does this all mean? It means that no matter what kind of system you Have in place, the USA has a massive advantage to create wealth, it has shit to sell. Now what if you confined the USA to only one region within its current borders, what if the USA was only the Midwest, or only the north east, or only the west or south? Sweden on the other hand has very limited resources, it exports 0 oil. So it has to work much harder to generate economic activity. Still it manages to hold as much wealth per capita as the USA, that has basically every competitive advantage possible over Sweden. So Sweden for "communist nightmare" is actually quite the capitalist. Frankly after being forced by you to actually dig deeper, I was surprised at whole wealthy they are, and how well they have done with so few resources.

Norway either divided per capita (5 million citizens) or multiplied up to the US population, is actually wealthier than the USA at 86080.

Denmark is the weakest of the Nordic trio with a scaled wealth of 71500. Putting it still firmly right behind the USA and Sweden with Norway leading.

Japan 58,400

China 4897 (third on the chart) but in real terms is probably near the bottom. This is a perfect illustration of why simply posting numbers, charts, and statistics, without context, or details is utterly useless and misleading.

France 74200 (another supposed socialist hell hole not far behind the USA while again also not have a fraction of the resources and having many times more government benefits and very low amounts of hours worked.

Canada 68571 Another socialist hell hole not too far behind the USA with a single payer healthcare system

Switzerland, 142000, not that is not a typo, they have 70% more wealth per capita than the USA. Again a country with strong social benefits or a Social Democracy.

Netherlands 51000

Belgium 73570

Austria 57300

Some of these are land locked and most have no natural resources to speak of and significant restrictions on what can be planted and produced, yet they still maintain high levels of wealth and social benefits. The USA ranks last in social benefits among the those top few.

So thank you for proving that some socialist ideas, can be successfully implemented and integrated with capitalist economies.

I wonder how well the USA would do if it were the size of Macedonia, land locked with no energy or minerals. They would probably eat each other.

The second chart is a better way of looking at it which is basically what I calculated above, the only difference it says per Adult instead of per capita. Again context. Europe has an aging population, a larger proportion of their total population is an "adult" and that means you mathematically they are disadvantaged by that kind of calculation yet still Norway ranks higher than the USA and Sweden almost on par.

Clearly the number show that despite Norway being "socialist" it hasn't harmed personal wealth, and economic success. I have to again stress it is amazing how well they do with in such a limited ability.

There is a reason you never see Swedish or Norwegian people other than tourists, its pretty nice where they come from.

Finally I'd even dispute the validity or at a minimum the relevance of these figures given that Greece, GREECE, let me say that again GREECE when factoring for population is 30,000??? So the the average Greek has 2.7 times less wealth than an American? Greece is a mere step above Macedonia in terms of salaries and wealth.

This time all the Nordic countries and even Australia made it ahead of the USA, and Ireland is right behind. Again the numbers are not in favor of your argument. Despite supposed horrible socialistic polices the Nordic countries boast better GDP per capita, which is the same as what you like to call "productivity". So I guess they are not just a bunch of lazy welfare suckers, but actually more productive than capitalist Americans, with limitless potential and resources.

Couldn't explain that better myself
I would also add that Nordic countries have about 9 months of winter per year due to geography,which also adds to the limits of natural resources exploitation...

[DraganOfStip]

Well I think we can both agree that the current economic situation of an individual country can be attributed to a number of individual factors, usually specific to that country alone. However, whilst you like to point out the 7 or so ex-socialist European countries that have recovered reasonably well economically (which is a good thing for the people of those countries), I think limiting your point on average monthly salaries to only those select countries does not provide a total reflection of the current economic situation the majority of people in ex-socialist countries in Europe experience.

In light of the above, and in the interests of providing a more complete picture, I have listed below the current average monthly net wages of other ex-socialist European republics.

Albania
€353

Bulgaria
€356

Romania
€417

Moldova
€181

Armenia
€314

Azerbaijan
€319

Belarus
€308

Georgia
€307

Kazakhstan
€310

Kosovo
€360

Lithuania
€554

Ukraine
€141

Russia
€395

Bosnia Herzegovina
€425

Serbia
€363

Whether any current economic trends amongst the above countries listed can be attributed to the effects of socialism, I’ll leave for others to debate, however, as I said previously, I am personally of the opinion that the effects of socialism in Macedonia (specifically), has had a significant impact on the way Macedonians view the role government plays over the administration of their lives, including the disconnection of accountability between the citizenry and government.

Like I said,i didn't say it hasn't had it's fair share.
I don't think you read my posts correctly,I haven't denied that.
Having said that,from what you posted above,just a handful of those countries have less average salary than Macedonia.
Hell,even shitholes like Kosovo and Bosnia have salaries above Macedonian average,something that's very disappointing and sad to see.
What I was saying was that with the right people and right reforms countries have recovered quite well.
Something we're yet to see in our republic.

[Phoenix]

I'm digging around a little deeper on this whole Nordic model and I'm even less convinced of its relative merit.

Firstly, no country even comes close to the net national wealth of the United States:


images

The Nordic countries don't even make it into the top ten and some of them don't even make it into the top 30 (according to these estimates).

In terms of mean wealth per adult, only Norway ranks higher than the US. Sweden is roughly on par, while the others fall behind:


pic upload

This does not suggest to me that the Nordic economic systems are somehow economically more productive relative to the US or other capitalist countries.

Good ol' Uncle Tom...excessively arse kissing the USA.

[DraganOfStip]

He has good ideas but the biggest thing throwing me off is that he admitted the wealthy could be taxed up to 90%. Now I admit I'm not wealthy, but I work hard every day to try and become the top 1% and in 5-10 years or in my early 30s I'd hope to be that way , so this definetly discourages me with voting for him.

So you're planning on winning the lottary soon ?

[Vangelovski]

I dont know, I think there may be, and if there is not than there should be. Its a pointless question which you have latched onto like a leech. At worst its an idealized scenario, which is not unlike most of what you say.

A pointless question - its your ideal and when the question arises as to whether its possible or its been done, all of a sudden its a pointless question?