Greece is a case study in what Bernie is talking about

[Dream_Operator]

Yeah, probably. Just don't get the glorious snow filled winters like we did when I was a kid. Nice LP system from Colorado Plateau replaced by wet LP system out of northern Texas.

Only a couple of hundred miles difference but huge diff in what weather it brings to SW Ontario.

Well, we've been exited the Little Ice Age for some time now -- several hundred years, so these changes are neither unexpected, atypical, nor unprecedented -- and appear to be cyclical over time scales beyond human lives. The Earth is five billion years old, how old are you?

For people, plants and animals warming is beneficial thing -- crop yields are at record levels.

 

[Hard_Rom]

There is an argument for winter melts nourishing flood plains and depositing silt as new soil. Winter wheat requires a snow cover to not freeze.

No pond hockey, no ice fishing, no cross country skiing, no snow shoeing, no downhill skiing! El Nino SUCKS!

 

[The_Trouvere]

Ten Happiest Countries: Four Scandinavian Countries Named

Socialism, Democratic Socialism..whatever you want to call it, has a history of failure so complete only the left would consider it viable.

Can anyone name something socialism has produced...besides misery?

Recently, four Scandinavian countries–Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden—have been named to the list of the Top Ten Happiest Countries by the Legatum Institute, an independent, non-partisan organization that researches and advocates for an understanding of global prosperity, offering the world’s only global assessment of economic wealth and well being in its 2010 Prosperity Index, which ranks 110 countries.

The company ranked each country on 89 variables sorted into eight categories—economy, education, entrepreneurship, governance, health, personal freedom, safety, and social capital. To be prosperous and happy, and thus achieve a higher ranking, a country needs to achieve high marks in all of these areas.

What's the most prosperous country in the world? Norway. What does it have that the rest of the world doesn't? The world’s highest per capita GDP of $53,000 a year. The Norwegians also have the second-highest level of satisfaction with their standard of living, and most say they’re satisfied with the freedom to choose the direction of their lives. Joining Norway in the top 10 prosperous countries are Denmark, Finland and Sweden.

What do these prosperous four Scandinavian countries have in common? All have generous welfare benefits and lots of redistribution of wealth. Their governments take care of their citizens, who all have abundant civil liberties. And there are few restrictions on the flow of capital or of labor.

Denmark, for instance, has generous unemployment benefits, enabling workers to find just the right job and business owners the opportunity to keep just the right number of workers. All four Scandinavian nations foster entrepreneurship, especially Sweden, which encourages its citizens to strive for business success. This gives each country’s citizens the perception that working hard pays off.

Generally, this sense of well being contributes to high standards of living and a happy, satisfied feeling about life. It’s no wonder that Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden have been chosen as such happy places to live.
http://www.allscandinavia.com/happiestcountries.htm

 

[RUlookingup]

Dude..you can't say "Hoisted" or "Petard"...

Those words bring Pilot out of his cage....seriously man....be careful.

We need to expose all of our country's quislings from their rich, unaffected lairs. They creep into the cities to munch on hor d'ouevres and tell each other how much they do for the poor from time to time, all the while writing it off on their taxes. They allow the appointed muscle to run the city streets without repercussion because deep down inside they are empty vessels sailing life's seas. You see nothing affects them, they are rich and insulated. They don't care. The limousine liberal will sell his soul for another write off while chomping on some escargot and caviar. If the shoe fits they must wear it. The jig is up, prepare to be hoisted. Shout out to Shakespeare.

 

[DeYaKen]

We hear for over a year about how Greece is destabilizing the world economy. Then they really bring in austerity so the 1% can continue to have more than the 99% combined. Now we can see that there is a true crisis - there is violence in the streets, strikes, the farmers are marching on the capitol ... real crisis.

But since none of the Oligarchy are impacted, nothing on TV, in the press, nothing in the papers ... no crisis.

Best quote I saw from a Greek was " ... like the movie the Hunger Games, and Greece is the district 12"

Greece only got the government they have AFTER their economy collapsed. Their problems were caused as much by good old corruption than anything else. The rules for entry to the Euro were bent out of shape to allow them to join and now it is the Euro that is causing their problems. In the past they could have devalued to attract more trade and tourism. Now they have a currency that they don't control so they can do nothing.

A case study of what Bernie is talking about would be Denmark. Take a look at their economy and social benefits, you'll find it interesting.

 

[oggbashan]

Greece only got the government they have AFTER their economy collapsed. Their problems were caused as much by good old corruption than anything else. ...

Post WW2 Greece had been an economic basket case for decades The Greek Colonels' coup of 1967 was born of the civil war in Greece between factions of the left and right who had fought the German occupiers.

Modern Greek democratic rule is still young and still fractured between power groups who were on opposing sides in their civil war. Stable and responsible government seems very difficult to achieve in Greece, and corruption is still a reality. Paying tax seems to be optional for most of the middle classes.

Greek politicians seem to make a habit of lying to their electorate and their creditors.

 

[The_Trouvere]

I find it...interesting, when people throw out the Scandinavian countries as examples of what the U.S. should aspire too. It's both ludicrous and unrealistic at the same time.

Combined the Scandinavian countries have about 26 million people.
The US has 300 million and growing quickly.

The history of the two areas is drastically different, and the diversity of the population is wildly different as well.

We could go on and on about demographics, industries, borders, growing season, and overall economic differences but what's the point. We might as well compare Hawaii vs Europe.

Socialism, Democratic Socialism..whatever you want to call it, has a history of failure so complete only the left would consider it viable.

Can anyone name something socialism has produced...besides misery?

P.S. What did Bernie do before being elected? Anything? No wonder he likes socialism, he's sponged off the system his entire life.

Right wing fanatics in the United States like to say, "Socialism has always failed."

When i point out how well it works in Scandinavia, especially Denmark, they say, "Oh that does not matter."

Actually, it does. We do not need to tolerate the crime and poverty that is characteristic of the United States. There are alternatives.

 

[Sean Renaud]

And they are comparable to the United States in precisely ZERO ways. It would be just as apt for us to compare the United States to Jamaica!

We get lefties love socialism. We get that the Scandinavian countries are a wet dream for lefties. It might be a good idea to accept the simple fact that the US will NEVER be Scandinavia. Our Constitution LIMITS government...and it does it deliberately.

Maybe we should stop limiting ourselves and start winning?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Maybe we should stop limiting ourselves and start winning?

Absolutely not, conservatives insist we suck ass until we manage to re-invent the wheel.

 

[Hard_Rom]

And they are comparable to the United States in precisely ZERO ways. It would be just as apt for us to compare the United States to Jamaica!

We get lefties love socialism. We get that the Scandinavian countries are a wet dream for lefties. It might be a good idea to accept the simple fact that the US will NEVER be Scandinavia. Our Constitution LIMITS government...and it does it deliberately.

So you admit the US constitution is flawed and is heavily contributing to US problems. Are you saying that Americans want income inequality and other things. That Americans are quite prepared to trade a high standard of living for the 'right' to be poor, have minimal access to cheap medical care and be fearful of crime.

Benchmarking
Benchmarking is the process of comparing one's business processes and performance metrics to industry bests and best practices from other companies.

You stand in your backyard over grown with weeds and dead grass. You look in neighbours yard and it is green and healthy. What do you do? Piss over the fence and go back inside and have a beer. Or do you politely ask them how they got their yard to look so good.

Oh yes! American history is so exceptional. No other country has ever had to deal with revolution, civil war and all that kind of stuff. No other country has had the burden of being the world's biggest military and economic super power. Or maybe it's due to the US being such a young country. Two, three hundreds years is not long enough to iron out all the problems.

Maybe Jamaica is a better comparison than Denmark. Are you happy with that?

And if democratic socialism is such a failure, how do the Nordic countries top the lists of prosperity, peacefulness and standard of living? Why does the US with it's individual's rights and limited government linger barely in the top twenty of nations?

Could it be only it's large population allows it some economic and military clout? A nation which occupies a huge swath of the temperate zone of ideal growing conditions pales in comparison to tiny countries of mostly forest, mountains and snow.

With a limited federal government, why cannot individual states with populations close to Nordic countries achieve similar successes?

Just why is America such an exceptional country? And not in a good way.

Why is Canada favourable to Nordic countries on same lists. Many times we top such lists. A country a virtual police state in comparison to the US. With a small population that is expected to maintain infrastructure across the whole span of the NA continent. An even newer country than the US. With a culture and language that makes us invisible when we visit or work there. Yanks just figure we come from Wisconsin.

Is it at all possible your entire political system and culture are deeply flawed? And what do you think should be done about it. Make changes or just dig a deeper hole to hide your head in.

I hear some here call others sheep. At least sheep don't bury their heads in the ground like cartoon ostrich. One day someone will come along find all Yanks with just their asses sticking up out of the ground and use them to park their bicycles.

 

[DeYaKen]

I didn't say it didn't matter. I said Scandinavia isn't reproducible in the US. Where am I wrong. Also why do lefties ONLY point out Scandinvia? Because it's the exception that proves the rule. Socialism is a failure..it's only success is doling out misery. The death toll and suffering of centrally planned economies is indisputable.....but lefties still love them

Yes it is reproducible in the US, you only have to want it. So your constitution limits the role of government, amend it. You've done it before you can do it again.

Where Scandinavia disproves the rule, it is the rule that says that We have to let successful people do as thay please and take what they want or they will leave the country. Scandinavia taxes rich people to the benefit of the less able. The entrepreneurs are not queuing at the border to get out. They are proud of their country. Denmark doesn't make students get themselves into debts they may never pay off. They pay their students to go to university. A student who is worried about where the next meal is coming from will never do as well as one who doesn't have to.

A more equal society is a more successful society. Scandinavian countries do not have centrally planned economies. They are founded on the entrepreneur. The difference is that their guys do not see greed and entrepreneurship as one and the same thing.

The exception that proves the rule? what a strange expression that is. Any scientist will tell you that an exception disproves the rule. In this case Scandinavia disproves the rule that says you cannot have a successful socialist state.

BTW none of the Scandiavian countries have a deficit of 120% of GDP

 

[Sean Renaud]

I didn't say it didn't matter. I said Scandinavia isn't reproducible in the US. Where am I wrong. Also why do lefties ONLY point out Scandinvia? Because it's the exception that proves the rule. Socialism is a failure..it's only success is doling out misery. The death toll and suffering of centrally planned economies is indisputable.....but lefties still love them

We don't. We point out Canada, UK, France, Germany. Hell human attrocities aside it's difficult to argue that China and Russia didn't/don't have pretty damn good economies. Top ten economies, top ten militaries, both tend to outscore us educatioinally. They just treat their people like absolute shit.

 

[Somme]

Greece is a case study of where Goldman Sacks the treasury and sells out the country to German Bankers who then suck out the dregs of peoples savings. A case study of not taxing the wealthy who export their capital to tax heavens and leave the country high and dry.

Bingo.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Human atrocities aside....can you really just put those aside?

It's difficult to argue that China & Russia didn't/don't have pretty damn good economies? Holy shit...No. It's not hard to argue. It's hard to argue your position. What standard are you using? Name the economist who thinks China or Russia have good economies...or ever had good economies? How can you make a statement like that? It just has no basis in reality.

Top ten militaries? Russia and China have always had large militaries. That says nothing about their economies.

Very easily we can set them aside. Everything should be considered separately on it's own merits. It's kinda stupid to keep that in the conversation. It's a little like saying Mike Tyson wasn't a great boxer because he was a rapist. One has little to do with the other.

The Chinese Economy is the second strongest and is poised to eventually surpass the US (though I don't think that will happen. I think all the signs are there that they are transitioning and will slow down) so please tell me where you're getting your information.

 

[DeYaKen]

This is a good discussion. A couple of points in response.

1. Amending the US constitution is tough. It just is. The governing document is amendabe, but it was designed to require A LOT of support in order to have it amended. It's possible, just not likely.

Yes, I know that it isn't easy to change the constitution. I don't know how difficult, but if enough people want it is possible.

2. The other point is that there are significant portions of the US that have no interest in seeing this country become like europe. Not one country in europe. That portion is mostly on the right, because the Democrats have essentially become socialists. It's more about control for US democrats though...not actually improving people's lives.

I wonder how much of that is due to the fact that so few of your countrymen have any experience of other countries. I'm discounting military service here because when your military ventures into other countries they take the USA with them. From what I see only 11% of US citizens hold a passport. In the UK, it's more like 90%. If people have no experience of other countries, they can only rely on the media to know what it's like abroad.

3. Success. Man, the US is struggling with this right now. Certain types of success are just fine...others are just above serial killers and child rapists. If you're a hollywood millionaire...you're okay. If you make millions on wall street...you're evil. At this point, success is still something that's generally admired in the US. So yes, if someone is successful, they should be able to enjoy the fruits of their success.

I think you exaggerate a little there but never mind. There are good reason why accumulating wealth in one way is better than another. I'll bet that someone who made a fortune on wall street is looked upon as smarter than someone who won a fortune on the tables at Vegas. The question is why. The two are exactly the same. One bets on the turn of the market, the other bets on the turn of a card.

The reason why successful people shouldn't keep all of their gains is simple. No man or woman does it all on their own. Someone else has paid to put the infrastructure in place to enable them to have that success, so when the success comes it is only right that they should put in, to allow future generations to do the same.

4. Your point about studen debt. It's interesting. The students pay for college...they just don't make 'tuition' payments. Nothing is free...that's basic economics. University professors get paid....that money comes from somewhere. The nordic countries you mention simply tax their citizens to give college students free tuition. The money comes from somewhere, and in the nordic countries, it comes from the wealthy. Here's a fun fact...the same thing happens in the US. The top 5% in the US pay something like 40% of the taxes. The only question to ask at this point is how much should the government forcibly take from the so-called wealthy? Believe me...in the US, there are some who are just fine with a 90% tax rate.

Over the last twenty years we, in the UK, have moved over to a loan system similar to yours. It is now estimated that 46% of all student loans will never be repaid. When it comes to paying for university education it is really a matter of who benefits the most. Scandinavian countries take the view that the biggest beneficiaries are the companies who employ their graduates and the country as a whole. The better educated work force contributes to the countries income and, therefore, benefits everyone. There education system is rated much higher than yours or ours.

I suspect that there is one aspect of their system that most would baulk at. In Norway beer costs more than £12 or $16 a pint. That's an imperial pint, a US pint would be a little cheaper.

5. Socialism. I'd make the point that Nordic countries are not strictly socialist. They certainly lean in that direction, but the fact that they actually 'have' wealthy people to tax is a good sign they're still a market-based economy. Their citizens are just fine with high(confiscatory) tax rates.
At the same time...the history of socialism is poor. Same with communism and fascism. Most centrally planned economies are...poor in my opinion.

In terms of Marx definition of Socialism, you are right. However, the Russians discovered that Marx was wrong about a number of things before their revolution. Had they followed Marx they would still be waiting for a revolution. The Scandinavian model is one that works and I suppose you could call it democratic socialism. They are not into state ownership of everything but the do expect the more able in society to support the less able.

6. If you've read any of my posts, I'm a huge believe that the US is positioning itself for a Greece type situation. It'll be even worse though, because the dollar is a reserve currency. Guess who disagrees with me...the same people who agree with you!

No I don't read a lot here. It is largely about US political mud slinging and I feel like an intruder. I only contributed here because the Greek situation was mentioned.

You may be right about the US position but that has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders. Ever since the great depression, the US has HALF implemented Keynesian economic theory. It is that half that is the problem. Keynes said that in times of economic hardship you should not stop spending because that only makes things worse. He said that you spend money that you don't have on capital projects that benefit the country (FDR's new deal) I'm sure you recognise that part. However, Keynes also said that you fix the roof when the sun is shining. When the upturn comes you spend the extra tax dollars on repaying the money you borrowed. It's this bit that the US has not done. Instead, they used that extra income to cut taxes (usually in the run up to an election). You are now in a position where your national debt is so large that the repayments are larger than your GDP, so the debt keeps getting bigger. There are two alternatives
1 Cut public spending:
Can you cut it any further? People will be put out of work so less tax is collected. You will find it difficult to fill key positions due to pay restrictions. Crime will probably increase because of cutbacks in the police force, etc
2 Increase taxation
Politically unpopular. It should mean that the better off will be the most seriously affected. However, your system, and ours, has so many loopholes that the rich can use to avoid paying tax that it will be the middle classes that end up paying the most.

Not sure we resolved anything, but....there you go.

 

[Sean Renaud]

If Keynesian Economics didn't work the entire country wouldn't use them.

 

[Hard_Rom]

The whole world use Keynesian economics.

"His radical idea that governments should spend money they don't have may have saved capitalism."

 

[Boxlicker101]

This was one of the strongest El Niños in many years -- that's why your Winter was so warm and has nothing to do with AGW.

I thought El Nino didn't amount to much, especially when compared to the one in 1998.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The '98 one was fucking legendary. But aren't you a GW denier and thus sworn to pretend you have no clue about that fact?

 

[DeYaKen]

If Keynesian Economics didn't work the entire country wouldn't use them.

The whole world use Keynesian economics.

"His radical idea that governments should spend money they don't have may have saved capitalism."

You guys should read what I wrote. I never said Keynes was wrong, he wasn't. I said that the US government, only applied half of it. When it came to "fixing the roof when the sun shines" they ignored it and opted for politically expedient tax cuts.

The UK government did the opposite. They stopped spending and made the situation much worse than it had to be. But what the hell, it's only the poor who pay the price of austerity.

 

[Hard_Rom]

You guys should read what I wrote. I never said Keynes was wrong, he wasn't. I said that the US government, only applied half of it. When it came to "fixing the roof when the sun shines" they ignored it and opted for politically expedient tax cuts.

The UK government did the opposite. They stopped spending and made the situation much worse than it had to be. But what the hell, it's only the poor who pay the price of austerity.

We didn't say he was wrong. I didn't.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Here's a final tip. If Keynesian economics worked....Bernie wouldn't be popular. Trump wouldn't be in the game. And voters wouldn't be freakin' pissed at both parties.

Words, they must have different definitions where you come from.

 

[JackLuis]

I agree. I never suggested you said Keynes was wrong.

My point was that his entire economic theory is bull, and ultimately bad for the economy. You're correct. Democrats (disciples of Keynes) only know how to spend.

So how do you explain the Rethuglicans pouring money into the DOD and not into deficit reduction, cutting taxes while letting the debts pile up and calling for more revenue reduction? Don't blame Democrats alone for this, it's Congress that sets the budgets and taxes not Obama. He just does what Congress authorizes.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Where has it worked? Please enlighten us. We're approaching 20 Trillion in Debt...please say the U.S.

The US and practically every where else. You make it sound like that 20 Trillion in debt didn't get you anything. Hell you just assume it's a huge deal.

 

[JackLuis]

I'm in my forties. I've been following politics since that dumb-ass Perot ran for president. In my lifetime...there has been only one political party who has called for spending cuts or reductions. One. Debt isn't peanut butter...you don't 'spread it around' and try to cover everyone.

Two politicians running for president are now promising even more free shit...and even more spending...and even more taxes. They ain't republicans.

P.S. Taxes are not revenue. The government isn't a business. And Obama is 100% responsible for doubling...maybe even tripling the national debt.


P.S.S. Gotta go on a vacation for the next 8 days...this thread will probably disappear, but didn't want anyone to get their hopes up. I'll be back..

So you're just a noobie then? Maybe you should read more history. Like about Reagan's DoD spending, tax cuts and such. Maybe you remember GW spending a Trillion on a war because Saddam tried to kill his daddy? How he just spent the money and never figured out why the deficit kept rising?

Taxes are Government revenue, ever hear of the Internal Revenue Service? They collect taxes dumbass.