Might Makes Right. How to Survive Capitalism.

What country has pure capitalism in effect?
Not the usa, that is for sure.

Please let me know if you have heard of one.
 
None?

If we look at the economic freedom index of 2006 we see that Hong Kong ends up at the first place.

Hong Kong 1 [1.28]
Singapore 2 [1.56]
Ireland 3 [1.58]
Luxembourg 4 [1.60]
United Kingdom 5 [1.74]
Iceland 5 [1.74]
Estonia 7 [1.75]
Denmark 8 [1.78]
Australia 9 [1.84]
United States 9 [1.84]
New Zealand 9 [1.84]
Finland 12 [1.85]


Interstingly the US is not the leader in this respect. Nor second. It shares 9th place with the social welfare state of Denmark, and others. Finland, one of the most socialist countries in the world, that is a society known for its extensive social welfare, high taxes, social structure, national healthcare, free education, has pretty much the same economic freedom as the USA.

Apparently socialist principles do not interfere with economic freedom on quite the same level as our rightwing friends like us to believe.

In fact socialism and economic freedom are not enemies.

Now let us in fact examine the US and Finland a bit closer to see how high the tax for the rich people in Finland really is. Let us first examine the obviously low taxes in the USA:

According to Deloitte, the United States' top federal income tax rate is 35 percent. The top corporate tax rate is also 35 percent.
Click to expand...

Surely the tax in Finland for the top tier must be at least 50%. Let’s see:

According to Deloitte, Finland's top income tax rate is 33.5 percent, down from the 35.5 percent reported in the 2005 Index. Effective January 2005, the top corporate tax rate was cut to 26 percent, down from the 29 percent reported in the 2005 Index.
Click to expand...

Oh my! A socialist country has lower top income tax rate than rightwing America? Only 1.5% of course, however the corporate tax rate in finland is a staggering 9% lower!

What a surprise. Not only is the beer cheaper in Finland, also the top income taxes are lower.


source:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm
 
I'm sure in finland they must see the actual dollars from the tax rate come in to maintain such extensive social programs - in america rich people do NOT pay 35%, unless they are idiots - there are too many write-offs available, and if you think you will actually have to give up your cash, buy a bigger house, the interest is tax-deductible. Corporations have ways of avoiding tax payments also, obviously.
If the usa actually got that 35%, we would have enough money to attack north korea too.
 
It's even worse than that. If a rich person gets a speeding ticket he will have to pay the fine based on a percentage of his yearly income.

For rich people this can become an expensive joke. Well, relatively it isn't of course.

The other question is of course if these social institutions are really that expensive compared the the US. How much money is wasted on corruption and bureaucracy?

Edit:
You would think the Fins spend a large amount of their GDP on healthcare? Think again:

Health care expenses (in Finland) as a proportion of GDP are clearly lower than the EU average. Health care costs per capita are also among the lowest within the EU. The low level of costs can be interpreted in two different ways. According to a positive view, the Finnish health care system is more effective than average, since comprehensive and high-quality services can be provided with a small input. This interpretation can be motivated by the fact that of all EU citizens, Finns are the most satisfied with their health care services.
According to a more critical view, it can be questioned whether sufficient funds have been allocated to health care in Finland in recent years. This view is supported by survey results showing that among all municipal services, most additional resources are wanted in health care.
Click to expand...
Well, there is always room for allocation of a


1991 figures:

Health Care Expenditures (percent of GDP) (1)

United States 13.4%
Canada 10.0
Finland 9.1
Click to expand...

And here are the 2003 figures. Still the US is spending most and Finland is not even close to the top:

1830.photo.jpg


Is there a connection between health spending and life expectancy? Not necessarily. As the latest edition of the OECD in Figures 2005 points out, the Japanese have the highest life expectancy in the OECD area, but their health spending, at nearly 8% of GDP, is far from being the highest. The US on the other hand has the highest health spending at some 15%, yet it clocks in at just 22nd when it comes to life expectancy–Americans can nevertheless expect to live past 77. The lowest spender is Korea (5.6% of GDP), with a life expectancy also of 77 years.
Click to expand...

Life expectancy in Finland 2005 was 78.35 years.
 
Last edited:
spuriousmonkey said:
None?

If we look at the economic freedom index of 2006 we see that Hong Kong ends up at the first place.

Hong Kong 1 [1.28]
Singapore 2 [1.56]
Ireland 3 [1.58]
Luxembourg 4 [1.60]
United Kingdom 5 [1.74]
Iceland 5 [1.74]
Estonia 7 [1.75]
Denmark 8 [1.78]
Australia 9 [1.84]
United States 9 [1.84]
New Zealand 9 [1.84]
Finland 12 [1.85]


Interstingly the US is not the leader in this respect. Nor second. It shares 9th place with the social welfare state of Denmark, and others. Finland, one of the most socialist countries in the world, that is a society known for its extensive social welfare, high taxes, social structure, national healthcare, free education, has pretty much the same economic freedom as the USA.

Apparently socialist principles do not interfere with economic freedom on quite the same level as our rightwing friends like us to believe.

In fact socialism and economic freedom are not enemies.

Now let us in fact examine the US and Finland a bit closer to see how high the tax for the rich people in Finland really is. Let us first examine the obviously low taxes in the USA:



Surely the tax in Finland for the top tier must be at least 50%. Let’s see:



Oh my! A socialist country has lower top income tax rate than rightwing America? Only 1.5% of course, however the corporate tax rate in finland is a staggering 9% lower!

What a surprise. Not only is the beer cheaper in Finland, also the top income taxes are lower.


source:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm
Click to expand...

Bush's policies haven't been pro-market. They've been pro-business. His trade policies have been extremely protectionist. Ironically, Clinton was far more conservative, economically, than Bush will ever be.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Isn't that libertarian?
Click to expand...

Libertarians are "fiscally conservative and socially liberal." They don't care where you put your ding-dong, but they don't like taxes. Republicans are more discerning in what they don't like; fags, atheists, women, negroes, poor people, the free market.

Libertarians are really for less gov't, which means fewer laws, fewer rules, fewer regulations, less taxes, and more freedoms.
 
Well, I don't know about the other sciforumers, but I would like to thank Roman for finally clearing up who is who in american politics. He managed to explain it in a manner even I understand.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Well, I don't know about the other sciforumers, but I would like to thank Roman for finally clearing up who is who in american politics. He managed to explain it in a manner even I understand.
Click to expand...
Yes he did. I have been telling the same thing for years* but I am too "long winding" and not as able to state it concisely, as he did.
------------------------------
*Here is GWB's idea about the "free market" in alcohol:
Alcohol has 54cent/ gallon importation tariff, corn has the highest of all farm subsidy and Alcohol produced from it gets additional 51cent/gallon subsidy. This resulting in higher taxes for Joe American and greater cost from him to drive his car by about a factor of two, compared to driving on alcohol imported from tropical lands. The oil import payment money funds terrorists etc. Also the price of all foods will be increased for Joe American as food crop land is converted to "fuel farms." - All very "anti-Joe American" policy. But is the US policy, because a few already multi-billionaires generously finance the election campaigns, punish any newspapers TV etc that mention these facts by sending their ad dollars to ones that do not inform the public, etc. (Must keep Joe American ignorant, even if it cost millions in campaign dollars to do so. BTW the Republican's have a little more than 100 million dollars from mainly these "special interest" sources for the elections in a few weeks.)
 
Need Help with study questions

pardon my lack of knowledge on this subject, but I am a grad student seeking answers to questions for my class. Can anyone help with the following: Would capitalism exist without money?
 
I also have another question that I am stumped on. This is more of an investment question: How is the purchase of a corporate financial asset really an investment in something that is illiquid?
 
Also, what capitalist institutions depend directly on money to fulfill their purpose? I know instituions such as banks, federal reserves, basically anything that would be considered legal tender.
 
Capitalism is garbology. It belongs in the trash. Real city/social designer scientists do not even acknowledge all of these primitive systems.

Money or no money is irrelevant.
Greedy World Banks<--------(millions per day)--------Poverty countries<--------(taxes)--------Impoverished workers.

Capitalism is totally flawed just like communism.
They claim it works ideally, but it doesn't work in practice. As you can see the results.
The fact is, it's all garbology.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top