• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

Why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

  • It's just a coincidence, an accident of economics.

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • These are just lies fed to us by the liberal media!

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • Yes, certain socialized programs DO benefit a democracy's economic health.

    Votes: 18 81.8%

  • Total voters
    22
So why is it, then, that the nations with the largest income inequality gaps tend to have the smallest middle classes?

That's a tautology. The nations with the largest income inequality gaps will, by definition, be nations with small middle classes.
 
That's true with personal taxes, but not so much with corporate taxes (though many corporations find ways to avoid paying those taxes).

But to give you your due, you asked a pertinent question - where does one draw the line? I'd have to say that when almost all government workers are paid middle-class wages, it's almost certainly a 'big government'...whereas those governments that can only pay their workers poverty-level wages are small governments. In order for a government to pay middle-class wages, that government has to have enough tax revenue to do so...and as a direct result, the people who work within that government, since they do not need to rely on bribes in order to feed their families, are mostly honest brokers and cannot be easily bribed. YES, some will be dishonest, some will be bribed, but the vast majority won't be.

What follows is that when the well-paid government workers do their jobs, they tend to do it well...which means that those assigned to regulatory agencies are (usually) going to do their jobs properly and hold the corporate sector to what the regulations require. Thus you have the high effective taxes and strong regulation that are part of Big Government...and in such governments throughout the world, the corruption level is relatively low.

And this goes back to what I've said so many times - high taxes are the price of admission to living in a first-world democracy.
If that's the definition of big government, I don't know of a single conservative who doesn't support big government.
 
You really don't know the difference in the damage to our infrastructure that is done by semis, do you?

The weight limit for nearly all interstate highways is 40 tons. According to a government study, one 40-ton truck does as much damage to the road as 9,600 cars. But permits frequently allow vehicles to exceed that amount by two tons in Texas and sometimes as much as 85 tons in Nevada. Some states grant one-time permits that allow trucks to be considerably heavier.
.

and you know who the regulations hurt the most there, is the single owner operators who run their own truck. the huge mega carriers like the ones I work for can afford to absorb the cost of more regulation.

btw the trucking industry pays more then its fair share, in addition to permits and high diesel taxes, some states (Oregon being the prime example) charge per mileage fees for running state highways.

and trucks heavier then 40 tons do not cause more damage to roadways, because under federal regulations on weight, to be heavier requires more axles (for instance heavy haul trailers have four axles instead of two, which spreads the weight) and wider tires (which there's also an excise tax on) Also if weight limits were lowered there would be considerably more trucks on the road, burning more fuel, causing more emmissions.

also I would be willing to wager that one truck in a year will pay more fuel tax then any one person will in their life driving a Honda.
 
Hate to tell you this, guy, but those who are arrogant/narcissistic/egoistic and have a thirst for power are found in ALL forms of government. The difference between democracies and non-democracies is that we CAN vote them out.

I agree, That's why they offer goodies, so the don't get voted out. Conservative government, offering maximum liberty as the "goodie", is only attractive after harsh oppression. Generally the ineffectual conservative societies fail under the strain of corruption, not as the result of liberty. As is said, a libertine society requires a good and moral people.
 
That's a tautology. The nations with the largest income inequality gaps will, by definition, be nations with small middle classes.

I'd like to know how he's defining it. The US has the largest income inequality, yet our Middle Class is huge.
 
I'd like to know how he's defining it. The US has the largest income inequality, yet our Middle Class is huge.

I doubt that our income inequality gap is larger than that of, for example, Nigeria.
 
I doubt that our income inequality gap is larger than that of, for example, Nigeria.

MEND is backing Buhari. We'll see what happens with that when (if) Jonathan loses come next month.


but bluntly, yeah. Places like that have two bell curves, not one - pretending like they have a greater middle class because they have less spread is dumb.
 
and you know who the regulations hurt the most there, is the single owner operators who run their own truck. the huge mega carriers like the ones I work for can afford to absorb the cost of more regulation.

btw the trucking industry pays more then its fair share, in addition to permits and high diesel taxes, some states (Oregon being the prime example) charge per mileage fees for running state highways.

and trucks heavier then 40 tons do not cause more damage to roadways, because under federal regulations on weight, to be heavier requires more axles (for instance heavy haul trailers have four axles instead of two, which spreads the weight) and wider tires (which there's also an excise tax on) Also if weight limits were lowered there would be considerably more trucks on the road, burning more fuel, causing more emmissions.

also I would be willing to wager that one truck in a year will pay more fuel tax then any one person will in their life driving a Honda.

You're looking at the overall amount, but you're not looking at the tax paid as a percentage of the revenue taken in. Yes, that one truck in a year might pay more fuel tax than any one person will in his or her life driving a Honda...but that Honda's probably not the livelihood of that driver, is it? You'd be more accurate to compare the fuel tax of that truck - and all other associated taxes with that line of work - to all the taxes that middle-class business owner pays running their business, from the unemployment insurance, to the state and local business taxes, to the sales taxes, to the taxes on phone/internet/electricity/sewer and whatever else it takes to run that business.

What's more, that truck - since it does 9600 times the damage to the road that the Honda does, literally does more damage to the road in one year than the Honda will during the entire life of the driver.
 
If that's the definition of big government, I don't know of a single conservative who doesn't support big government.

Then perhaps you'd do well to see how the conservative cognoscenti are all about cutting wages - or refusing to allow long-overdue wage hikes - to government workers in general, and especially when it comes to teachers. Look at the postal workers - they WERE strictly government workers for all our nation's history...until the conservatives pushed to cut the USPS out of our government and has made efforts to completely privatize our mail system. Problem with that is, do you really want to pay a worker only minimum wage when that worker's the one who's trusted with delivering social security checks and all kinds of other mail-with-identity-theft-fodder in it?

And it's not just teachers and postal workers. The GOP slashed the funding for the IRS, which as a result just said a week or two ago that they won't be able to conduct nearly as many audits as before...and what does that mean? That means there's a whole bunch of companies and corporations out there who will be even more emboldened to cheat on their taxes...which results in less revenue for the government, which leads to less money to pay for the government to do its job.

It's like I keep saying - you canNOT have a first-world nation if you're not wiling to pay the taxes necessary to maintain that nation's status.
 
Wrong.

When people are paid peanuts, they find other ways to supplement their income. When public servants are paid peanuts, they take bribes to feed their families. As time goes on, some of those advance in the organization - and since they had to take bribes all through their careers just to feed their families, why should they stop taking bribes now that they're high-ranking officers? And now that they're high-ranking officers taking bribes, such becomes the norm with all the businesses and corporations who have to deal with them.


If you don't want a corrupt nation, it MUST start with paying good middle-class wages to the public servants. You can't even begin to address corruption without that one point. But what must a nation have in order to pay those public servants? MORE taxes.

And high taxes are the price of admission to living in a first-world nation.
No I am not in error. Their legal system, not mature, bribery is part of society- regardless of if it is needed to survive or not.
High level corruption, a blind eye is turned and the economy loses.
The pay for civil servants, reflected by an economy that has not matured as in 1st world countries. I would assume that civil servants are paid ata higher rate then their private sector counterparts?? I will leave that for you to clarify.
Corruption is endemic.
Yes taxes increase as an economy grows. Goes hand in hand with improving and paying for the needs of society, from education, health care, infrastructure.
Justice system is widely corrupted.
 
There are three observations:

(1) ALL first-world democracies are generally socialized, and have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation, whereas
(2) NO first-world nations at all meet the conservative demands of zero socialism, small government, low taxes, and weak (if any) regulation. And
(3) ALL nations which DO have small governments, low taxes, and weak regulations ARE third-world nations.

If including socialist programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Head Start, free public schools and the like are (as conservative pundits claim) a sure way to the economic dustbin of history, why is it that America (and the British Commonwealth before us) started down this road eighty years ago (FDR's New Deal) and we've been the most successful nations in human history? Is it just an accident or coincidence? Or does the inclusion of such socialist programs actually contribute to a nation's economic health?

You really wanna know why most of Europe is socialized democracies? There's two very simply answers to that; 1) During WW2, it was a necessary evil for the government to have to enforce control over the medicine and food, so it was an easy transition to fall into in the post-war era. 2) Europe got to rely on the US for it's Defense, and all that money that would of been spent went to support all the social welfare goodies.

Take away either of those two conditions, and I doubt we'd of had the same Socialist "utopia" that is Western Europe.
 
You're looking at the overall amount, but you're not looking at the tax paid as a percentage of the revenue taken in. Yes, that one truck in a year might pay more fuel tax than any one person will in his or her life driving a Honda...but that Honda's probably not the livelihood of that driver, is it? You'd be more accurate to compare the fuel tax of that truck - and all other associated taxes with that line of work - to all the taxes that middle-class business owner pays running their business, from the unemployment insurance, to the state and local business taxes, to the sales taxes, to the taxes on phone/internet/electricity/sewer and whatever else it takes to run that business.

What's more, that truck - since it does 9600 times the damage to the road that the Honda does, literally does more damage to the road in one year than the Honda will during the entire life of the driver.

Well does an owner operator who runs a single truck with his wife count as a middle class business owner? there's a lot of regulatory stuff that goes into running a truck that most people know nothing about. as a Honda driver, you don't need separate permits for every state you run, some states have more then one permit, in California I need to carry a permit to operate, a permit to carry alcohol, a California highway patrol permit for hazmat, and a permit to haul scrap rubber (I kid you not) four permits for one state! logbooks are another requirement, then there's IFTA, you need DOT operating authority on top of that, then income taxes, fuel taxes, etc.

and your number about 9600 times might as well be 100 or 1000,000 it's impossible to quantify because regular cars do not put wear and tear on the roads at all. of course trucks carrying 80K do all the damage they're heavier vehicles, and I think they pay more then fair share. the ironic thing is, increasing taxes and regulations on the industry will squeeze out owner ops who pay a bigger percentage of their revenues in taxes, and switch more income to mega carriers who pay their drivers crap wages and have whole teams of tax lawyers and accountants to figure out how not to pay taxes.
 
Then perhaps you'd do well to see how the conservative cognoscenti are all about cutting wages - or refusing to allow long-overdue wage hikes - to government workers in general, and especially when it comes to teachers. Look at the postal workers - they WERE strictly government workers for all our nation's history...until the conservatives pushed to cut the USPS out of our government and has made efforts to completely privatize our mail system. Problem with that is, do you really want to pay a worker only minimum wage when that worker's the one who's trusted with delivering social security checks and all kinds of other mail-with-identity-theft-fodder in it?

It's ironic because conservatives use the constitution to justify their political views and claim the government has exceeded their authority, but hate the postal service which IS a very a specific duty of congress to create and maintain in the constitution.

even better in the 80s they semi privatized the postal service, and put all kinds of extreme regulation on it at the same time, so they're "private" but can't do anything without congressional approval, they were basically set up for failure. they can't close a post office, can't raise rates, can't cut delivery days, etc so the whole point is to make them unmanageable to justify ending them entirely in the future... I may have to make a thread in the conspiracy theory section on this...
 
the congress only has the power to make federal law, for the foregoing powers only......of article 1 section 8, and nothing in that article deals with the personal lives of the people.

things which concern themselves with the lifes liberty and property of the people are state powers..not federal powers...federalist 45

Y'know, I really don't like arguing with results...and that's what you're doing. We started down the road to socialized democracy when FDR pushed through the New Deal eighty years ago, and as messy as it's been since then, we've done quite well, thank you very much.

The point is, for all the complaints by conservatives of how terrible the government is as it allegedly oversteps its constitutional bounds, and of how many freedoms we've lost, America has for the most part only prospered in relation to the rest of the planet and - if to somewhat of a lesser extent - so have the other first-world democracies. Right now, today, the American people as a whole (meaning, not just with regards to white male heterosexuals) are more free, with MORE rights, than ever before. The claims of the Right of how we've lost so many freedoms is frankly quite Orwellian by comparison.

So if one is to claim how wrongly our government has performed for the past several generations, one must at least first explain why it is we as a nation are doing so well (and in the big picture, yes, we are), and why it is that our people as a whole are freer, with more rights than ever before.
 
Nobody suggests that there be zero social programs.

Read around a bit, especially on forums like this one, where you'll find quite a few conservatives and libertarians who indeed claim there should be zero social programs.

The constitution laid out structures which are social structures, such as the post office and the examples that you mentioned are recognized by most conservatives, although there is much reform that needs to be done to the programs to eliminate waste and fraud.

The post office is not a 'social structure', but an essential part of the nation's infrastructure...and has been under attack by conservatives for years. Again, read around a bit and you'll find quite a few conservatives who want to completely privatize the USPS (why do you think they pushed to have it cut off from the government?). Think about it - do you really want our social security checks and all the mail with our identity-theft-fodder information on it delivered by people making minimum wage?

In other words, if you want to minimize waste, fraud, and abuse, you must FIRST make sure the people in such jobs have real job security and are paid middle-class wages. Otherwise, all the oversight in the world won't help.

This country has historically been more successful than other nations for a number of reasons. Many of those reasons are being assaulted by progressives and our nation is being weakened as a result. Capitalism is the primary reason we have succeeded. The size of our nation is one reason that maintaining a capitalist structure and markets which are as free as possible are reason for our designation as the last super power.

So let me see here - we've had progressive programs as a part of our government since FDR pushed it through eighty years ago, and we're still kicking ass, relatively speaking. We've had Medicare and Medicaid and welfare for just under half a century, and we're still kicking ass...again, relatively speaking.

But to listen to you, we're headed for a progressive gotterdammerung, and we're now just hanging on by a capitalist thread.

We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Your notion that small government and low taxes equals the third world is just a straw man. Our government should be small as possible to function efficiently, we should eliminate bloat and needless or redundant regulations and tax and spend so that we don't increase our debt.

Would you care to show me ANY nations that have the conservative trifecta of small government, low taxes, and weak regulation that are first-world nations?

No, you can't. Why is that?

Would you care to show me ANY first-world democracies (other than city-states that do not have large rural areas to support and defend) that do NOT have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation?

No, you can't. And again, why is that?
 
Then perhaps you'd do well to see how the conservative cognoscenti are all about cutting wages - or refusing to allow long-overdue wage hikes - to government workers in general, and especially when it comes to teachers. Look at the postal workers - they WERE strictly government workers for all our nation's history...until the conservatives pushed to cut the USPS out of our government and has made efforts to completely privatize our mail system. Problem with that is, do you really want to pay a worker only minimum wage when that worker's the one who's trusted with delivering social security checks and all kinds of other mail-with-identity-theft-fodder in it?

And it's not just teachers and postal workers. The GOP slashed the funding for the IRS, which as a result just said a week or two ago that they won't be able to conduct nearly as many audits as before...and what does that mean? That means there's a whole bunch of companies and corporations out there who will be even more emboldened to cheat on their taxes...which results in less revenue for the government, which leads to less money to pay for the government to do its job.

It's like I keep saying - you canNOT have a first-world nation if you're not wiling to pay the taxes necessary to maintain that nation's status.
Name one conservative who says that anyone should make poverty wages.
 
I made no assumptions, I just asked for an explanation. If you can use one nation as proof of your perspective, then shouldn't I get the same courtesy??

Hunh???? Dude - look at my OP - I'm referring to ALL first-world democracies. You pointed to Greece, so I addressed Greece...but my thread concerns all nations.

I agree with your statement about balance, but where do we draw that line?? the problem with socialism is that looks good on a short term basis and over the long term is incredibly destructive. Our current state of welfare is classic example of how a socialistic policy can go from what should have been a small scale application of socialistic policies to one that is threatening the economic stability of this nation. This is why ANY socialistic policy MUST have a very strict limit on it from the get-go. I'd like to see welfare "constitutionalized" with changes to it only happening by way of an amendment and not by way of bureaucratic policies.

Tell you what. Go buy a plane ticket (I sell tickets, btw, and I usually beat anything you find online) to Australia or New Zealand, both of which have governments which - compared to our own - are what would be in your view much more socialistic...and as you spend several months there, you can decide for yourself if their socialistic policies are driving them to the economic dustbin of history. Heck, you're in Oregon - go drive up to Canada and spend some time there. Same thing. They've had like ONE year of economic deficit since 1996, even though they've got universal health care.
 
When I say social structure, I am talking about institutions in which the government owns the means of production, like the post office, just to be clear.

We disagree that the so called living wage, what ever that is, has anything to do with reducing waste or fraud within our social programs. I can't even imagine how you could come to that conclusion.

Relatively speaking, we are a nation in decline. Jobs have left for countries where there is less regulation and labor costs not possible in this country. We have an administration which makes every situation they approach and the new paradigm is leading from behind, if that even means anything. We are not kicking ass, relatively speaking.

Thanks for teaching me a new word. gotterdammerung You nailed it.

This country had the conservative trifecta prior to the progressive gotterdammerung. That's how we became the worlds last superpower. The further we slip into the progressive cesspool the more we lose what made this a great nation.
 
Y'know, I really don't like arguing with results...and that's what you're doing. We started down the road to socialized democracy when FDR pushed through the New Deal eighty years ago, and as messy as it's been since then, we've done quite well, thank you very much.

The point is, for all the complaints by conservatives of how terrible the government is as it allegedly oversteps its constitutional bounds, and of how many freedoms we've lost, America has for the most part only prospered in relation to the rest of the planet and - if to somewhat of a lesser extent - so have the other first-world democracies. Right now, today, the American people as a whole (meaning, not just with regards to white male heterosexuals) are more free, with MORE rights, than ever before. The claims of the Right of how we've lost so many freedoms is frankly quite Orwellian by comparison.

So if one is to claim how wrongly our government has performed for the past several generations, one must at least first explain why it is we as a nation are doing so well (and in the big picture, yes, we are), and why it is that our people as a whole are freer, with more rights than ever before.

so what you saying is as long as someone violates the constitution, but it meets your desires........you are ok with it

i wonder why you don't like citizens united?
 
Not at all. I claimed that, when faced with socialisms many, deep failures, socialists will attempt the No True Socialism fallacy as a debate tactic, but when attempting to claim widespread support and/or success, they will instead define "socialism" very broadly. I accused them of being inconsistent in debate, which they are. :)
Purely subjective as to the "socialists" you're talking to. To claim anything otherwise is opinionated falsity.
 
Purely subjective as to the "socialists" you're talking to. To claim anything otherwise is opinionated falsity.

Sure. :) After all, there are no True Socialists. Certainly none in any government that has ever put a program called "socialism" into practice. Why if that were the case, then "socialism" could be called on to account for it's failures. No, no no, socialism is just this magical fairy land, where everyone puts aside human nature, and there is no crime, and we all agree to submit all of our effort to the collective, which loves us.....

oh. Unless you are the OP and trying to make a point that greater economic centralization is a superior form of political and economic organization - in which case socialism is Medicare :)
 
Last edited:
Hunh???? Dude - look at my OP - I'm referring to ALL first-world democracies. You pointed to Greece, so I addressed Greece...but my thread concerns all nations.



Tell you what. Go buy a plane ticket (I sell tickets, btw, and I usually beat anything you find online) to Australia or New Zealand, both of which have governments which - compared to our own - are what would be in your view much more socialistic...and as you spend several months there, you can decide for yourself if their socialistic policies are driving them to the economic dustbin of history. Heck, you're in Oregon - go drive up to Canada and spend some time there. Same thing. They've had like ONE year of economic deficit since 1996, even though they've got universal health care.

:) They also have more economic freedom than we do, and cut taxes and spending in order to increase growth ;)

Their top income tax rate is 29%, and the corporate tax rate is 15%. Their average tariff is also a mere 0.05% more than half ours.
 
I submit to thee, that outside of the fine North American continent such terms as "big government" and "socialism" are rather meaningless. Historical circumstances and culture dictate the "size" of a nation's state, including its scope and breadth. Of course, in a state that knows nothing but republicanism, "big government" sounds fiendish, as if possessing a baseness character, ready to strike and devolve into monarchy without notice. The American Founders certainly believed this. To strengthen the central government and the President was, to them, a machination and nothing more; "a step closer to a King".

The ultimate fallacy of American political thought is on display in this thread - the notion that the "size" of government determines an individual's liberty and general economic success the world over. Context is crucial. Certain systems simply cannot be emulated the world over.

As for the topic's title. Perhaps, it was the culture and work ethic of these nations, coupled with their creation of the right environment in which business could thrive, as well as an amalgamation of other sundry factors - such as their lands being rich in resources, or their histories being relevantly peaceful, or their maintenance of political stability - that led to their respective successes.

The "First World" did not succeed due to the existence of the welfare state and socialised programmes. Rather, the "First World's" success led to the existence of the welfare state and socialised programmes.

I might also retort that the "First World" nations many here wish to emulate are homogeneous and small. Consider that their systems cannot be imported across the Atlantic.
 
I submit to thee, that outside of the fine North American continent such terms as "big government" and "socialism" are rather meaningless. Historical circumstances and culture dictate the "size" of a nation's state, including its scope and breadth. Of course, in a state that knows nothing but republicanism, "big government" sounds fiendish, as if possessing a baseness character, ready to strike and devolve into monarchy without notice. The American Founders certainly believed this. To strengthen the central government and the President was, to them, a machination and nothing more; "a step closer to a King".

Actually, you're quite wrong about that. Washington came out against the Articles of Confederation because they made the government too weak and ineffectual. It was Jefferson and Madison - and not Washington - who wanted to keep the federal government weak.

That, and you don't seem to understand that when I'm referring to size, I'm referring to the comprehensive nature of government that is present in all first-world democracies...and by comprehensive, I'm referring to the near-ubiquitous depth and breadth of the regulatory nature of the government, the relatively low level of corruption (live in a third-world nation for a while and you'll see what I mean), the middle-class pay of the great majority of government workers, and the effective oversight of those government workers.

The ultimate fallacy of American political thought is on display in this thread - the notion that the "size" of government determines an individual's liberty and general economic success the world over. Context is crucial. Certain systems simply cannot be emulated the world over.

I never said that the size itself is what determines the liberty and economic success, did I? Please don't put words in my mouth.

What I SAID - and what I continue to say - is that the liberty and economic success that is found in first-world nations cannot be had without "big government"...but I never, ever said that it is that size itself that brings such liberty and economic success. Please be aware of the difference. That would be like saying that the internet is possible because of silicon - which is obviously fallacious, since the mere presence of silicon obviously does not ensure the existence of the internet...but likewise, we obviously can't have the internet without it.

By the same token, the presence of "big government" (as described above) in and of itself by no means ensures liberty and economic success, but the state of the world's nations strongly seems to indicate that we can't have the liberty and economic success without that "big government".
 
As for the topic's title. Perhaps, it was the culture and work ethic of these nations, coupled with their creation of the right environment in which business could thrive, as well as an amalgamation of other sundry factors - such as their lands being rich in resources, or their histories being relevantly peaceful, or their maintenance of political stability - that led to their respective successes.

Then explain China. Business certainly thrives there, despite the relatively recent tyranny of Mao's Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward. Russia (whatever we may think of their leadership) has made great strides since the meltdown of the USSR and their economic default in the late '90's, and may become a first-world nation despite their faux democracy. Brazil is flirting with first-world status, and the culture there certainly doesn't have the same reputation of the work ethic of, say, Japan or Germany. And it's not a matter of being rich in resources (Japan and England have always been resource-poor) or of relatively peaceful histories or political stability (e.g. Europe and Japan after the world wars, S. Korea after the Korean War).

In other words, while culture can play a major role in the success (or lack thereof) of a nation, it is (as can be seen by the success of several nations in the Middle East) by no means a sure-fire determinant of national success, and the other factors you listed are not as effectual as you seem to believe.

And one more thing - I listed China and Russia not because they are first-world democracies (which they certainly are not), but because of the degree of economic success they are both enjoying relative to recent great national turmoil.

The "First World" did not succeed due to the existence of the welfare state and socialised programmes. Rather, the "First World's" success led to the existence of the welfare state and socialised programmes.

One can understand that argument...but if the socialized programs were in any way a hindrance to the growth of the economy or the strength of the nation, then this should have been seen in the generations after such were adopted, particularly as compared to the growth and development of nations without those socialized programs.

I might also retort that the "First World" nations many here wish to emulate are homogeneous and small. Consider that their systems cannot be imported across the Atlantic.

Tell that to Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan, all of whom have followed the same model...especially considering the fact that Japan and S. Korea adopted these systems from the very beginning following utter devastation from war in the last century.
 
Back
Top Bottom