- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,088
- Reaction score
- 33,411
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
We have at least two people here that advocate "redistribution of wealth".
We have at least two people here that advocate "redistribution of wealth".
World's Happiest Places
I thought this was interesting. According to Forbes Magazine, the ten happiest nations in the world are:
1. Denmark
2. Finland
3. Netherlands
4. Sweden
5. Ireland
6. Canada
7. Switzerland
8. New Zealand
9. Norway
10. Belgium
I've seen other surveys that consistently rate some of these nations at the top of the list. Many surveys also rate several Central American countries very highly in terms of happiness (they were excluded from the Forbes survey, which only polled OECD countries). The least happy places in the world seem to consistently be Eastern European nations, the UK, and France.
What do you think makes a nation happy (or unhappy)?
.....and letting people slip through the cracks in rich, developed nations like the United States or the nations in Western Europe, is unnecessary.
It's when the middle class starts to dwindle due to lack of redistribution that you start to experience nation-wide revolutions.
PeteEU, I agree with some of what you said, probably because I am Canadian. I believe the health of the public is largely dependent upon redistribution of wealth.
That said, it should be done at moderate levels.
Some European countries have an extremely high tax rate and some of them, such as Germany, have social systems that are gradually collapsing due to the retirement of the baby boomers.
In those situations, less of a dependency upon government and substitution with some private institutions could offset a lot of the pressure.
I don't think it's as simple as saying social welfare does or doesn't contribute to poverty. It really depends on which person you are talking about. There are definitely abuses of the system but there are also those who are genuinely in need, and letting people slip through the cracks in rich, developed nations like the United States or the nations in Western Europe, is unnecessary.
It's when the middle class starts to dwindle due to lack of redistribution that you start to experience nation-wide revolutions.
I see the total opposite.
If anything, out right capitalism like the American version has prolonged poverty among certain aspects of society (racial, geographical) for many many many years and decades as they have "dropped through the cracks en mass". Yes it has expanded the overall economic situation of the country, no doubt about that, but it has also left quite a few "behind" with very little hope or drive to improve their life style. This is clearly seen in the income inequality numbers when comparing most European countries and the US.
Now capitalism has been around since the dawn of time basicly and it has not irradicated poverty in anyway.. in fact I would claim it has expanded and prolonged it for centuries and centuries because it was not only profitable but politically advantageous in having masses of poor uneducated masses to rule over.
It is only after "socialism" showed its ugly head that poverty has been slowly reduced in the west over years, basicly because of the fear of loosing power by the "capitalists" forced the old guard to change their attitudes to people and hence their attitude to society as a whole. Things like a fair wage, abolishing slavery, banning child exploitation and basic education for the masses and so on, all done due the threat of the socialist menace.... dont think for a second that any capitalist would give up such things voluntarily... it after all hurts the bottom line.
Now lets not get into another cluster**** over defining poverty because it is a relative term compared to the overall population and is hard to compare the US and EU as they have different measurements of poverty.
Capitalism has only been around since the end of feudalism.
And you are focusing on the "poor" in Europe and the US. There is many people who are poorer then others, but when I say poor, I mean people in third world countries.
It is specifically the slower economic growth in Europe that is reducing the money that will end up in poor countries.
Do you wonder why a country like Singapore had a strandard of living the same as many South American countries a mear 50 years ago and now is doing so much better? The answer is capitalism. Capitalism brought Singapore out of poverty and helped increase their standard of living.
It is hard to define poverty, but I can tell you that on the world stage, there are almost no "poor" in the US. And by that I mean very few people in the US have as low a standard of living as most people in third world countries.
Therefore, I place my priorities with helping people in the world, instead of immedietly increasing the standard of living of the poor in America.
Something tells me that some of the people in this thread wouldn't be acting so arrogant and angry if the US had been listed. :lol:
This is only slightly off topic, but I think about it often and wonder if it might have some impact on "national happiness."
My folks have a friend that was born and raised in Sweden. He lived there until about 20 years ago, then moved to the US. I don't know the specifics of it, but the man (and others just like him) gets some kind of lifetime income from Sweden - not a disability thing, just money for being a (former) citizen. He's in his 70s now and will continue getting money from the Swedish government until he dies.
Now, I can't speak for everyone, but if I got a monthly check from the government just for having been born here, I'd be pretty happy too. Wouldn't you?
Why is it that if someone believes a poll like this is obvious BS crapola, they are automatically arrogant and angry in your view? Do you ever get tired of such hyperbolic bloviating? :roll:
Why is it that if someone believes a poll like this is obvious BS crapola, they are automatically arrogant and angry in your view? Do you ever get tired of such hyperbolic bloviating? :roll:
Disagree. Feudalism is capitalism light. Only real difference between feudalism and capitalism is more inclusion of the masses. They still strive for the same thing, the acquirement of wealth and power and if they can prevent others in getting it, then they will do so. Nobles did that by keeping people dumb and driving the fear of god in the, today's capitalist use poverty to keep people in their place. No difference.
The only place I would claim that capitalism has had an impact is in the US, and even here the economic benefits of capitalism it self have not given a financial gain for all.. aka the income inequality.
No it aint hard to define poverty. Agreeing on a definition is another matter and comparing between countries is a whole other matter. Poverty in my opinion should always be taken in context to what you are comparing. If you are comparing poverty in the US then yes there are people who are poor. Now if you compare these people to say people in Darfur, then financially no they are not poor, but you still find people in the US and Europe that go to bed hungry because they can not afford food. That is poverty too.
Disagree. Feudalism is capitalism light. Only real difference between feudalism and capitalism is more inclusion of the masses. They still strive for the same thing, the acquirement of wealth and power and if they can prevent others in getting it, then they will do so. Nobles did that by keeping people dumb and driving the fear of god in the, today's capitalist use poverty to keep people in their place. No difference.
Okay, but the whole discussion was about OECD "happiness" and no 3rd world country is in the OECD.
Yes and no. It is the economic growth of the 1st world that is putting money in the poor countries.
However saying that, there are many other factors that keep these countries poor, usually political instability. It is ironic that the reason many poor countries are poor, is lack of transparency and accountability among the political and economic elite plus the political instability that comes from that.
Not exactly factual and a bad example to be honest. Singapore's standard of living is high due to a dictatorship that forced through reforms for the majority and did not like normal dictators syphon off that much for themselves. While the standard of living in Singapore has gone up considerably, there are minorities that live in relative poverty there. You could say the same for Japan btw, however even here "capitalism" has been diluted by ancient political and social aspects, so even here capitalism cant be given the whole reason for the economic prosperity. The only place I would claim that capitalism has had an impact is in the US, and even here the economic benefits of capitalism it self have not given a financial gain for all.. aka the income inequality.
No it aint hard to define poverty. Agreeing on a definition is another matter and comparing between countries is a whole other matter. Poverty in my opinion should always be taken in context to what you are comparing. If you are comparing poverty in the US then yes there are people who are poor. Now if you compare these people to say people in Darfur, then financially no they are not poor, but you still find people in the US and Europe that go to bed hungry because they can not afford food. That is poverty too.
Whole other discussion
How exactly is it crap? You've yet to show that.
All you've done thus far is complain because you think that the study isn't relevant and that you don't think it is breaking news. Perhaps you should let the mods be the judge of that and instead of trying to derail the thread with your complaints, actually discuss it or keep your opinions to yourself.
I know..I'm expecting too much.
What a shocker that you would not comprehend your perceptions of anger and hyperbolic bloviating about others anger and arrogance isn't just that.
Once again you blather about complaints without any concept of what a complaint is; read your own threads. They contain nothing else but whiney complaints about everyone else.
Do you honestly think that anyone, me included, cares that the US isn't on the list of "happiness?" Do you REALLY?
Do you REALLY think that it makes someone like me angry? REALLY?
A large piece of glass could not be more transparent than your whiney diatribes. Yet as is typical of your whiney babble, you offer NOTHING to support your typically empty headed hyperbole and blather. I am hardly surprised, but what really amazes me is that you actually think you add ANYTHING substantive to any thread you enter and blather with your whiney hyperbolic nonsense.
It defiantly would be expecting too much to expect you to just shut up unless you have something substantive to say; whining about perceptions of anger and arrogance from those you politically disagree with really isn’t substance; get a freaking clue already.
Good lord, if the OBVIOUS walked up and smacked you in your head, you would claim it was an angry arrogant attempt to wake you out of this obvious stupor you wallow in.
Do you want to know what REALLY makes me angry? It is IGNORANCE. :roll:
the ten happiest nations in the world are:
1. Denmark
2. Finland
3. Netherlands
4. Sweden
5. Ireland
6. Canada
7. Switzerland
8. New Zealand
9. Norway
10. Belgium
I am constantly fascinated by farcical arguments like this where NO facts are available to support them.
First off, there is no one slipping through the healthcare crack in the US. It is even MANDATORY that health clinics and hospitals give ILLEGAL aliens care if they come in and here in California, have to provide someone who can interpret Spanish.
Secondly, the notion that it is the Governments job to confiscate someone else's hard earned wealth and RE-DISTRIBUTE it is a Communistic notion that can only be expressed by those who have been bullschitted by the educational system and their Governments that this is the most efficient way of caring for the poor.
Its stunning to me that anyone with a Jr. College level education can even think that Government is the answer and that it is okay to STEAL from someone and give it to someone else.
The EU and Canada are suffering from the weight of their own largess and finding it harder and harder to support their Socialist programs. Canadians have to wait some times over a month just to see a doctor for something as simple as acid reflux; yet here in this country we can get that same care today.
The nation’s families and PEOPLE have always done a much better job caring for themelves and making decision for themselves with MORE choice, and with competition, competitive prices than any other form of Government in the world. We just need Government to do TWO things to enable us to prosper; (1) defend the nation from its enemies; and (2) administer its laws. Everything else is nothing more than wasteful pandering to ignorant voters who think they can get something for nothing and create a dependent class of citizens who suckle off the Government teat at others expense and hard work.
I think the level of happiness can be measured by the number of illegals that come and stay; or the number of people that seek to enter said country, and/or want to leave.
.
.
I think this thread is begging for a point. Could you help me with what is the point of such studies and why they are even relevant?
Truth Detector said:Nations can't be happy.
This is only slightly off topic, but I think about it often and wonder if it might have some impact on "national happiness."
My folks have a friend that was born and raised in Sweden. He lived there until about 20 years ago, then moved to the US. I don't know the specifics of it, but the man (and others just like him) gets some kind of lifetime income from Sweden - not a disability thing, just money for being a (former) citizen. He's in his 70s now and will continue getting money from the Swedish government until he dies.
Now, I can't speak for everyone, but if I got a monthly check from the government just for having been born here, I'd be pretty happy too. Wouldn't you?
Why is it that if someone believes a poll like this is obvious BS crapola, they are automatically arrogant and angry in your view? Do you ever get tired of such hyperbolic bloviating? :roll:
When I say "the happiest nations," it's shorthand for "the nations where the highest percentage of people consider themselves happy."