European socialism: functional or not?

As I once pointed out regarding our recent Eurovision winner: if a country has successfully nationalized ends of production, is it really necessary to nationalize the means as well?:mischief:
I was half-joking, but I guess it is a legit point. Say you have a "capitalist" country with an income tax of 90%. What should it be called?

A capitalist state with a very high income tax.
 
The OP doesn't understand the term. That's the whole point we've been trying to make. If the capitalist system is not abolished in the country, then it is not socialist. Full stop.



Which makes them at the absolute most a welfare state. They are not Socialist.

You end up confusing everybody else though. :cringe:

:lol: sorry guys. In retrospect, I think I should not have tried to use the term like the OP.
I´m confused myself now :).

Europe is not socialist!
phew, I feel better now!
 
State is one of worst managers because its very easy giving away money which are not theirs.

As opposed to private-sector managers who do not own their companies , give money away to themselves and they friends, and nominate each other to half a dozen corporate boards?

What's the difference between managers of publicly traded companies and managers of government owned companies? If anything government owned companies can be better controlled: they have only one institution as owner. Whether or not that control works depends on the quality of the government people elect and the laws their representatives pass, of course... but the only way you can attack that is by attacking democracy too!
Ownership by the state may not be the best solution, but at least the state in theory belongs to everyone, and is subject to some kind of democratic control in Europe. What control (public or private) existed over the banks now surviving on state support?

I don't expect that you'll suddenly stop believing in the "conventional wisdom" which has promoted for the past 20 years or so, but perhaps you can start reading about some objections to it here, where for once the work "reform" wasn't solely associated with an attack on everything public. I hope that that report may be a sign of a new trend in the world.
 
Sorry for any confusion I may have created with my vast repertoire of socio-economical knowledge. :lol:

What I meant was if nationalizing certain industries (such as healthcare, public transport, etc) is overall beneficial or detractive to the general well-being of the nation. Of course, I am no economist, so I will likely be leaving out other relevant aspects, so feel free to inform me of them.
 
What I meant was if nationalizing certain industries (such as healthcare, public transport, etc) is overall beneficial or detractive to the general well-being of the nation. Of course, I am no economist, so I will likely be leaving out other relevant aspects, so feel free to inform me of them.

Those industries arn't fully nationalized, though.
 
How do you feel about your high taxes?
I think that the government spends way too much money in europe... judging from the numbers, like 13 million just to build a gay advertisement to entice gays to visit an ancient city which they said was not inclusive enough XD
 
its functional in the way an autistic kid would get stuff done, yes it works but there are much better, faster, efficient and productive ways to get things done.
 
its functional in the way an autistic kid would get stuff done, yes it works but there are much better, faster, efficient and productive ways to get things done.
And what are those things that need to get done?
 
And what are those things that need to get done?

Strong economic growth and less than 8% unemployment might be a nice thought for the majority of Europeans...
 
In this economy!?
 
Strong economic growth and less than 8% unemployment might be a nice thought for the majority of Europeans...

What? In my region there was an unemployement rate of 6% in February this year (Belgian, region Kortrijk). We also had pretty good economic growth last years, compared to countries just as developped.

edit: that 6% came from the newspaper jobat. But another source: http://lvb.net/item/4301 (in Dutch) cites unemployement of 4.98% in 2007, 3.19% for Males between 25 and 40 years old. In my specific region that is, but it's not a lot worse in other regions (in some maybe even better).
How much better is it in the USA?
 
If I don't like the corporation that makes the car, then I don't have to buy the car. If the government controls the auto industry, I don't have a choice in the matter.

If I don't like my heath insurance, I can get a new one. If the government controls healthcare, I don't have a choice in the matter.

If I don't like my current retirement manager, I can fire him, and get a new one. If the government takes my money and buries it in the back yard and gives a fraction of that sum in the future, I don't have a choice in the matter.

Etc, etc...

1) I'm pretty sure that just by plain logic you could still not buy the car if you odn't want a car.

2) This is your best point, but it assumes you can afford the healthcare you want in the first place, and that the government-paid services wouldn't be adequate. At the very least, even with a universal healthcare system, you would likely still be able to go out on your own and get new/elective services.

3) Since I'm fairly certain you're an American, I hope you KNOW this is NOT how Social Security works, nor it's purpose.

I was half-joking, but I guess it is a legit point. Say you have a "capitalist" country with an income tax of 90%. What should it be called?

Las Islas Cayman Nuevas? Or if it's a real, full-scale company maybe just "war mobilization?"

Income tax is a very poor measure of actual distribution of wealth, and this argument tends to often be a red herring, because throughout most countries' history the top "income-tax rates" aren't what people are paying. Even if you meant "90%, with no loopholes, income tax" that still would in no way preclude an inherently capitalist system. Huge amounts of money the wealthy make are not from job income but investments, land ownership, etc... If all these things were included in your overall rate it'd be a system unlike any ever put in practice before (except maybe in war/despotism situations), and at best would approximate socialism if the government collecting all of it spent and distributed it according to socialist principles.
 
Strong economic growth and less than 8% unemployment might be a nice thought for the majority of Europeans...



Don't worry, with 8.9% in may, it's also a nice thought for the majority of Americans
 
Don't worry, with 8.9% in may, it's also a nice thought for the majority of Americans. - Steph

That's cute and all, but during that rise in unemployment here in the US, do you think we've become more or less like France? In the future, with the new policies implemented by the Obama administration, do you think unemployment will look like it did under Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, or more like France?

I doubt we'll see chronic 10% unemployment like France unless Obama really, really bungles things up. But I will gaurantee you tha we'll see unemployment remain significantly higher in America until this mess he's created is cleaned up. But that will probably take an entire generation.

Also, it's nice to point out that we're equal now, but Europe is lagging behind the US. You've got another wave of massive bank failures waiting for you, and you ALWAYS end up having higher unemployment than us during global recessions. Show me the same graph in 24 months, despite our leftward economic turn over the last 12 or so years, and despite our growth in government, I'd be willing to bet that you'll top out higher than we will in terms of unemployment and economic strife.

Also Steph, I believe it is worth noting that some of the drops in unemployment from your chronic 10%ish unemployment to 8% unemployment can be credited to various economic liberalization programs that have been instituted in France over that time period.

Funny, you guys liberalize and unemployment goes down. We grow our government by absurd amounts and our unemployment goes up. Weird.

(But isn't that the entire point of the European welfare state? You tolerate higher unemployment and lower economic growth for more equality.)

1) I'm pretty sure that just by plain logic you could still not buy the car if you odn't want a car. - Earthling

I want a freakin' car. WTF?

2) This is your best point, but it assumes you can afford the healthcare you want in the first place, and that the government-paid services wouldn't be adequate. At the very least, even with a universal healthcare system, you would likely still be able to go out on your own and get new/elective services. - Earthling

In such systems you have to be very wealthy in order to purchase private healthcare while universal healthcare exists. The same can be said for K-12 education. One of the purposes of such programs is to ensure that as few people as possible have access to private education and private healthcare and to co-opt as many people as possible into the system. By taxing people into oblivion, you cripple their ability to afford private health insurance or send their children to a private school. It's unreasonable to suggest that 80% of the population, perhaps even 85% of the population, can afford to pay into social medicine and public schools and still have enough money to afford private coverage or private schools.

3) Since I'm fairly certain you're an American, I hope you KNOW this is NOT how Social Security works, nor it's purpose. - Earthling

Actually, in America, it's probably worse than I described considering that the government has been borrowing money out of them mayonaise jar and putting in IOU's for a decade now in order to pay for today's social programs.
 
Merk, could you make up your mind whether you are talking about Europe or France?

http://www.indexmundi.com/netherlands/unemployment_rate.html

edit: Just checked, unemployment in countries Europe ranges from 3 to 14,5%. So, if you are talking about Europe I am wondering how you manage to make sweeping statements like: "But isn't that the entire point of the European welfare state? You tolerate higher unemployment and lower economic growth for more equality."

And whether the Dutch have a superiour political and economic understanding since our unemployment rate has been significantly lower than the US' for quite some time?
 
That's cute and all, but during that rise in unemployment here in the US, do you think we've become more or less like France? In the future, with the new policies implemented by the Obama administration, do you think unemployment will look like it did under Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, or more like France?

I doubt we'll see chronic 10% unemployment like France unless Obama really, really bungles things up. But I will gaurantee you tha we'll see unemployment remain significantly higher in America until this mess he's created is cleaned up. But that will probably take an entire generation.

Also, it's nice to point out that we're equal now, but Europe is lagging behind the US. You've got another wave of massive bank failures waiting for you, and you ALWAYS end up having higher unemployment than us during global recessions. Show me the same graph in 24 months, despite our leftward economic turn over the last 12 or so years, and despite our growth in government, I'd be willing to bet that you'll top out higher than we will in terms of unemployment and economic strife.

Also Steph, I believe it is worth noting that some of the drops in unemployment from your chronic 10%ish unemployment to 8% unemployment can be credited to various economic liberalization programs that have been instituted in France over that time period.

Funny, you guys liberalize and unemployment goes down. We grow our government by absurd amounts and our unemployment goes up. Weird.

(But isn't that the entire point of the European welfare state? You tolerate higher unemployment and lower economic growth for more equality.)

You're so misinformed it's not even funny anymore. To start with, we have a different kind of industry (it's all export here) and our situation is just different. Especially your part about universal health care completely misses the mark. (you have probably more choice between health care companies here that in the US)

At least read my previous post and stop generalising Europe as just France (which got tons of problems that have nothing to do with "socialism"). That would be like me comparing Europa with Alaska and concluding capitalism doesn't work.
 
I bet you dont like Lula...
 
Top Bottom