Scandinavia SUCKS

[Tee Kay]

So what the hell is this "inequality-adjusted HDI" nonsense and why is it necessary? It gives a gigantic weight to the GINI index, that is they don't adjust the income by the GINI, they adjust the whole index, which is bizarre and makes no sense whatsoever. See this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI

This means that even if a country is so massively richer than another that it's inequality-adjusted income is still much higher than that of the other, it's overall inequality-adjusted HDI will still be lower, because the "geniuses" who created this BS adjust the whole index by income inequality, and not just actual income

This is clearly a rather bizarre academic experiment which is only quoted, and I suspect was only created, to bash the US. It makes no objective sense whatsoever.

Luckily for the IHDI they don't actually just adjust the whole index by GINI. I know better than to quote uncited Wikipedia pages.

Perhaps practice what you preach and stick to talking about how good life is in the USA for a rich white guy, and leave the discussion on inequality - which you don't care about anyway - to us bleeding heart leftards?

 

[Farm Boy]

Because lots of you(leftards, not you you ) don't give a crap about what many of the poor want, just what you want for the poor. Lotto marketing, premium toll roadways, cigarette taxes, gas taxes, regulation to increase the price of wrong foods, etc. As if being enlightened enough to see the folly of the War on Drugs and its effect on the poor justifies a consistently terrible policy line for the rural poor.

Luiz gets some of it right.

 

[Tee Kay]

Lotto marketing, premium toll roadways, cigarette taxes, gas taxes, regulation to increase the price of wrong foods, etc.

Find me any non-insane lefters who support lotto marketing and toll roads and I'll give you five bucks.

The two largest (as close to as possible) left-wing parties here voted down petrol taxes, while our right-wing treasurer went on the record as saying (para.) "poor people don't drive."

Everyone supports taxes on ciggies except for hard-right libertarians.

That leaves food prices, which I will admit I am not well-versed about. What sort of regulations are you thinking of?

 

[Farm Boy]

Welp, happy to have people visit IL. I don't like the state government, but it's hardly insane. Of course you could argue 'no true leftist' on them.

Hard right libertarians though? Is almost everyone actually gullible enough to buy the BS lines the sin taxers spew on that? Moralizing busybodies be it soda, video games, twinkies, or smokes, they aren't just for religious righties anymore.

 

[Tee Kay]

Welp, happy to have people visit IL. I don't like the state government, but it's hardly insane. Of course you could argue 'no true leftist' on them.

Examples please, like I asked.

Hard right libertarians though? Is almost everyone actually gullible enough to buy the BS lines the sin taxers spew on that? Moralizing busybodies be it soda, video games, twinkies, or smokes, they aren't just for religious righties anymore.

Huh? You might have misread my post or something.

Smokes is different from all the rest of those because just about everyone agree they kill people and people get hooked on them. Taxes is supposed to be an incentive to quit. Maybe the issue's a bit different in the United States, because lacking universal healthcare you can't just walk drive over to the local GP to get options to quit smoking free of charge.

 

[Kyriakos]

Smokes is different from all the rest of those because just about everyone agree they kill people and people get hooked on them. Taxes is supposed to be an incentive to quit.

?

Taxes are as high on smoking-related stuff cause the gov cares about you and wants to toughlove make you to quit?

 

[Tee Kay]

?

Taxes are as high on smoking-related stuff cause the gov cares about you and wants to toughlove make you to quit?

So cynical. Look, revenue raising is a nice side effect, but if the government (Australia's at least) really wants people to smoke, would they have forced cigarette companies to put these on their packets:

The Thai ones, believe it or not, are even more graphic

 

[Yeekim]

Sin taxes are awesome.

 

[Angst]

Of course when I first posted in this thread I didn't want to get dragged into some morality discussion, because they are so boring and never lead anywhere. I merely replied to a dude who supposed all Americans must feel jealous of how great he has it in Scandinavia. I replied (and in my humble opinion proved throughout the thread) that depending on your situation, living in the US is much better, at least materially. A person in my situation (and I boringly stressed several times I was referring to my situation, and other similar ones, not everybody's situation) does better over here than even in Norway, and Norway is the richest of the Scandinavian nations. But NOOOOOO. The welfare-state thought-police does not tolerate that rather self-evident statement. Living in Scandinavia must necessarily be better for everyone, because reasons. And if you can't see that it's a moral failure on your part. You're selfish and short-sighted and stupid and I hope you suffer an accident and become a cripple just so you can see how wrong and immoral you are.

Eh, data to the contrary has provided. There has been plenty of points that you have ignored. And I think you give me too little credit, your treatment of my position here is rude and honestly quite dumb . I think the real world is more complex than ranting about purchasing power and that more factors should be taken into account when considering what the good life is. You don't. I can respect your position this way. You just spout stuff like "my hard-earned money" and "welfare-state thought-police" while ignoring several of my points. That's up to you, really.

 

[Traitorfish]

"Welfare state thought-police".

What a thread we've made for ourselves.

 

[Farm Boy]

Examples please, like I asked.

That was the example. The left(er) party of my state loves and aggressively markets the state lottery, it loves and has aggressively expanded toll roads, and it is pretty fond of increasing fuel taxes whenever it thinks it can get away with it. In this country, regressive consumption based taxes are a pet of our left. Some of that is going to bleed into my conversations, and it'll probably bleed into Luiz's as well.

Huh? You might have misread my post or something.

Smokes is different from all the rest of those because just about everyone agree they kill people and people get hooked on them. Taxes is supposed to be an incentive to quit. Maybe the issue's a bit different in the United States, because lacking universal healthcare you can't just walk drive over to the local GP to get options to quit smoking free of charge.

I don't think I read it wrong. You said only "Hard Right Libertarians" are opposed to heavy sin taxes on tobacco products. Well, I'm not a hard right libertarian by any reasonable classification of that I've come across, unless you want to make this sole solitary issue the definitive one, and tobacco sin taxes are two things. They're a free tax hike on largely working class and poor people that nobody sees fit to fight against and they are the dream issue of moralizing busybodies everywhere. How on earth is do what my creed(s) say is good for you not the long sung song of the religious right? Do you think the song changes if you put it in the hands of a "leftist" choir and they sing the exact same notes with the exact same rhythm? Hint: It's still the same song. Welcome to the proud tradition.

 

[aelf]

I think you have difficulty reading. I went to boring lengths to explain that I was referring to my situation, and to that of people who like me were fortunate enough to receive a good education and solid values. I recognize people who don't receive a decent education, grow up in broken homes and etc may very well be unable to make it on their own. The fact that I can't envision a scenario in which I couldn't pay my own bills does not mean I cannot envision a scenario where some people are unable to pay their own bills.

Well, that's the problem with rich right-wingers. They may admit they are fortunate, but the word doesn't actually ring any bells for them.

In truth, they did nothing to deserve being born to fortunate circumstances. They may thank their deities for their luck, but apparently this means nothing for them in practice. The line they repeat is still, "Screw you, I've got mine."

But we're not talking about kids not sharing their candies (which is inconsequential. Nobody experiences real suffering for lack of shared candy). We are talking of people deliberately choosing to blow a far bigger share of their income on frivolous stuff than saving starving kids.

The point, which you cleverly missed (since you apparently don't understand analogy?), is that even though most people may be selfish to some extent, the degree to which one is selfish matters.

We're all extremely selfish under any objective analysis. The only difference is some of us are also boring, self-righteous, holier-than-thou hypocrites, who think that donating 1% of their income makes them a modern version of St. Francis.

Sounds like a lot of rich people.

 

[Traitorfish]

As a rule of thumb, "everybody is selfish" means "I'm selfish. Not other people, me."

 

[HannibalBarka]

I do usually seldom agree with luiz, as he seems to be too "market" guy ;-), but I find the way some are "attacking" him a little bit patronizing and self rightous.

The USA as he says do indeed look to be a better (in terms of finance) place for "single, young, >100k$/year" people. I think it's true as well. I lived in the US, and indeed, on average for people in that situation, you pay less taxes, things are cheaper and you make more money, and you are inded statistically less likely to go deep in the "" to the point of needing "public assistance". So if you want to think in terms of "balance sheet", at this age, it's definetly a better place to be.

Now I myself, did go back to France from NYC even though I knew my salary was being to be divided by 2 because I like to live in a more "egalitarian" society among other reasons (cheeze and wine ;-) ), but that's just me.
Now that being said he is right in saying that we are all selfish, he's not the only one, the Pope among other people did indeed criticize "Egalitarian " Europe for letting people die when the money we spend on bottled water could save thousands of lifes !!

And it's not just for people living on other side of the mideterranean, even within the same nation, we do have people starving and or homeless when we can (each of us) use the money we spend in ski resorts to rent a room for a homeless. do we do it? no. Why? because we're all selfish at some degree. that's life

 

[luiz]

Eh, data to the contrary has provided. There has been plenty of points that you have ignored. And I think you give me too little credit, your treatment of my position here is rude and honestly quite dumb . I think the real world is more complex than ranting about purchasing power and that more factors should be taken into account when considering what the good life is. You don't. I can respect your position this way. You just spout stuff like "my hard-earned money" and "welfare-state thought-police" while ignoring several of my points. That's up to you, really.

What data? I don't think you can really dispute my original point, that young professionals with decent jobs do better in the US (in average).

What is dumb is the assumption that Scandinavia must necessarily be everyone's version of paradise and failure to recognize this is either stupidity or a moral failure. That's what I mean by "welfare state thought-police". It's not enough to disagree with my fairly objective assessment, the assessment must never be made in the first place!

As for rudeness, I think "I hope you become a cripple" wins the day. In fact nearly all of the posts by our Scandinavian Mother Theresas have been incredibly rude and self-righteous.

Well, that's the problem with rich right-wingers. They may admit they are fortunate, but the word doesn't actually ring any bells for them.

In truth, they did nothing to deserve being born to fortunate circumstances. They may thank their deities for their luck, but apparently this means nothing for them in practice. The line they repeat is still, "Screw you, I've got mine."

Where did I say "screw you, I've got mine"? I was arguing about what country offers better conditions for people in my situation. Is it a moral failure to even make this consideration? Should this consideration never be made? Am I forced to consider Scandinavia as better for everybody, including myself? I am puzzled by just how authoritarian and intolerant of dissent you folks can be. Thought-police indeed.

Has it ever occurred to you that people are free to help others above and beyond what they're forced to by the state?

The point, which you cleverly missed (since you apparently don't understand analogy?), is that even though most people may be selfish to some extent, the degree to which one is selfish matters.

Not if everyone is extremely selfish. When people aren't willing to give up wasting money on frivolous luxuries to save starving kids they don't get to pontificate to others about how unselfish and generous they are.

Sounds like a lot of rich people.

Indeed. And it also sounds like you.

"Welfare state thought-police".

What a thread we've made for ourselves.

Clearly people are not supposed to consider that the US is better for people in their situation. A thought-police indeed.

As a rule of thumb, "everybody is selfish" means "I'm selfish. Not other people, me."

And you're a shining example of generosity and unselfishness, I'm sure. A man who would never spend one pound on a frivolous luxury he doesn't need while his brothers and sisters can't afford basic necessities.

I'm sure you're more than qualified to criticize others for their selfishness, being so unselfish yourself. You have no idea how much I admire you, o saintly one.

 

[warpus]

What is dumb is the assumption that Scandinavia must necessarily be everyone's version of paradise and failure to recognize this is either stupidity or a moral failure.

The U.S. has set up a society in which it's very very nice if you're well off and kinda crappy if you're not.

Scandinavian countries have set up a society in which it's very nice for everyone.

Which way is better? Depends on who you are like you say - but overall the Scandinavian model does a much better job of including everyone, instead of just giving the finger to 90% of the population and benefiting a select few. And in my opinion that makes it a much better system as a result no matter what Bob Dole's or yours or whover's life story might be.

 

[Farm Boy]

Giving the finger to 90% of the population? Now that's an overstatement of impressive stature. You sure you weren't raised on Crockett and Bunyan?

 

[Traitorfish]

Now that being said he is right in saying that we are all selfish, he's not the only one, the Pope among other people did indeed criticize "Egalitarian " Europe for letting people die when the money we spend on bottled water could save thousands of lifes !!

And it's not just for people living on other side of the mideterranean, even within the same nation, we do have people starving and or homeless when we can (each of us) use the money we spend in ski resorts to rent a room for a homeless. do we do it? no. Why? because we're all selfish at some degree. that's life

During the Second World War, many people across Europe sheltered Jews and other victims of Nazism at the risk and often cost of their livelihood, freedom and life. To take an extreme but none the less, I think, powerful example.

So while nobody would disagree that many people are selfish much of the time, and that most people are selfish some of the time, is it really fair or even reasonable, to say that all people are selfish all of the time?

 

[Farm Boy]

How much Lincoln have you had to read recently?

 

[Traitorfish]

I just think it's a bit strange to look at a system which both selects for and encourages selfish behaviour, and conclude that people are intrinsically selfish.

It's the sociological equivalent of "stop hitting yourself".