Why Is Youth So Left-Wing?

[newfangle]

The numbers are in post #235.

Anyways, we aren't really arguing about anything, and its 4:16am in the morning for me.

 

[nonconformist]

Why are people posting that LEft-wingers do no work and wait for hand outs?
This is contrary to fundemental Marxism.

 

[Mise]

You can do whatever you wish. But this is what you wrote:

Quote (Originally posted by Mise):
In case you missed that:
Crime rate per capita for Denmark: 100 per 1,000 people.
Crime rate per capita for the USA: 160 per 1,000 households.

I assume that's a typo, eh?

Actually, it wasn't. I couldn't find an appropriate comparison. The figures above for Denmark are for total crimes, for the USA they are for just property crimes, and they are per household, as you mentioned. I did eventually find more comparable figures though. It turns out it's more like:

Crime rate, Denmark:....100 per 1,000 people
Crime rate, USA:..........130 per 1,000 people.

I think now it would be better if I choose the specific arguments in the articles that interest me:
(...a bunch of statistics...)
I don't think I need to go on.

None of those stats really worry me in all honesty. Like I said, they make me want to live there. You mentioned something about obvious economic flaws in our paradise. What flaws are these? I don't think any social democracy is under any real economic threat. I don't argue with your moral/philosophical objections to high taxation. I certainly understand those objections. But nothing you have said really addresses the "economic flaws" in social democracy.

 

[storealex]

Both you and Mise critique the first few points on marriage and that other stuff, which I specifically said was not the point.

@Mise: It is not my goal to compare one social democracy to another (i.e. Denmark to the US).

If marriage and the "other stuff" is irellevant you should not post it. If it is rellevant to you, then we have a right to mention it too.

If it's not your goal to compare Denmark to US, then why on earth bring about an article that does excactly that?

[QOUTE]You continued to ignore the obvious ecnomic flaws of your beloved paradise.[/QOUTE] Not true. I actually wrote in my post that I agree with your point to a certain extent, being that we _have_ overdone this social democracy thing, but not that social democracy is a bad system. All systems are bad if you go too far down the road.

Besides, it's a lie that I only address the "mariage stuff" in your article. I suggest you read my post again so you don't spread more misinformation.
________
NO2 VAPORIZER

 

[newfangle]

So why won't you address the hard, cold statistics storealex?

 

[storealex]

In which way do you want me to address them newfangle? You already said that your point was not to compare Denmark with US. Yet that seems to be the primary job for the statistics in your article. But if a comparison is what you want, then that's ok with me, since the articles' statistics has been very secular chosen, and thus dosn't tell much of the truth.

Besides, I already addressed several of the points the article are trying to prove with statistics. Im still waiting for a reply for those ones. If you want we could start all over again. You could make a new thread with your articles, a thread which is only for discussion about their containments not the short comments such as "I disagree but won't elaborate on that" or "I agree, the cummies have done enough dammage already"
________
REPLAYS DE STARCRAFT 2

 

[newfangle]

I don't want to know what a cummie is.

You seem unwilling to actualize the reality of, oh, say a 60% rate of taxation, a 33% rate of government dependency, or perhaps your government's unwillingless to calculate a true unemployment figure.

But hey, that's what evasion is all about.

 

[luiz]

BTW, by "actual" economists, do you mean "radical" economists? And by "political scientists", do you mean "failed politicials"? Since most mainstream economists and politicians believe in social democracy and the welfare state, I wonder what you class as "actual".

Mainstream economists are usually Orthodox Neoclassicals, and as such completely opposed to bloated social-democracies. I have yet to see a respected economist defend the taxation levels of the Scandinavian nations, for exemple. After all anyone who studies Economics know that ALL taxes have a dead weight, and as such they don't only transfer wealth: they actually destroy it.

 

[fazzoletti]

(4) Finally, I'm getting a bit tired of people arguing that left wing people are stupider or have less of an understanding of how the world works, and that this is the reason they are left wing. And that the right has a monopoly of great thinkers, workable ideas etc. This is just not true. Even on these boards I've seen stupid and intelligent posts by all sides. I often disagree with luiz, for example, his arguments seem too right wing to me, but he posts in a sincere way and tries to inform himself, and assesses new information when he receives it, and addresses the arguments of other people rather than just saying they must be stupid. This is a much preferable approach to assuming the other side are automatically wrong and stupid. Whether you are right wing or left wing it is very narrow minded to assume you won't learn things from people with different views (and by 'learn' I don't mean things like 'I learned all the left wing people were stupid').

Mmm, those dumn commies dont understand nufin... Kidding


No seriously, I dont think leftish people are more stupid then right wingers, I justy think that some of them run behind certain groups or individuals without actually thinking about it (so do some right wing ppl as well).
I was brought up in a society where one was supposed to believe in certain ideas. To name a few:
-"Africans are poor because our ancestors exploited them"
-"We should pay for our ancestors' faults, and dont forget to feel very guilty"
-"Israel is wrong, the Palestinians are right"
-"America is bent on economical conquest. Their actions derive from Macchiavellian politics, and have nothing to do with any humanistic philosophies whatsoever"
-"Gorbatchov is a good man. The ending of the cold war has nothing to do with Reagan's policies"

Now, I dont mind ppl believing in those ideas, it's just the absolutely arrogance they sometimes display in stating these are "absolute truths". I absolutely love Europe (notice: I didnt say the EU) but I guess I'm more of an American in my political views. When I made my post, I was actually quite annoyed by someone stating one of these "absolute truths" about Margaret Thatcher. Maybe now you understand my reaction better, even though I have to agree with you it wasn't quite fair to state it the way I did. Sorry for that, I'll try to be more like Luiz in the future

 

[bigfatron]

I think it is true that the less open-minded on both sides of the spectrum tend to speak in 'absolute truths'. On here we've had statements about left-wingers being spongeing layabouts and right-wingers being unempathetic monsters.

As a person who is still left of centre after the age of forty, I can say that my views about social inclusion are as strong as ever, but I am more resalistic about the difficulties of making progress, both in terms of the difficulty of getting the help to the people who need it, and dealing with people who don't want to be helped. I'm more honest about the need to prevent free-loading and minimise waste. So realism and experience have moderated my idealism, but not extinguished it.

In terms of taxation and earning, I agree that people's view tends to change when they start paying taxes, I've seen this in my friends and colleagues.

Whether this changes your view as you start earning seems to be about whether you can envisage the need to use the services you are paying for in the future - the worst for this are the arrogant middle-aged middle-class, those who believe they will never be ill, never be poor, never send their kids to state school, never suffer trauma, and so don't need or want the safety nets provided by the state.

For me, I have seen too many people need those services, including members of my family, my friends and my kids' friends. The need is self-evident to me.

Sure, I've probably paid enough tax that I could have covered every eventuality privately, but I know deep down that good fortune played some part in that, as well as hard work and a quick mind. I'm not arrogant enough to think that I was in complete control of my destiny.

So, I've paid my taxes (over $1m to date - is that enough to qualify me to opine?), and I still think it is worth it to live in a society that makes a decent attempt at looking after the truly disadvantaged; and it is still worth it even if the occasional skunk freeloader takes advantage of that decent society.

 

[Mise]

Mainstream economists are usually Orthodox Neoclassicals, and as such completely opposed to bloated social-democracies. I have yet to see a respected economist defend the taxation levels of the Scandinavian nations, for exemple. After all anyone who studies Economics know that ALL taxes have a dead weight, and as such they don't only transfer wealth: they actually destroy it.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Economists who believe in the free market, i.e. who believes a completely free market even exists, are deluded and are NOT good economists. Those who actually get far in industry and the government are ones who have a balanced look on things, and who don't look at economics in black and white. I know several economists personally, and they all tell me that most economists are moderates. Sure, they moan about taxes (capital gains in particular...), but who doesn't? If push came to shove, I'd wager that most (European) economists would stick with social democracy.

On your second point, I consider lowering taxation a more "dead-weight" option than increasing government spending, simply because the increase in GDP (increased private spending etc.) is also taxed, so the increase in GDP due to gov't spending (which is not taxed as such, just incurs "dead-weight" costs) is ~10% more effective at increasing GDP. (Disclaimer: Not having studied economics formally, I'm sure someone will set the record straight on this one...)

 

[storealex]

Now, I dont mind ppl believing in those ideas, it's just the absolutely arrogance they sometimes display in stating these are "absolute truths". I absolutely love Europe (notice: I didnt say the EU) but I guess I'm more of an American in my political views. When I made my post, I was actually quite annoyed by someone stating one of these "absolute truths" about Margaret Thatcher. Maybe now you understand my reaction better, even though I have to agree with you it wasn't quite fair to state it the way I did. Sorry for that, I'll try to be more like Luiz in the future

So if someone tell you that Hitler was a nazi, and that's the absolute truth, will you tell him he is arrogant? Some things are just facts. Plain and simple. And one thing which I think is even worse than arrogance is when people try to cover up the facts.
About Margaret Thatcher, it the truth that the "working poor" ie miners and such went through some terrible tough times when she was in charge. I've read this in a history book, in a book about economics in political science and I saw it in a documentory. That's not arrogance. That's beliving in reliable sources.
________
VAPORIZER GUIDE

 

[luiz]

I wholeheartedly disagree. Economists who believe in the free market, i.e. who believes a completely free market even exists, are deluded and are NOT good economists. Those who actually get far in industry and the government are ones who have a balanced look on things, and who don't look at economics in black and white. I know several economists personally, and they all tell me that most economists are moderates. Sure, they moan about taxes (capital gains in particular...), but who doesn't? If push came to shove, I'd wager that most (European) economists would stick with social democracy.

On your second point, I consider lowering taxation a more "dead-weight" option than increasing government spending, simply because the increase in GDP (increased private spending etc.) is also taxed, so the increase in GDP due to gov't spending (which is not taxed as such, just incurs "dead-weight" costs) is ~10% more effective at increasing GDP. (Disclaimer: Not having studied economics formally, I'm sure someone will set the record straight on this one...)

This is not a matter of agree or disagree, this is purely factual. Minstream economists are Neoclassicals, and as such opposed to high taxation. This is moderation, socialism is extreme.

I have yet to see a SINGLE modern Economics book that does not believe in Free Trade. Even economists considered left-wingers, like Josef Stiglitz, believe in Free Trade. In fact, only a fool would not. It can be proved that Free Trade improves the lifes of all involved.

As for the Dead Weight of taxation, again this is not an opinion, it's factual. All taxes drive marginal producers and consumers out of the market, and as such not only transfer wealth but also diminush the ammount of wealth beign created. The only way tax could not have Dead Weight would be if either the Supply Curve or the Demand Curve were Perfectly Inelastic, what of course does not exist. The closest we get to an Inelastic Supply is the Land Market, but even there there is some elasticity. Nevertheless Land Taxes are the ones that hurt the economy the least.

That said, mainstream economists believe that some taxation is necessary, but not even close to what we see in bloated Social Democracies. I never read a single article written by a respected economist defending the taxation levels in, say, Sweden or Brazil.

 

[fazzoletti]

@Storealex

If you say that Margaret Thatcher was a lousy PM, then that's not a fact, but an opinion. If you say that her policies have had bad effects for certain people, then that might be a fact (although still highly subjective; maybe if you are a miner, you'd be better off when you're fired because of your health).
About Hitler being a nazi, that is a simple matter of definition. In our language, we happen to refer to people like Hitler as "nazis", nobody is disputing that. I'm not disputing that the sky is blue either (well more greyish really where I'm standing). But if people make statements about rather complicated things which are hard to prove or dismiss (like: "you go to hell if you don't say your prayers every sunday") then yes, I do consider them arrogant.
BTW, you should realize that not everything you read in books or see on TV is a fact, but that is quite obvious for an intelligent and all-knowing person like you isn't it?

 

[storealex]

I don't want to know what a cummie is.

You seem unwilling to actualize the reality of, oh, say a 60% rate of taxation, a 33% rate of government dependency, or perhaps your government's unwillingless to calculate a true unemployment figure.

But hey, that's what evasion is all about.

You should seriously stop insulting me newfangle. Everybody can spell bad when they aren't writing in their native tounge, and Im definitly not trying to evade anything.
I've actually asked you to start a discussion about your article in a new thread. Where we could go through it point for point, and I would tell you exactly where I disagree and tell you why I disagree. That's not evasion. That's the opposite of evasion.



I get the idea that you're Danish living overseas. If so we could even take this discussion over mail - in Danish, if you don't want to start a new thread.
Or we could take it right here if you want that? I would prefer though, to address the whole article not just a few points in it, but ok, I'll start with the points you just mentioned:

"33% rate of government dependency" This dosn't tells us much does it? First you should define government dependency. Then you should tell us, the 33% are they of the whole population or just the working age? If it's the whole population you should tell us how many of them are too old to work out of those 33%. If it's only working age people, you should tell us how many of those who are immigrants, how many are handicapped, sick or in an other way unable to work. Because it's a well know fact that Denmark is filled with old people, and that we have many immigrants, many of whom who dosn't work.

The 60% tax? I think more people pay 40% in tax than 60%. You should also look at the results of those tax money. Does they mean that it's hard to get rich? No, the Scandinavian social democracies have plenty of rich people (The funder of IKEA is actually challengeing Bill Gates status as the richest man in thwe world)
Does it mean that we don't have like 1/8 out of population in povery, crime and violence? Yes.
________
black girl Cam

 

[storealex]

Fazzoletti

I never said Margaret Thatcher was a lousy PM did I? No, so why bring it about? What I said was... nah Im tired of repeating my self, besides you know what I said and what I did not say.
About being subjective. Everybody is, more or less. You are very subjective when you claim that the miners are better off being fired because of bad health. Wonder what the miners would think of that statement...

I can follow you in what you say about disputed things or not, but still... It reminds me of this guy I know, a Chillean which parents fled to Denmark because of the coup down there. Once he was stationed in the Balkans a long with some Americans. They asked him what a Chillean did in the Danish army, he told them and they didn't belive that CIA had helped overthrow an elected government. Here we have a chase in which a fact is being disputed. Are the Chillean guy arrogant for claiming it to be the truth?

About the books. Well, if I read the same thing in several books, all given to me in a western high school, and afterwards see the same thing in a documentory, why shouldn't I belive it? Why should I think they all lied about this particular subject?
Could you as an intelligent and all-knowing person tell me this?
________
Ship Sale

 

[newfangle]

Read my post #235 in this thread. I will not respond again until you either somehow justify each of those statistics (without resorting to: "Hey, at least we aren't savages that live with 1/8 of our people in poverty." Which, of course, is irrelavent since I'm not American) or prove that they are not accurate.

 

[Akka]

Don't bother, Storealex.
I've had several discussion over several subject with Newfangle.

It's his customary habit when he's wrong : ignoring every proof against him and do like if he hasn't ever been disproved.

Just carry on with the other, confident that you've made your point and he's only trying to pretend he didn't see it.

 

[newfangle]

Oh hi Akka!!! Wowsers! Nice of you to join in!

Perhaps YOU could tackle those numbers? Pretty pretty please!

 

[Akka]

Well, the points were countered and adressed in the previous page. I'm not going to play along in your "make people repeat themselve and act like if you haven't seen anything until they tire and give up and then pretend you have won the argument" game.