None Muslims are not allowed into the cities of Medina and Mecca. This guy obviously posed as a fake Muslim, now look at the mess he is in. Of course your begging for trouble when you pose your self as some one you are not just to waltz into another culture/nation to make obnoxious comments what a loser.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
I don't like these mods.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
As this will invariably lead to greater social morality and consideration of all economic strata. It is absolutely possible to have a fair and free market economy, intelligently regulated and equitable to the people.
blah blah blah blah is all I am reading from this, your evidence that the economy can intelligently be regulated? China? i think not, not when countless empty nameless cities sit across china and even Spain. Not when the savings of Chinese citizens are actually confiscated to make govt loans. The all so noble enlightened Europeans with their E.U? not even, just look at the P.I.I.G.S. Also how about you define fairness? I am almost sure that your definition of "fairness" is somehow related to taking wealth or material wealth or even infringing upon the private property of others for someone else. Capitalism never caused the great depression< http://mises.org/daily/2845 http://mises.org/rothbard/agd/contents.asp> In fact once the govt got involved it evolved from a depression INTO a great depression.
-4 ( +0 / -4 )
Sweden deregulated their banking industry in the mid '80s which led to a huge credit expansion and with Sweden allowing people to deduct interest payments from their taxes. One little financial institution that had recklessly lent money could not roll over their debt and the entire house of cards collapsed.
The cause of Sweden's banking crisis was not socialism, they financialized their economy.
You cannot de-regulate the banking industry and end up with massive credit expansion right into reckless lending. Private lenders would not lend unless they know your going to pay them back. When the govt sponsors a loan, they will allow anyone even those of no income/low income no savings backgrounds under the guise of "fairness" and "equality". When a govt regulated bank issues out a loan, it will always be covered whether the individual pays it or the govt via tax-payers bail out. Your gonna have to get acquainted with the Austrian school of economics. http://mises.org/daily/2259 http://mises.org/daily/4936
There will always be unintended consequences to all govt actions in the market that disrupt individual choice. Ad this video shows it with shocking detail http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij4H9M55c64
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
I AM NOT A COMMUNIST
Those with your views are either Keynes or Communist/Socialist.
Capitalism is corporatism
Capitalism does NOT = corporatism. Is it capitalism when the govt bails out a failing auto industry or bad bank at the expense of tax payers money? Under capitalism bad companies are destroyed by their own bad practices and replaced by more efficient ones.
see this in the post 2008 jobless recoveries
Your are most likely a Keynes by this quote. There is no such thing as a "jobless recovery" it's an oxymoron. Their is only one method for recovery/growth. And that method goes by the following steps, Savings, Investments and production of real goods and services.
Sweden had GDP growth of 6.4% in 2010, has one of the highest tax rates in the world and one of the best social security systems in the world. If what you define as "socialism" can work there it can work in the UK as well.
Your 20 years behind. Swede is a former socialist economy. It's actually a "social market economy", which is vastly different from socialism. And that is because socialism in Swede failed and tanked it's economy in the early 1990's. Because of Sweden's socialist policies, the free market forced Sweden to set interest rates to exactly 500%. Sweden is one of the world leaders when it comes to pro free-market reforms.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Capitalism is concentrating wealth in a tiny minority and leaving much of the rest of the world in poverty. Since globalization has made labor a commodity, it has even begun to impoverish the middle classes.
That is corporatism which is another form of fascism. You cannot concentrate wealth into a tiny minority without some govt program that forces this.
Capitalism has eradicated poverty everywhere where it has been practiced. Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and the U.S are examples of this.
It's time for you to grow up and put down the "Communist Manifesto" by your hero Karl Marx and the "General Theory" by your second hero Maynard Keynes and time you pick up "Nation State and Economy" by Ludwig Von Mises.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
The US has utterly failed to deal with gang violence. Only a brain dead conservative PM would resort to importing an American cop to deal with rioting which had little or nothing to do with the kind of gangs the US cop would be familiar with.
Ironically, as a previous poster commented gang violence has decreased year after year in cities like NYC and L.A. Most places in NYC was extremely scary to travel 20+ years ago. Today most places are safe. The U.K police should take lesson from American law enforces, because their law enforcement is too timid. When muslims riot and demand for the execution of someone or when other minorities riot, the U.K police don't even bother preventing the riot damages or containing rioters. Their excuse for this is " it's a cultural thing" political correctness doe's not allow them to stop riots. Where as American law enforcers would not have allowed these British rioters to hand out the amount of private property damage they have done.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Why do so many account frauds and scams come out of Nigeria along with it's immigrants? In my e-mail i have received countless spam e-mails about wealthy people in need of transferring their money to me. Of course i always delete such e-mails immediately.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Is democracy the best form of government? Looking at the Americans list of candidates on the right and the value of democracy seems dubious -- Bachman? Are you serious? She does not understand the division between church and state, nor does Perry. And Romney? How can anyone take Mormons seriously. Time to return to government run by educated people, the common man does not need to be consulted.
The answer is no. Democracy does not work. Democracy means mob rule and where the minority has no voice because of the majority. The U.S is a Republic, big difference. All politicians know the division between church and state. sep of church & state is not found in the first amendment but rather states that govt cannot establish a official religion while not prohibiting the exercise there of. I also find it ironic that you stated that we need a return to govt run by educated people. Just look at all politicians, they are all educated with college degrees. I think over education is the problem as too much time in academia clouds the mind and dwarfs the individual into a relativistic robot. What is really needed in govt are business men/women, engineers, farmers, physicians and Austrian economist. Not political scientist, lawyers and attorney graduates.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
The sad truth is people like Lieberman2012 don't get that both parties SUCK. Neither party takes care of the working people. And that is the problem.
Ironically it's the opposite. The govt cares so much that they actually believe they can help the people out with so many burdensome regulations and endless entitlement programs with so many untended consequences. If SS, Medicare, Medicare and the HUD is not enough, then clearly you want govt to do everything.
Their Jesus taught that if you have two loaves of bread, you should give one to the person who has none
Yes, Jesus of Nazareth did i fact preach this. But did you know he made charitable acts voluntarily so? He never forced or demanded that govt take wealth away from one group of people and give it to another. That is the faulty in the logic of statist/progressives like yourself. It is the reason why absolutely NO other nation on this earth is more charitable then the U.S, because of individual charity.
I encourage you to read about the Austrian school of economics, and to read about Ludwig Von Mises, Carl Menger, F.A Hayek and Peter schiff.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
The only good candidate on the debate was Ron Paul. A man whom has already foretasted the financial crisis 20 years before it started with his understanding of the Austrian school of Economics. I am glad that the whole fiat money scheme is gaining quick traction ad a return to a gold standard ever closer. Same goes for the rest of the world as fiat currencies always die hard. Creditors were baffled when the dollar was de-pegged from gold back in 1971 and that it would not work. As it turns out they were right. As things get worse, massive de-regulations and massive spending cuts will be inevitable similar to what happen in Sweden during the 90's.
Gingrich.....? well he did balance the budget as house speaker during his time as house speaker during the 90's and under Clintons presidency. Other then that his marriage past will constantly haunt him.
Romney...? Same as Obama.
Herman? He worked at the board for the Federal reserve which makes him all too suspicious.
Santorum is another big statist/progressive.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Looks like Zucronium and the Finland Govt want a "fairness" doctrine. To curb online hate speech would require a gigantic expensive bureaucracy to monitor the net. Not only that but it would be a massive breach for individual liberty and private property rights. You should be able to say what ever you want and type what ever you want from the comfort of your own home. Including hateful rants like Zucroniums and whiskeysour's. Death threats are always being posted onn the net, i have gotten them myself and they never carry out such threats. Only a very select few actually do. But that is no reason to sacrifice the private property of all, because of one lone wolf terrorist.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
You know, international govt aid is a form of welfare for most of these African countries. When people stay on welfare for too long, you take away the incentive to better oneself. It's no wonder these country can't pick themselves up. Japan, China, Singapore, South Korean ad Israel built themselves successfully ground up. Africans should do the same.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
You miss the greater point - POOR PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD $130-150. THEY ARE POOR.
Even the poorest of Americans can afford ipods periods. The only exceptions are the homeless. Anyone with even a M.W can afford an ipod. Everyone you see that is living on the brink making ends meet has a iphone and ipod. Or even a labtop/P.C with internet.
Yes, it's that durn government sending jobs overseas, not the insanely low cost of labor! After all, why should Ford pay Americans to build trucks when Mexicans can make less than a waiter in the US and do the same thing. Or how about Foxconn in China - workers benefit so much from employment there.
Govt does not send jobs over seas. Private individuals do. There are about 500 million Chinese on a fixed M.W of about 2-5 U.S.D a day. There about about 60 million making about 40k-44k, those that do all happen to live on the very coast of China, not a good representation of the nation as a whole. About another 100-200 million making about 1k. And many that are unemployed.
You know who isn't subject to minimum wages in the first world? Illegal laborers. How are their wages and working conditions? Crap, and crap. At least your Wal Mart job gives you enough to pay rent and buy food without living 10 to an apartment. Why? There's a minimum wage.
Then again, they are illegal. They also seem content on what little they are making and also including they are not given income tax without SS which means more saved up for them. Then again, they do get generous benefits via govt programs, which is only and incentive for more to arrive illegally, that is certainly govt "compassion". Again, no business owner not even walmart in a free market would pay below living standards at the risk of mass exodus by laborers which means bankruptcy.
Again, you have missed the point. The US used to have less regulation, no minimum wage, no social programs. And you know what? It sucked. People lived shorter, poorer lives then. WHY would you want to go back to those days? It's lunacy.
Those less regulation are what heavily tackled poverty, improved living standards and worker conditions. http://mises.org/daily/1590/Markets-Not-Unions-Gave-us-Leisure Of course people i those days lived a much shorter life span then we do today, but you know what? people in those days also had a much longer life span then people before that. The free market is what allowed this to happen via innovations and tech advancement. Such as mass production of food with radiation and the assembly line. 50 years from now and people will look back and say that we "lived" short life spans. Also, did you know that Upton Sinclair was mostly wrong about everything? and the regulation he wanted were turned against the intentions he wanted. http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7229
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Wow. They most certainly the heck cannot. I think you have little idea what poor means in the US, and it doesn't mean "I can't get the latest smartphone". More like "I'm lucky if I can get a decent meal at the thrift bakery".
Certainly the heck yes. Ipod nano's when they were first released was about $190-$220. Now they are about $130-150. The trends continue for all existing tech.
My point on this is obvious: companies act in THEIR self interest, not yours. Their goal is to make them (and their shareholders) money, not to provide you with the best possible product.
Or I take it you haven't noticed that free market principles have flooded the US retail market with cheap overseas crap, and US manufacturers who make higher quality products can't compete? Well I guess they could if their labor costs were as cheap as China's, so hey, let's abolish benefits and the minimum wage. Then the US can be a free market paradise!
The companies and you share the same interest. But the companies have to also take your interest to heart, when a business angers consumers or does not satisfies them then it fails and goes bankrupt. Of course massive regulations make it impossible to star a manufacturing business in America forcing entrepreneurs to go over seas. Now I agree with you that the U.S and even European markets have been flooded with cheap Chinese products many of which has low quality. But their is a price to be payed for this. Did you know that the average Chinese workers lives on a govt minimum wage of about 3-5 dollars a day? heir wages can't increase. Let's say your a Chinese worker manufacturing plasma T.V sets. It takes scarce resources to build those T.V's in all lets say you require $1500 to build/assemble and gather the proper precious metals needed to build the set. Now you have to sell it off into the market for a profit. That means about $2000. But instead you sell it for about $1450, that is a loss. And exactly what is going on in China. So why bother selling high quality goods if your not going to. It's a result of govt mis-allocations of resources, think of the countless nameless ghost cities sitting across China, that's a city bubble as opposed o a housing or property bubble. H.C is a resource as well.
let's abolish benefits and the minimum wage. Then the US can be a free market paradise!
I agree. Lets abolish M.W and benefits. China and the U.S are on M.W's. Minimum wage is a generous govt proposal meat to alleviate poverty, but instead has the opposite effect. M.W discourages competition amongst workers and innovation. It also forces business owners to pay the some of the less productive workers and earning that is not deserved. M.W also causes unemployment and poverty because then they must pay a forced amount to all workers or more. This hurts the backbones of all nations, the "mom and pops business". Forcing them to layoff/fire workers in order to maintain the business. It gets even worse when the M.W is raised. In a free market no business owner will pay below living standards, because then no employee would want to be hired by such an employer. This means bankruptcy and failure of a bad business and a and business owner. Wages and benefits should instead be discussed and jointly agreed upon under a private contract between employer and employee. http://mises.org/daily/2130
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Great! Because the laws of free market economics go against compassionate treatment of other humans. After all, old people and handicapped kids are supremely expensive. Can't make money off poor people, why give them health care?
The last century clearly refutes this when big govt murdered 80 million+. Govt programs cannot show compassion to individuals, that is impossible. Compassion is show individual towards individual/group, not some bureaucrat whom you will never in life meet.< http://mises.org/daily/3921/The-Curse-of-Good-Government>. Even the poorest of Americans can afford Ipod nanos. And that is because in a free market prices inevitably fall and quality increases. Now some doctors in some hospitals btw are actually willing to give such individuals free H.C at their own individual expense. But when govt forces them to do so, then it becomes a loss of scarcity. There are generous orgs as well that more efficiently help the marginalized under private charity. Now if the free market were to be allowed to operate freely with all the subsidies gone and entitlements then naturally the cost falls.
Oh, there's plenty of ways to make a ton of profits by not delivering a quality product. See Madoff, Bernie. Made all kinds of profits for himself! Never underestimate the power of greed, especially in a free, unregulated market!
Your point on this? I was typing about a quality product, not a bad product. Now since were on the topic of madoff now, did you know this ponzi scheme was a govt failure to stop? http://mises.org/daily/3273 http://mises.org/daily/3260. The free market already spotted Bernies scheme from a mile away. Yes never underestimate the power of greed. Were all greedy, and that includes you and govt. Greed is about looking after your ow self-interest, of course it's important to distinguish between greed and corporate greed. http://mises.org/daily/1371
Look, you have good intentions with your govt sponsored ideals, by they foolishly have unintended consequences http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij4H9M55c64
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I'm full of "Spin"? This is not the O'Reilly Factor, this is real life discussion. I didn't "spin" anything! I'd like you to tell me with real world examples -not talking point examples and theories - of examples where people's health care improved because of less medical insurance. Go look at the list of longest life expectancies - what is one common factor for the top countries? Yup, government health care
Hardly true. By your logic i can just say that people are more healthier if they rely on govt. Life expectancy is not even a good example to back up your argument, else Cuba would have higher L.E then the U.S. In Venezuela just like in they U.S has both private and Govt H.C. Private H.C in Venezuela operates with quality and results comparable to the U.S. Where as the govt counterpart is far worse. Govt H.C goes against the laws of free market economics http://mises.org/daily/3586 ad don't think that Scandinavian H.C is any better under govt control. There have been cases where scav politicians travel to the u.s for HC, although i cannot remember their names at the moment. But even King Abdulla prefers U.S HC over Saudi national H.C
http://rayharvey.org/index.php/2010/11/saudi-king-abdullah-wont-use-universal-health-coverage-but-comes-to-the-u-s-for-his-blood-clot-treatment/ And Saudi Arabia is certainly no poor country by any standards btw.
They sure are. And if you let less regulation into the market you"ll get - what - less testing? More unsafe, unproven drugs? Companies allowed to put whatever supplements they want in foods? Oh, there might be the occasional "miracle drug" that gets to market quicker but more likely you"ll see many more "miracle drugs" that do nothing and possibly do more harm.
This is not theoretical, we have been down this road before. It's the entire US history before food and drug regulation was established. People lived much shorter, much more miserable lives then.
The drug companies are the ones that invent the drugs and test them. The FDA only approves of them. http://mises.org/daily/1805 We certainly have been under this road too long and too many times, the operation of the FDA is just indefensible no matter how noble it's intentions may sound.
http://mises.org/daily/4434 Drug companies should be allowed to put what ever they want in their drugs. It is not like some devious company wants to place poison or Uranium deliberately into their products. They want profits, not losses. Ad the only way to do that is by delivering a good quality product.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
No they weren't. That was changed.
es, giving people less access to healthcare will be better. I'm sure the old folks who need medicine and doctors visits will appreciate dying quicker due to being unable to visit the hospital once their healthcare is removed. And all the people who live off their SS? Well too bad for you. These are great ideas, Basically, you are saying Obama can fix the country by letting a bunch of people die broke of treatable conditions.
Of course, if there's fewer people to treat because people are dying in the street, costs WILL go down!
Your full of it and resorting to spin. Taking away HC? are kidding and make it unaffordable for people are you kidding me? If the market is allowed to operate freely then naturally the cost of goods and services drops over time. Ad quality increases. Plastic surgeries and technology is not subsidized by govt spending, and therefore become easier to afford over time. Of course govt cannot provide HC because of then massive spending that will soon follow it as Medicare and medicaid prove. And don't even get me started with govt run HC where there is massive inefficiencies and massive endless waiting lines.
Yes, let's return to the days of Upton Sinclair! People lived so much longer, better lives back when the government didn't regulate food and medicines and had no social programs. After all, the average man lived to be almost 50 then - almost!
Did you know that the FDA is inefficient when it comes to approving drugs? basically what it does, is that it protects the bigger pharma companies from the smaller ones reducing competition. Also when a new drug is created by a small company ad wish to profit from it on the market, FDA approval often happens to be tedious and takes years.... YEARS! here is one good example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7PdO8yzXIQ&feature=channel_video_title While people are dying waiting for that miracle drug to reach them, the FDA continues to lag behind o the much needed drugs and medicines needed, often leaving patience with no hope what so ever.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I find it ironic reading comments about how the govt and the presidency are doing too little or nothing to help the American people. The truth is the exact opposite. Govt is doing TOO MUCH work. Nationalized health care? EPA,, FDA, FAA regulations? countless entitlement programs? any many more. Govt spending causes bubbles and inflation. Massive regulations that choke the private sector forcing business people to spend more time and money on not hiring and creating jobs. Just recently in the state of Maryland a group of 9-10 year olds were fined for not having a permit to open their own lemonade stand. It is insanity. If govt just got out of HC all together by getting rid of the affordable hc act, SS, medicare and medicaid all of which are forms of subsidies for HC raises the price of HC making it unaffordable for the lower income citizens. It's just like how the price of education keeps sky rockets semester after semester the more govt aid is handed out.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Also, thanks to the rise of obesity and obesity-related conditions like diabetes, the rate of increase of life expectancy has tapered down. Some are predicting a decline as more Americans are pushed from the middle-class ranks downwards towards poverty levels.
LOL! I actually somehow knew you would pull the Obese card on life expectancy. Your grappling at straws now. L.E is increases regardless of Obesity.Notice how i typed "average" American not the exceptions. Most Americans are not obese. When your Obese you cannot even walk on your own. The vast majority are in over all average shape.
fter OMB, the House is the one responsible for forming the budget. President Obama submitted the 2012 budget to Congress on February 14 of this year, and it was defeated by Congress. (Actually, by the constitution, it is the House of Representatives that has the direct responsibility for the budget.) The House has been controlled by Republicans since January. So, where's their budget?
The republican budget was defeated. But hey, they did propose one as opposed to the democrats whom did not even bother proposing one 2006-2010, that is going to continue to sting you. At his peak Bush spent $3.1 billion per week. Currently at his peak Obama spends $4.3 billion per week. Don't forget Mr. Obama's campaign promise of halving the deficit within his first term, instead the opposite happen.
Look, its just indefensible the democrats simply did not bother to propose or even had a budget plan which is where most of the deficit came from. Obama whom was senator around this time was also partly responsible for this. I am done with this thread.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Will 310 million Americans live to be 100? Try doing some research on actuarial tables and risk pooling.
Just look at the how life expectancy climbed since 1930. When SS was signed into law the life expectancy of the average American was 63. Then it climbed to 69, then 77, now its 83 and showing no signs of slowing down. Will most of the 310 million Americans live to be 100? perhaps. Now that baby boomers are starting to enter retirement, we will just have to wait and see. I would not be surprised if in 8.5 decades from now i end up to be 110 years and still kickin.
The budget is formed by the OMB, which falls under the executive branch.
OMB or the Office Management Budget is there to do just as its name implies. To manage, it over sees not creates.
But anyways, while both parties are guilty the Democrats even more so. Spending sky rocketed exponentially 2006 to 2010 and without a budget set into law. Without a budget you just have a bunch of bills with earmarks attached to them being rammed down by the govt. And in that time frame deficit climbed from $7 trillion to the $14.3 trillion of today. Of course when Bush came into office Debt was already around IMO about $1 trillion or so.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
LOL!! I genuinely hope the Republicans will hoist that plan of action to the very front of their strategy in 2012.
Whether one likes it or not or even cares to admit, SS is unsustainable since it's first recipient Ida May Fuller whom received $22,888.92 and lived up to be 100. Try that plus more with 310 million Americans.
Tell that to Bill Clinton.
No, tell that to Newt Gingrich. The president does not balance the budget, the house speaker does. As it turns out Gingrich was the house speaker during Clintons years and passed the first balanced budget in years. And now that you mentioned Clinton, you do realize it was him whom actually started the idea that Pres Obama should invoke the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling right? when the amendment says nothing about the debt ceiling nor is a power vested to the presidency.
LOL! The Democrats didn't regain power until January of 2009. So three full years of the 5 year period you mention were completely controlled by Republicans. Care to trip yourself up again?
The midterm elections were in 2006 and it's session began in 2007. Nancy Pelosi was elected for house speaker around the same time. So yeah I'm 100% correct on all my stated facts.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Boehners debt plan is only miniscule as to what really needs to be cut. Cuts need to vary over a trillion dollars ot in the billions. Entire entitlement programs either need to be privatized or abolished altogether. Harry Reids plan is just plainly worse then Boehners plan. Which is no too surprising considering Harry Reids profession is Lawyer. A lawyer can never balance a nations budget, let alone understand most fiscal matters. Most Democrats are lawyers/attorneys or political scientist and little to no business men/women. he republicans at least have some competent business men/women within their ranks.
It would be great if we STOPPED electing attorneys and lawyers as our leaders completely. Most of this nations debt was incurred in the time frame of 2006-2010 when the Democrats were in power and proposed absolutely no budget plan what so ever in that time frame. But instead went on a massive multi-trillion dollar spending spree.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
i 100% agree with Kimachi. Those that advocate for MC in Japan or any other country are actually bigots in themselves whom have an exalted blinkered world view believing that they can force other countries to accept their ideas. It's an authoritarian mentality where they would actually use govt forced legislation upon another if need be to achieve their strange goals.
0 ( +4 / -4 )
It`s usually conservative people who commit mass killings.
Hitler, and etc.
Nazism = Nationalist socialist part. Which is far left or statist. But anyways most of the commentators here blaming religion as the root of all wars especially the egalitarian no religion peaceful world atheist spout the same nonsense over and over without even questioning the validity of such an outrageous claim. All wars are fought over land, resources and expanding hegemony. In some of these third world countries where there is civil strife is not because of religion but because of a lack of acknowledgement private property rights. Nor can religion be blamed for most of humanities killings. If we go by the power law redistribution, then we understand that more people are killed after each successive major war. For example the 20th century saw the deaths of over 100 million under atheist regimes. Much more so then previous centuries where deaths numbered in the hundreds, followed by thousands and followed by the tens of thousands.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
People are labeling this lone wolf terrorist both "far-right" and a "neo-nazi". First off nazism is far left or better yet "progressivism" as it is based on national socialist policies. So it would be an oxymoron to label the man far right and a neo-nazi.
Also, attacks like these are only going to continue. It should not be hard to believe but unfortunately most things that happen in northern Scandinavia stays there. That means most people outside that region of the world are unaware of whats going on their. It's gotten to the point where mosques are being torched and burned down. And even muslims gang raping non-muslims and not being held accountable by law under the excuse of "tolerance". Given the social and political atmosphere of these countries, there is certainly no will to combat these problems. The average norwegian/swede/finland, just buries their head under the hand pretending their is no problem or wishing for it to go away.
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
@Tigertrap There is no such thing as "excessive" savings. Savings are savings regardless of how much. Public deficit spending does not work as it always helps lead to a inflation tax and other unintended consequences. You cannot have a surplus by raising taxes as it is always counter productive. To have surpluses, you must cut spending and lower taxes. Cutting spending inevitably leads to deregulation which is good. ALL my economic information comes from the Austrian school of Economics ad the mises institute. "mises.org". Keynsianism does not even have a business cycle Here http://mises.org/daily/4431 here http://mises.org/daily/672 here for Keynes upside down world http://mises.org/daily/3413 here http://mises.org/daily/5477/Hutts-Crushing-Blow-to-Keynes ad lastly http://mises.org/daily/5420/The-Liquidation-Phase-and-Profit-Margins
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
@ Tigertrap Oh yes Keynesianism DOES in fact see surpluses as a bad thing, obviously you have been either misled or brainwashed or refuse o education your OWN self. Keynesinism is based on John Maynard Keynes theories. Here are some quotes from the man himself "The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. ""In the long run we are all dead"" and ""The avoidance of taxes is the only intellectual pursuit that carries any reward. "". He also attacked those that were frugal in their earnings with much ridicule, despite the fact that he himself saved money as well.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
@Tokyokawasaki They won't, the dominant way of thinking is a school of though known as Keynesian economics. Which strangely sees surpluses as a bad thing and deficits as a good thing. It also advocates for "pump priming" ( govt deficit spending) to boost the economy. The Keynesian models will have to first destroy itself then people will come to their senses.
0 ( +2 / -2 )