[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ausneets / cafechan / ensenada / leftpol / strek / sw / thestorm ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Winner of the 24rd Attention-Hungry Games
/kemono/ - A match made in heaven

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


WARNING! Free Speech Zone - all local trashcans will be targeted for destruction by Antifa.

File: 16ba44049d600fb⋯.jpg (91.36 KB, 768x400, 48:25, 1963491_orig.jpg)

 No.74116

So how do you explain Scandinavia with its social democracy and high taxes? Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark… all of these countries are highly successful with good living standards no matter how you cut it despite having heavy regulations. And keep in mind it's still capitalism, so no screeching about "socialism" (ironically you would concede that socialism does work if you call it that) because the government has some stake in it, private property is still a thing.

hardmode:

no

>hurr durr sweden refugees

Yes yes, and now what about the rest of scandinavia? What about the system without the refugees in the equation?

 No.74118

We are not actually against the welfare state, we just say it so we can feel superior to those who are even poorer than us.


 No.74119


 No.74121

>>74119

thanks


 No.74128

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>74119

In addition to everything in this article, you have to keep in mind that Scandinavian states are actually economically freer than the United States in other ways. They have higher taxes in general, but a lower corporate tax, and fewer regulations on business itself, which leads to these countries scoring higher on the ease of doing business index.

I know he's seen as a hack around these parts (and rightly so), but Molyneux's video on the subject is surprisingly coherent.


 No.74139

File: b6c6655cf8afde0⋯.png (116.27 KB, 959x973, 137:139, statesGDPnew-1.png)

File: c4d75945cfe506c⋯.pdf (173.98 KB, Tax-Foundation-FF559.pdf)

File: 03016bc4b44c9a5⋯.png (27.59 KB, 884x601, 884:601, tax_burden_as_a_whole.png)

>>74116

>all of these countries are highly successful with good living standards no matter how you cut it despite having heavy regulations.

>"Gotcha!"

I explain it with pic related. It's based on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) instead of normal GDP, E.G. it's based on how much the "cost" is to buy a basket of common goods as well as a couple luxury items at a supermarket and converted into international dollars (which they use USD for simplicity because everyone trades in USD more or less). It's pretty much the most "accurate" way of measuring large-scale economies as it accounts for wealth gap. On a state-by-state basis, they're poorer than more than 2/3rds of the USA. If they had US corporate tax rates instead of the relatively low corporate tax rates that are the only thing keeping business there, they'd probably be poorer than Mississippi; the state that legally redefined the mental retardation cutoff point in the US by 10 points because its average IQ was just a few points shy of it.

See page 6 of PDF related for corporate tax rates, and second pic for consumer/total tax rates. Europe has relatively low corporate tax despite consumer tax being so high, which allows them to counterbalance and convince businesses to stay (well in reality those businesses are just hiring migrants from Eastern Europe, but we'll ignore that point for now since it's not my main point).


 No.74140

>>74128

Let's not forget that socially, the US and most of Mainland Europe developed a "gibs" complex back during the Great Depression, that is, the social aversion to welfare claims started to erode in the late 30s/early 40s. In Scandinavian cultures, aversion to welfare didn't begin to occur until much, much later (I think it was like the 80s/90s?).


 No.74145

Don't most of these countries spend less on their military because of the US bases near them? If you take that away and they have to spend on their own military wouldn't they have to reduce their welfare as a result?


 No.74146

>>74145

Or have even lower standards of living, yes.


 No.74154

File: 4b086e13124f9db⋯.pdf (1.57 MB, Nima Sanandaji - Scandinav….pdf)

>>74116

PDF related. Haven't read it yet, but plan to.

>>74119

>>74128

Also these.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ausneets / cafechan / ensenada / leftpol / strek / sw / thestorm ]