U.S. Politics, Elections & Culture issues

[DraganOfStip]

Originally Posted by Gocka

Numbers are not your forte my friend.

So lets start out with the first chart. Net wealth in billions. I'm going to assume that this basically means the net worth of all assets held by citizens of each country.

In any comparison its always important to make sure you compare apples to apples. In this case in order for the numbers to make any sense you first need to account for population differences. Sweden for example has only 9.5 million residents compared to the USA which has 320 million. A quick calculation shows that if Sweden were the size of the USA its wealth would be 82054 billion which would basically put it level with the USA in new wealth. So we've established the wealth per capita is basically the same. Now lets dive into some specifics. The USA is blessed with an abundance of resources, almost every type of resource on the planet can be found in the USA. Oil, gas, coal, farmland, coasts, rivers, iron, copper, silver, gold, timber, minerals, you name it they have. You can grow anything, tropical foods in Florida and California, corn, wheat, and potatoes in the Midwest, cold weather foods in the north west. No other country on the planet, other than maybe Russia (limited to energy and minerals) can boast so much variety and quantity of resources. Even China which is a massive land mass, has only a tiny fraction of the resources, primarily energy that the USA has. What does this all mean? It means that no matter what kind of system you Have in place, the USA has a massive advantage to create wealth, it has shit to sell. Now what if you confined the USA to only one region within its current borders, what if the USA was only the Midwest, or only the north east, or only the west or south? Sweden on the other hand has very limited resources, it exports 0 oil. So it has to work much harder to generate economic activity. Still it manages to hold as much wealth per capita as the USA, that has basically every competitive advantage possible over Sweden. So Sweden for "communist nightmare" is actually quite the capitalist. Frankly after being forced by you to actually dig deeper, I was surprised at whole wealthy they are, and how well they have done with so few resources.

Norway either divided per capita (5 million citizens) or multiplied up to the US population, is actually wealthier than the USA at 86080.

Denmark is the weakest of the Nordic trio with a scaled wealth of 71500. Putting it still firmly right behind the USA and Sweden with Norway leading.

Japan 58,400

China 4897 (third on the chart) but in real terms is probably near the bottom. This is a perfect illustration of why simply posting numbers, charts, and statistics, without context, or details is utterly useless and misleading.

France 74200 (another supposed socialist hell hole not far behind the USA while again also not have a fraction of the resources and having many times more government benefits and very low amounts of hours worked.

Canada 68571 Another socialist hell hole not too far behind the USA with a single payer healthcare system

Switzerland, 142000, not that is not a typo, they have 70% more wealth per capita than the USA. Again a country with strong social benefits or a Social Democracy.

Netherlands 51000

Belgium 73570

Austria 57300

Some of these are land locked and most have no natural resources to speak of and significant restrictions on what can be planted and produced, yet they still maintain high levels of wealth and social benefits. The USA ranks last in social benefits among the those top few.

So thank you for proving that some socialist ideas, can be successfully implemented and integrated with capitalist economies.

I wonder how well the USA would do if it were the size of Macedonia, land locked with no energy or minerals. They would probably eat each other.

The second chart is a better way of looking at it which is basically what I calculated above, the only difference it says per Adult instead of per capita. Again context. Europe has an aging population, a larger proportion of their total population is an "adult" and that means you mathematically they are disadvantaged by that kind of calculation yet still Norway ranks higher than the USA and Sweden almost on par.

Clearly the number show that despite Norway being "socialist" it hasn't harmed personal wealth, and economic success. I have to again stress it is amazing how well they do with in such a limited ability.

There is a reason you never see Swedish or Norwegian people other than tourists, its pretty nice where they come from.

Finally I'd even dispute the validity or at a minimum the relevance of these figures given that Greece, GREECE, let me say that again GREECE when factoring for population is 30,000??? So the the average Greek has 2.7 times less wealth than an American? Greece is a mere step above Macedonia in terms of salaries and wealth.

This time all the Nordic countries and even Australia made it ahead of the USA, and Ireland is right behind. Again the numbers are not in favor of your argument. Despite supposed horrible socialistic polices the Nordic countries boast better GDP per capita, which is the same as what you like to call "productivity". So I guess they are not just a bunch of lazy welfare suckers, but actually more productive than capitalist Americans, with limitless potential and resources.

Couldn't explain that better myself
I would also add that Nordic countries have about 9 months of winter per year due to geography,which also adds to the limits of natural resources exploitation...

[DraganOfStip]

Originally Posted by Tomche Makedonche

Well I think we can both agree that the current economic situation of an individual country can be attributed to a number of individual factors, usually specific to that country alone. However, whilst you like to point out the 7 or so ex-socialist European countries that have recovered reasonably well economically (which is a good thing for the people of those countries), I think limiting your point on average monthly salaries to only those select countries does not provide a total reflection of the current economic situation the majority of people in ex-socialist countries in Europe experience.

In light of the above, and in the interests of providing a more complete picture, I have listed below the current average monthly net wages of other ex-socialist European republics.

Albania
€353

Bulgaria
€356

Romania
€417

Moldova
€181

Armenia
€314

Azerbaijan
€319

Belarus
€308

Georgia
€307

Kazakhstan
€310

Kosovo
€360

Lithuania
€554

Ukraine
€141

Russia
€395

Bosnia Herzegovina
€425

Serbia
€363

Whether any current economic trends amongst the above countries listed can be attributed to the effects of socialism, I’ll leave for others to debate, however, as I said previously, I am personally of the opinion that the effects of socialism in Macedonia (specifically), has had a significant impact on the way Macedonians view the role government plays over the administration of their lives, including the disconnection of accountability between the citizenry and government.

Like I said,i didn't say it hasn't had it's fair share.
I don't think you read my posts correctly,I haven't denied that.
Having said that,from what you posted above,just a handful of those countries have less average salary than Macedonia.
Hell,even shitholes like Kosovo and Bosnia have salaries above Macedonian average,something that's very disappointing and sad to see.
What I was saying was that with the right people and right reforms countries have recovered quite well.
Something we're yet to see in our republic.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Vangelovski

I'm digging around a little deeper on this whole Nordic model and I'm even less convinced of its relative merit.

Firstly, no country even comes close to the net national wealth of the United States:


images

The Nordic countries don't even make it into the top ten and some of them don't even make it into the top 30 (according to these estimates).

In terms of mean wealth per adult, only Norway ranks higher than the US. Sweden is roughly on par, while the others fall behind:


pic upload

This does not suggest to me that the Nordic economic systems are somehow economically more productive relative to the US or other capitalist countries.

Good ol' Uncle Tom...excessively arse kissing the USA.

[DraganOfStip]

Originally Posted by 777Bitola

He has good ideas but the biggest thing throwing me off is that he admitted the wealthy could be taxed up to 90%. Now I admit I'm not wealthy, but I work hard every day to try and become the top 1% and in 5-10 years or in my early 30s I'd hope to be that way , so this definetly discourages me with voting for him.

So you're planning on winning the lottary soon ?

[Vangelovski]

Originally Posted by Gocka

I dont know, I think there may be, and if there is not than there should be. Its a pointless question which you have latched onto like a leech. At worst its an idealized scenario, which is not unlike most of what you say.

A pointless question - its your ideal and when the question arises as to whether its possible or its been done, all of a sudden its a pointless question?

[Vangelovski]

Originally Posted by Risto the Great

Surely Macao is the cradle of communism!

I looked up the same statistics. Looking at average earnings without looking at GDP seems to be only telling half the story. I would contend that the countries that missed out on the benefits of the industrial revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries were more likely to be at the bottom of the list. Not sure we can blame the commies for everything, though I am sure some of that stench has stuck.

Wasn't Macao under Portugese rule (and largely autonomous) until recently? I thought it had a similar deal to Hong Kong - two systems, one country. I might be wrong.

Some of those countries, like the Czech Republic, Hungary and the Baltics did join the industrial revolution to an extent, but I think socialism killed whatever advantage they may have had among their eastern neighbours. Had they not experienced 50 years of socialism, I think they might have been much closer to the west in terms of economic development now.

[Vangelovski]

Originally Posted by Gocka

Numbers are not your forte my friend.

The real question is whether they are your forte.

Originally Posted by Gocka

So lets start out with the first chart. Net wealth in billions. I'm going to assume that this basically means the net worth of all assets held by citizens of each country.

The definition given by Credit Suisse was along the lines of Assets minus Liabilities.

Originally Posted by Gocka

In any comparison its always important to make sure you compare apples to apples.

Really?? Because when it comes to guns, you seem to like comparing not only apples and oranges, but throw in some pears and bananas for good measure. Now you want apples with apples?

Originally Posted by Gocka

In this case in order for the numbers to make any sense you first need to account for population differences. Sweden for example has only 9.5 million residents compared to the USA which has 320 million.

And hence the second table.

Originally Posted by Gocka

A quick calculation shows that if Sweden were the size of the USA its wealth would be 82054 billion which would basically put it level with the USA in new wealth.

That’s a massive assumption…and yes, a very quick and very, very dirty calculation.

Originally Posted by Gocka

So we've established the wealth per capita is basically the same.
Now lets dive into some specifics. The USA is blessed with an abundance of resources, almost every type of resource on the planet can be found in the USA. Oil, gas, coal, farmland, coasts, rivers, iron, copper, silver, gold, timber, minerals, you name it they have. You can grow anything, tropical foods in Florida and California, corn, wheat, and potatoes in the Midwest, cold weather foods in the north west. No other country on the planet, other than maybe Russia (limited to energy and minerals) can boast so much variety and quantity of resources. Even China which is a massive land mass, has only a tiny fraction of the resources, primarily energy that the USA has. What does this all mean? It means that no matter what kind of system you Have in place, the USA has a massive advantage to create wealth, it has shit to sell. Now what if you confined the USA to only one region within its current borders, what if the USA was only the Midwest, or only the north east, or only the west or south? Sweden on the other hand has very limited resources, it exports 0 oil. So it has to work much harder to generate economic activity. Still it manages to hold as much wealth per capita as the USA, that has basically every competitive advantage possible over Sweden. So Sweden for "communist nightmare" is actually quite the capitalist. Frankly after being forced by you to actually dig deeper, I was surprised at whole wealthy they are, and how well they have done with so few resources.

Boo hoo. Nature and history are unforgiving. I think you completely understate the natural resources of Russia and China. I would have to look at the details, but I’d say that Russia at least has much more natural resources and capacity for agriculture than the US. The problem was socialism.

In terms of Sweden, per capita wealth and GDP is virtually the same, but it doesn’t take an abundant land mass to produce wealth. Qatar, Luxemburg and Singapore are basically city states. The production of wealth has less to do with land mass and more do to with the economic and political systems in place, plus individual capabilities. You’ve tried to paint the US as some sort of dystopia and the Nordic models as much superior. That’s just ridiculous and the fact is that most of the Nordic countries are out-ranked by the US.

Originally Posted by Gocka

Norway either divided per capita (5 million citizens) or multiplied up to the US population, is actually wealthier than the USA at 86080.

Denmark is the weakest of the Nordic trio with a scaled wealth of 71500. Putting it still firmly right behind the USA and Sweden with Norway leading.

Japan 58,400

China 4897 (third on the chart) but in real terms is probably near the bottom. This is a perfect illustration of why simply posting numbers, charts, and statistics, without context, or details is utterly useless and misleading.

France 74200 (another supposed socialist hell hole not far behind the USA while again also not have a fraction of the resources and having many times more government benefits and very low amounts of hours worked.

Canada 68571 Another socialist hell hole not too far behind the USA with a single payer healthcare system

Switzerland, 142000, not that is not a typo, they have 70% more wealth per capita than the USA. Again a country with strong social benefits or a Social Democracy.

Netherlands 51000

Belgium 73570

Austria 57300

These are just fuzzy calculations based on the assumption that existing economic productiveness would flow through in the same proportions for a larger population.

Originally Posted by Gocka

Some of these are land locked and most have no natural resources to speak of and significant restrictions on what can be planted and produced, yet they still maintain high levels of wealth and social benefits. The USA ranks last in social benefits among the those top few.

What do you mean by social benefits? If we’re moving into the warm and fuzzy, why can’t we look at more tangible factors such as freedom rankings? I know the only important factors for socialists are happy thoughts, but for some of us genuine freedom is ranked as a much more important factor.

Originally Posted by Gocka

So thank you for proving that some socialist ideas, can be successfully implemented and integrated with capitalist economies.

Actually, the point was that your dystopian picture of the US is ridiculous. The US still ranks higher than most Nordic countries on all of the indicators I provided.

Originally Posted by Gocka

The second chart is a better way of looking at it which is basically what I calculated above, the only difference it says per Adult instead of per capita. Again context. Europe has an aging population, a larger proportion of their total population is an "adult" and that means you mathematically they are disadvantaged by that kind of calculation yet still Norway ranks higher than the USA and Sweden almost on par.

Children don’t actually own much, if anything at all, so I would find it strange to include them. Further, if Norway’s population is ageing, then boo hoo – maybe socialism isn’t providing what’s necessary to reproduce?

Originally Posted by Gocka

Clearly the number show that despite Norway being "socialist" it hasn't harmed personal wealth, and economic success. I have to again stress it is amazing how well they do with in such a limited ability.

And again, you’re dystopian vision of the US is ridiculous as it clearly outranks most Nordic countries.

Originally Posted by Gocka

Finally I'd even dispute the validity or at a minimum the relevance of these figures given that Greece, GREECE, let me say that again GREECE when factoring for population is 30,000??? So the the average Greek has 2.7 times less wealth than an American? Greece is a mere step above Macedonia in terms of salaries and wealth,

The unfortunate reality is that Greece is actually more than a mere step above Macedonia in economic terms. Its just Macedonian mythologising that puts Greece at the same level economically. Its also politically much, much more mature.

[Amphipolis]

Originally Posted by Gocka

Finally I'd even dispute the validity or at a minimum the relevance of these figures given that Greece, GREECE, let me say that again GREECE when factoring for population is 30,000??? So the the average Greek has 2.7 times less wealth than an American? Greece is a mere step above Macedonia in terms of salaries and wealth,

The ratio of welth (GDP per capita) between USA:Greece is indeed around 2,5:1 (latest data at the end of 2014).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...%29_per_capita

[George S.]

How can you compare gdp when the country is in huge debt and is facing bankruptcy.
Gdp means nothing if you can'r repay your debts.

[Gocka]

Oh Thomas.

The scaling up to account for population is the same as scaling down to per capita, its based on the same calculation. The point is simple, even though many of these countries are many times smaller, have high rates of social spending, have a fraction of the resources of the USA, they are disadvantaged in every aspect yet still do just fine economically.

You fail to address why they are not failing? According to you social spending brings less "freedom" and will crumble any economy to the depths of Balkan countries? Why isn't that happening to 7 of the top 10 wealthiest nations who are heavily socialized? You love to boil down an argument to one question, here it is. Explain to us why these countries are not being dragged down despite their socialistic ways?

How does Russia have more capacity for farming when most of its land mass is uninhabitable not to mention farmable? The USA has half a dozen different climates that you can grown almost anything on earth on. What can Russia grow wheat and potatoes, and ice? Russia has lots of energy and some minerals, but as a whole it is a dwarf to the USA. China for its size and population has a fraction of even Russia's natural resources. It has very little energy and a decent capacity for farming.

Hold on let me dig out my freedom meter so we can rank countries by freedomness, I think its measured in the unit BS, or as its know to common folk as bullshit.

By the way your the one who brought up the figures, so dont get pissy with me that they dont prove what you thought they did. The only reason I scaled up the first chart is because it was visually misleading. Ranking the Nordic countries way bellow China. If you were to imprint that information on a bar chart or line chart it would look even worse, which is why I constantly warn you about statistics.

You fail to admit to what is the big elephant in the room, which is that the Nordic countries are quite socialist, quite stable, quite peaceful, and economically quite strong. All these facts go against your assertion that the sky will fall and we will eat stale bread if we strengthen social systems.

Oh and Qatar? Yes its pretty tiny, and has more oil per capita than any other country on earth. Take away the oil and they are Macedonia. Its not boo hoo, but you are trying to attribute luck with nature, to economic and social systems, you are the one trying to make a correlation between things that are unrelated.