Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
I dunno there, Crash, Ted may be right this time. According to Wickipedia, he don't look too middle-of-the-road from here.
"Richard D. Wolff (born April 1, 1942) is an American heterodox economist, well known for his work on Marxian economics, economic methodology, and class analysis."
"Their topics have included Marxian theory and value analysis, overdetermination, radical economics, international trade, business cycles, social formations, the Soviet Union, and comparing and contrasting Marxian and non-Marxian economic theories."
Jeepers! And I thought capitalism was the only game in town, here in the good ol' US of A. Truthfully, I'd much rather see a Scandinavian sort of hybrid socialism here, but the sheeple will never go for it. They'll never let it happen. But that's just me. And only a very few others. More's the pity.
@crash be careful what you wish for. I live in Scandinavia and there is no comparison. I can't wait to get home. The government incentives drive people to do strange things. Why, just this week I found myself staring in disbelief when the locals advised me, unsolicited, to drive to another country to buy milk because it is a third of the price.
Ouch! May I ask which country you're in, then? I should not paint them all with the same brush. An item sticks in my mind from Denmark that I've seen: Income there beyond the equivalent of $300,000.00 USD is taxed at nearly 100%. The message is: you don't need any more than that. Anyone could live well on $300,000.00, and so, having met that threshold, the society in which you live needs more from you for hospitals, roads, sewers and all the rest of it. That just plain appeals to me. ... Like the M.D. Michael Moore interviewed in England for his film, "Sicko." He "confronted" the doctor with the thought of going elsewhere so he could make even more money. Doctor said: "How much do you NEED?" He already had an apt. in town, cars for himself and the wife, a country home... And still some left over. "No worries," as they say in Australia.
“An item sticks in my mind from Denmark that I've seen: Income there beyond the equivalent of $300,000.00 USD is taxed at nearly 100%. The message is: you don't need any more than that.”
I haven’t found any proof of that but I did find this -
Under the Danish tax system, it is possible for a high-wage earner to pay up to 51.5% of their total income after gross tax, giving a total of 57% of total income.
Jeppers! (as you like to say) only 57% of total income! Send me a post card when you’ve moved there.
I stand corrected. I was referencing a thing I saw, that's all. Evidently, it wasn't accurate. ...Am I a minority of ONE about this stuff? If I made much more than I need, could live better than comfortably, be able to stash money away for the kids and all of that stuff, but the gov't taxed me at 57%, I'd be pretty happy, particularly with healthcare covered, too. If I have more, I expect to be taxed more. That's what a progressive income tax does. In the States, it's not progressive: it STOPS at the 38% rate or something close to that.
A particular bible verse or two comes to mind, but this discussion board is not about the bible. And the MARKETS surely aren't!
Let's not get carried away with apples & pomegranates here. There are significant offsets, such as no tuition or book fees for schooling all through university levels, health care, retirement and lots of other perks. Notice that I don't use the word "free" to describe any of that good stuff.
If a society wishes to organize itself so as to insure universal provision of important services at the expense of limiting private income, I see no problem. How well it actually works on a day-to-day level (reference 00BY's "milk" comment, above) is another issue entirely, and I have insufficient knowledge to comment on that.
I will observe though, that when needing directions in Scandinavia, we were informed that "of course, everyone here speaks English". That suggests that their education systems, if capable of successful universal multilingual instruction, are probably somewhat better than ours.
We did spend a fair amount of time traveling there, and I can assure you that there are plenty of neighborhoods that can easily be described as "upper middle class" or better, lots of marinas with nifty pleasure craft, and no shortage of high-end automobiles and shopping centers. Evidently the governments there are not completely confiscatory, for sure.
I think it very helpful to read the history of Europe in the 20th Century when judging whether or not the capitalism practiced there is comparable to the American form. Many of the countries,in both East and West blocs, had to re-organize themselves politically and economically from zero after two devastating wars. Most of them decided the collective good out-weighed the individual and that the creation of safety nets was carried out in the light of a real failure of governments to protect their citizens. The US has never experienced that degree of disastrous war damage inflicted by enemy nations.
"I think it very helpful to read the history of Europe in the 20th Century"
That's certainly true, but also superpose that modern history over the ancient European experiences of serfdom and later, the industrial revolution, for the complete picture. Those peoples have been places that the United States can only read about, and these days, not all that many here do even that.
"the collective good out-weighed the individual and that the creation of safety nets was carried out in the light of a real failure of governments to protect their citizens"
Now that's as concise an exposition as I've ever seen. Unfortunately, the "collective good" in the United States is usually the very last thing that our reactionary government is typically interested in.
Comments
Regards,
Ted
"Richard D. Wolff (born April 1, 1942) is an American heterodox economist, well known for his work on Marxian economics, economic methodology, and class analysis."
"Their topics have included Marxian theory and value analysis, overdetermination, radical economics, international trade, business cycles, social formations, the Soviet Union, and comparing and contrasting Marxian and non-Marxian economic theories."
http://www.democracyatwork.info/about/
As if modulating rapacious capitalism is going to result in, what, no more equity markets?? Please.
“An item sticks in my mind from Denmark that I've seen: Income there beyond the equivalent of $300,000.00 USD is taxed at nearly 100%. The message is: you don't need any more than that.”
I haven’t found any proof of that but I did find this -
Under the Danish tax system, it is possible for a high-wage earner to pay up to 51.5% of their total income after gross tax, giving a total of 57% of total income.
Jeppers! (as you like to say) only 57% of total income!
Send me a post card when you’ve moved there.
http://goscandinavia.about.com/od/denmar1/qt/10-Things-I-Hate-About-Denmark.htm
...Am I a minority of ONE about this stuff? If I made much more than I need, could live better than comfortably, be able to stash money away for the kids and all of that stuff, but the gov't taxed me at 57%, I'd be pretty happy, particularly with healthcare covered, too. If I have more, I expect to be taxed more. That's what a progressive income tax does. In the States, it's not progressive: it STOPS at the 38% rate or something close to that.
A particular bible verse or two comes to mind, but this discussion board is not about the bible. And the MARKETS surely aren't!
If a society wishes to organize itself so as to insure universal provision of important services at the expense of limiting private income, I see no problem. How well it actually works on a day-to-day level (reference 00BY's "milk" comment, above) is another issue entirely, and I have insufficient knowledge to comment on that.
I will observe though, that when needing directions in Scandinavia, we were informed that "of course, everyone here speaks English". That suggests that their education systems, if capable of successful universal multilingual instruction, are probably somewhat better than ours.
We did spend a fair amount of time traveling there, and I can assure you that there are plenty of neighborhoods that can easily be described as "upper middle class" or better, lots of marinas with nifty pleasure craft, and no shortage of high-end automobiles and shopping centers. Evidently the governments there are not completely confiscatory, for sure.
No, you're not.
That's certainly true, but also superpose that modern history over the ancient European experiences of serfdom and later, the industrial revolution, for the complete picture. Those peoples have been places that the United States can only read about, and these days, not all that many here do even that.
"the collective good out-weighed the individual and that the creation of safety nets was carried out in the light of a real failure of governments to protect their citizens"
Now that's as concise an exposition as I've ever seen. Unfortunately, the "collective good" in the United States is usually the very last thing that our reactionary government is typically interested in.