Sick and tired of Cullen

[forkoil]

[QUOTE=Hinny;1584231]

Socialism isn't the answer... it's failed miserably in every country it's been tried

What are the countries with the highest standards of living today?

How would you describe their ruling political parties?

There is a widespread notion that the Scandinavian countries have crafted for themselves the highest standard of living in the world. Their socialist economies create the wealth needed to support this standard of living.

Um actually Switzerland Keith, I know it reasonably well, and NOT socialist :-) (ooops)

[Hinny]

[quote=forkoil;1584244]

[size=2]
Um actually Switzerland Keith, I know it reasonably well, and NOT socialist :-) (ooops)

I googled this and Switzerland did not come out on top on any list that I found.
Perhaps you could quote your information source.

[forkoil]

[QUOTE=Hinny;1584231]

Socialism isn't the answer... it's failed miserably in every country it's been tried

What are the countries with the highest standards of living today?

How would you describe their ruling political parties?

There is a widespread notion that the Scandinavian countries have crafted for themselves the highest standard of living in the world. Their socialist economies create the wealth needed to support this standard of living.

Well one measure of 'wealth' may be 'national GDP per capita'....?
Look at http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/viewhtml....e=view&lang=en page of OECD data and click on the 'comparison with other oecd countries' column. Only US, Norway and Lux are higher....

[Hinny]

[quote=forkoil;1584326]

[size=2]
Well one measure of 'wealth' may be 'national GDP per capita'....?
Look at http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/viewhtml....e=view&lang=en page of OECD data and click on the 'comparison with other oecd countries' column. Only US, Norway and Lux are higher....

As you say it may be one measure of wealth and is taken into account when deciding standards of living in many of the formulae that are used for this type of thing.
If you look at the UN standards of living rankings you will see that US rank above us. Analysis of the figures show that they only out score us in terms of GDP. In every other measure of well-offness we are ahead.
Large GDP doesn't prevent a country from becoming inhabited with poverty stricken, aggressive,poorly educated and unhealthy people.
Minimising these numbers surely should be the focus of any society to increase their standard of living.

[MisterD]

remember, if there's a carrot dangling in front of you; there's probably a stick somewhere behind

Yet another III logical fallacy - if there's a carrot dangling in front of you, it's hanging off the f-ing stick.

[devnull]

I will admit, though, that socialism has done one thing for us.
The same thing it's done for Sweden - promote youth crime.

In 1999, Helen Clark pledged to raise NZ up in the OECD rankings.
We have now fallen to 22 out of 30 countries.

But they have raised our ranking in one area - crime.
NZ now ranks at no. 2 - right behind Dominica

[forkoil]

What are the countries with the highest standards of living today?

How would you describe their ruling political parties?

There is a widespread notion that the Scandinavian countries have crafted for themselves the highest standard of living in the world. Their socialist economies create the wealth needed to support this standard of living.

OK then, rather than play a game of shoot the moving target, what is your target? How would you define "highest standards of living today" and then as you say, lets get the facts to support that standard.

[forkoil]

Large GDP doesn't prevent a country from becoming inhabited with poverty stricken, aggressive,poorly educated and unhealthy people.
Minimising these numbers surely should be the focus of any society to increase their standard of living.

Hey, have you got something against Sth Auckland!!!
Should it be the primary focus?
What should a country do to minimise the "poverty stricken, aggressive,poorly educated and unhealthy people"
Have the current Govt policies arrested or even shrunk the "underclass" in NZ?

[Hinny]

Read just about everything on Marx while doing my degree in Sociology and Psychology.

Read just about everything on Adam Smith while doing my Commerce degree.

Now I prefer to read about the next toy I'm going to buy

Yeah been there, done that.
What are you thinking of buying? I like new toys.
Bloody good job we still don't need overseas funds to buy them eh?

[MisterD]

that's the thing about capitalism; it favours the greedy above the needy

No, it favours those who want to get off their arses and make something for and of themselves.

Without capitalism, we would have had no agricultural revolution and no industrial revolution. It's simple - if there's no personal gain in doing anything, nothing will get done.

You characterise capitalists as greedy, and I would characterise someone prepared to sit on their arse and suck off societies tit in exactly the same way.

[Ixion]

No, it favours those who want to get off their arses and make something for and of themselves.

Without capitalism, we would have had no agricultural revolution and no industrial revolution. It's simple - if there's no personal gain in doing anything, nothing will get done.

You characterise capitalists as greedy, and I would characterise someone prepared to sit on their arse and suck off societies tit in exactly the same way.

I do not agree with the statement highlighted.

At the time of the agricultural revolution capitalism was almost non existent - the agricultural revolution was the work of the aristocrats and the great farmers. Coke of Holkham is of course the exemplar of the type.

As to the industrial revolution, it depends on when you define it as starting. Certainly the early industrial enterprises owed nothing to capitalists. In almost every case the mills and mines which were the enterprises of the early Industrial revolution were run and operated by their owners. By the end of the C19, yes capitalists were certainly in the picture. But I would call that post Industrial Revolution

It is the defining attribute iof the capitalist that he takes little or no part in the day to day running of the enterprises he finances. His role is to provide money and collect profits.

[Flatcap]

At the time of the agricultural revolution capitalism was almost non existent .

The Good Old Days as far as III is concerned,

when everyone had an equal chance of dying before their 20s

[MisterD]

I do not agree with the statement highlighted.

At the time of the agricultural revolution capitalism was almost non existent - the agricultural revolution was the work of the aristocrats and the great farmers. Coke of Holkham is of course the exemplar of the type.

As to the industrial revolution, it depends on when you define it as starting. Certainly the early industrial enterprises owed nothing to capitalists. In almost every case the mills and mines which were the enterprises of the early Industrial revolution were run and operated by their owners. By the end of the C19, yes capitalists were certainly in the picture. But I would call that post Industrial Revolution

It is the defining attribute iof the capitalist that he takes little or no part in the day to day running of the enterprises he finances. His role is to provide money and collect profits.

The point I am making, is that without capitalist principals ie the ability of any individual to own property, invest and make profits under the law of the land, (rather than the behest of a local king or baron who holds land under patronage because he's handy with a sword) we would not have had those two step-changes in the development of society.

I don't like the definition of capitalist that you and III are using. IMO a capitalist is anyone who believes in the principals of capitalism, which are that effectively, money and the market talks - you're telling me a capitalist is just someone who's done well out of the system? That can't logically hold surely?

[Hinny]

Hey, have you got something against Sth Auckland!!!
Should it be the primary focus?
What should a country do to minimise the "poverty stricken, aggressive,poorly educated and unhealthy people"
Have the current Govt policies arrested or even shrunk the "underclass" in NZ?

We need a high level of self-knowledge and public debate if we are to accurately diagnose our current condition, celebrate success and identify failures to date and set ambitious strategies for future prosperity.
Using 2007 economic development statistics to measure our progress against other OECD countries.
The factors showing improvement in recent years are: investment; formal measures of innovation such as research and development spending; innovation within companies such as the rate of new product development; direct investment in New Zealand by overseas companies; workforce skills; university graduates as a percentage of the workforce; spending on information and communication technology; investment in energy; and the government's fiscal balance.
>>
Four factors have fallen compared with OECD averages: personal savings rates; outward direct investment overseas by New Zealand companies; balance of payments; and the country's net foreign asset position.
>>
On the remaining 11 factors there is no broad change versus our competitors: financial market development; innovation linkages such as between companies and universities; international trade; management skills; school education; transport; quality of the tax system; quality of regulation; inflation rate; exchange rate stability; and real interest rates.

I'm sorry for being a bastard and arguing with facts but that's just the kinda guy I am.

[Skyryder]

Capitalism is an 'economic' system that relies on the investment of private capitol for the production and distibution of goods.

A capitalist is a person who invests his private capitol for the above/or one who believes in capitalism.


Skyryder