Google+ Followers

Blog Catalog

Friday, September 9, 2016

Socialism Worse Than Capitalism?

So many people in America claim Socialism is worse, far worse, frequently, for even people but especially for business.  They should think again.

This, from very Conservative, very Right Wing, very pro-business Forbes Magazine:

The Best Countries For Business 2015 

- Forbes

The U.S. falls in our rankings for a sixth straight year with low scores on monetary freedom and bureaucracy. Denmark leads a strong showing by Europe at the head of the class.

And who are the top ten on this "best countries for business list" from around the world? Check it out:

Denmark has ranked first in six of the 10 annual editions of FORBES’ Best Countries list. The country has been in the news in the U.S. lately thanks to Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who holds up the nation of 5.6 million people as a model socialist utopia. The country does have one of the highest individual tax burdens in the world in exchange for its wide-ranging services, but it is very much a market-based economy.

Denmark ranked in the top 20 in all but one of the 11 metrics we used to gauge the Best Countries for Business (it ranked 28th for red tape). It scored particularly well for freedom (personal and monetary) and low corruption. The regulatory climate is one of the world’s “most transparent and efficient,” according to the Heritage Foundation.

From there the list goes:

2. New Zealand
3. Norway
4. Ireland
5. Sweden
6. Finland
7. Canada
8. Singapore
9. Netherlands
10. United Kingdom

So there you are.  9 of the 10 "top countries for business" are all in Europe and all Socialist.

Oh, and they all also have universal health care. 

And no one goes bankrupt for health care costs.

So where is our own United States on this list, you might ask?

We aren't even in the top 15. 

The picture isn’t as bright for the U.S., which slides four spots to No. 22. It continues a six-year descent since 2009 when the U.S. ranked second overall. The U.S. is the financial capital of the world and its largest economy at $17.4 trillion (China is second at $10.4 trillion), but it scores poorly on monetary freedom and bureaucracy/red tape. More than 150 new major regulations have been added since 2009 at a cost of $70 billion, according to the Heritage Foundation.

So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. For any and all who think Socialism is horrible, period, in its own right and that any nation having it is, therefore, bad for business. It just patently isn't so.

Not only is intelligent Socialism better for the people, it can be and is also, in plenty of places in the world,  good for business. 

Let that sink in.

Seems Bernie Sanders was right all along, huh?


Sevesteen said...

Yes, it's possible to be a "best country for business" while retaining some socialist policies, that doesn't make socialism right. Corporate taxes are significantly lower than ours, and as far as I know they don't try to double tax foreign profits. Personal tax rates in Scandinavian countries are flatter, making everyone pay (although too much) rather than trying to make only the rich pay a disproportionate percentage.

I think there's a significant problem when the government is spending 50% of someone's income--50'% is way too high, but there is symbolism in the government deciding how to spend more than half of what you earn. And this applies however it is divided--I'm talking about taxes as a percent of GDP as well as any total taxes on what any particular individual earns and spends.

And for every Denmark, you've got a Venezuela. I haven't done the math, but I suspect for every citizen of a successful semi-socialist country you've got a handful of citizens of a Venezuela or Cuba or similar.

Mo Rage said...

You say "he government is spending 50% of someone's income..." and that "50% is way too high."

Our personal taxes have increased and are increasing because the proportion corporations pay since the 50's has been dropping. You and I are picking up the tab for their greed and the nation's expenses. The fact is, these Socialist countries are getting what they pay for in taxes, whereas we aren't. We're idiots and tie health care to profits. We have the most expensive health care in the nation and have the worst results, the worst mortality rates of any industrialized nation.

As for your claim that, "...for every Denmark, you've got a Venezuela", that' patently untrue. There are far more successful Socialist countries in the world and only Venezuela and Grerece are hurting financially. It's no way a one for one ratio.

Sevesteen said...

The US had the highest statutory corporate tax rates in the developed world, and nearly the highest effective rates even when corporate welfare is counted. That's somehow "not paying their fair share", but Denmark's much lower corporate tax rates (both before and after deductions) are to be applauded?

Personal taxes are up because the US government is spending a higher and higher percentage of the US Gross Domestic Product. Total spending keeps going up. This is a much bigger problem than who pays which share of this ever-increasing burden. The stats I see say we aren't at 50% yet, although I'm unclear on whether transfer payments count in the stats. Doesn't matter who is taxed, government can't keep growing like this forever.

Is there a percentage that's obviously too much government? Would it be OK if the government took 90% of your wages, as long as they assigned you enough stuff?

You complain about business moving overseas. You complain that the proportion of business taxes is dwindling...but your solution is to blame and tax the remaining ones even more. Then Hillary wants to charge an exit tax. If you had a choice in where to start a business, would you do it under those circumstances?

Lots of other examples of socialist failures-I wonder what percentage of "peoples republic of..." are successful by any sane definition? I'm sure you've got some excuse why they don't count. If the business economy is mostly left alone as is the case in Scandinavian countries they are much more likely to overcome welfare state policies--an excessively generous safety net is a symptom as much as a cause.

Mo Rage said...

I say again, because clearly I must, while the US has a high corporate tax rate on the books, the effective tax rates are lower. You should know that. If you don't, you can see it's so by searching it out here on the internet, quickly and easily.

If you're against government spending and debt and deficit--and it seems clear you are--then you should, of course, be absolutely against any increase in Defense spending, first, but more, you should be for cutting our Defense budget. This should be easily obvious and necessary. It's the one place we spend more than any other, bar none. Again, you should know that. Likely you do. It's a hugely bloated budget and we waste millions and billions of dollars, at least. So frequently, Right Wingers like yourself (and other Republicans, etc.) bemoan, again, debts and deficits and spending, but then say nothing about our absurd, even immoral defense spending. Cutting that spending would actually make the nation stronger. I would like to think you'd join me and all of us who know the cuts need to come there, for starters.

You make the mistake so many Right Wingers do. That is, you assume I'm not just for government but for more and more government. You couldn't be more mistaken. What I and a lot of us are for is just enough government to protect "the little guy", the middle- and lower- and working classes. We're for government that keeps things more fair and just. With the corporatization of not just the nation but the world and with the wealthy getting ever more so, government is the only thing between us and being eaten alive. By the way, it was Right Wing, Republican, "small government" George W. Bush that grew government so much and gave us the hugely wasteful "Homeland Security" Agency. It was no Liberal or Democrat.

If you think business moving overseas is a good idea and defend it, as you clearly seem to be, then you have a vastly different view of what's good for America than most Americans.

And business taxes are dwindling because the wealthy and corporations can give and are giving our government officeholders boodles of money in "campaign contributions." In doing so, they can buy the laws, right down to the tax laws, they want. And that is precisely what's happening. It's because of that that businesses are taking jobs offshore. We now reward them for it, thanks, again, mostly to Republicans and their stints leading in Congress.

It just kills you most of Europe and the Scandinavian countries are not just Socialist but that they work and they're good for the people and the whole nation, again, clearly. That would only be funny if it weren't also tragic. It kills me the way you deny their success.

Sevesteen said...

I clearly separated the statutory rate from the effective rate. The US average effective rate is still higher than the European average, higher than Denmark for example.

Once again, I'm neither right wing nor Republican--I'm for smaller government in all areas, including defense, pro choice in virtually all areas, including choices I disagree with like drugs. All recreational drugs should be legal, does that sound like a Republican to you? One of the economic advantages Europe has over the US is that they rely too much on US defense spending, so they can better afford social welfare programs without the tax rates needed for both.

Liberals may say that they are for smaller government, but the only significant cut they are willing to make is in defense and some corporate welfare where it isn't a trendy Green company--and they aren't reliable on cutting defense spending or foreign involvement. You want someone besides you to pay the taxes, ignoring that corporate taxes will always be passed on to consumers.

I've said before, I'm pretty sure here--Homeland security is an abomination. It's an excuse to grab power, and even the name sounds like a Soviet or Nazi branch of government. End it.

If I remember right, you sell (or used to) office furniture. If each of us is supposed to turn a blank room into a useful office for 50 people--would it make more sense for each of us do do all the work on our own office ourselves, or should I hire you to deal with the furniture in my office, and you hire me to do the computers and network in yours? (Assume that we aren't hundreds of miles apart for this) Even if one of us charges more for our part, there's a good chance both offices will turn out better and cheaper if we each specialize in the part we are good at. Most people don't understand economics, don't understand that trade deficits wind up investment surpluses, that competition makes things better...and that big business would rather NOT have competition, or wants to limit competition to other domestic companies.