Does Sweden have nationalized industry, or just high taxes and a large welfare state? I have no idea. Sometimes people conflate the two, but socialism is pretty much defined by the government owning business.
40% of stores close in Venezuela after minimum wage hike
- Thread starter UCFWayne
- Start date
Does Sweden have nationalized industry, or just high taxes and a large welfare state? I have no idea. Sometimes people conflate the two, but socialism is pretty much defined by the government owning business.
the 2 very best case scenarios for socialism to start and succeed both happened here in the us and both failed miserably. socialism will never succeed because of human nature.
Property rights are a pillar of freedom in this world. People can never be free if property is held communally or by government.
All of you that are arguing for socialized health care and more federal government programs need to go bring up your retirement accounts and take a good look at them. Now, imagine that they are gone and ask yourself if the government programs were worth it. Because seizure of retirement accounts is one of the first things socialist governments use to pay off their exorbitant spending.
Can't happen here? When you have mainstream Democrats that believe that tax cuts are giving you money rather than letting you keep what you make and Obama with the "you didn't build that" speech, you can be assured they believe that all wealth is community wealth. Well, except theirs of course. It's a very short step from there to rationalizing that you built that retirement unfairly and you need to give it back for the common good.
Very little is nationalized in Sweden.
But, look at the replies in this thread. ANYTHING that involves a better distribution of wealth is considered to be evil Socialism to these simpletons, and will always result in dictatorship and complete Communist takeover. The word is bastardized and twisted for people who cannot comprehend the concepts of wealth distribution, collective bargaining and labor rights, quality of life, education, and individual healthcare and retirement safeguards. These are all areas where the vast majority of westernized democracies are schooling the United States.
This is categorically bullshit. You just want to envision that everyone who disagrees with you is a meanie vulture capitalist, intent on sticking it to poor people. Anyone who dares not gush over Sweden's economic system is instantly vilified by you. It's such a tired and cliché reaction from you.
If you were able to give concrete reasoning behind the claims you make, maybe you wouldn't be vilified.
My favorite part about all this socialist and capitalist stuff is the people I know. I’ve worked for several private equity owned companies, mostly based in Boston and Connecticut. It would be very easy for me to say the 90% of the senior leadership for each of those companies are democrats. I’m talking about people who’s annual income is in the eight figure range. I’m on my fourth PE Firm and these are the same people that lead Chemmies issues.
So, @UCFKnight85, lets just stick to the first question of the three that you refuse to answer:
What, exactly, makes it "unsustainable?"
What is your reasoning behind your statement that Sweden's welfare system is "unsustainable." There has to be some kind of quantifiable evidence. Right? You wouldn't just believe something like that without solid reasoning, would you? Help us understand why Sweden's system will fail with some kind of fact-based evidence. Please.
What, exactly, makes it "unsustainable?"
What is your reasoning behind your statement that Sweden's welfare system is "unsustainable." There has to be some kind of quantifiable evidence. Right? You wouldn't just believe something like that without solid reasoning, would you? Help us understand why Sweden's system will fail with some kind of fact-based evidence. Please.
Socialism can be sustainable under either and preferably both of 2 circumstances:
1. People have less desire to attain wealth, or
2. The source of wealth isn't dependant on labor.
Alaska, if it were its own country could definitely survive and thrive under a socialist system due to massive natural resources and a small population. Venezuela is comparable but due to the desire of the ruling class to be ultra wealthy it didnt turn out so well.
1. People have less desire to attain wealth, or
2. The source of wealth isn't dependant on labor.
Alaska, if it were its own country could definitely survive and thrive under a socialist system due to massive natural resources and a small population. Venezuela is comparable but due to the desire of the ruling class to be ultra wealthy it didnt turn out so well.
That’s the rub; in order for true socialism to survive, people have to go against their natural instincts. Not a few, every person has to put aside their own interests for the better good. We simply are not programmed to do that on a large scale. Sure, you can create small pockets that will abide, but you’d have to strictly control who is part of your utopian society to only true believers. There would be no open borders, no diversity of thought, and you’d have to expel anyone that served their own baser instinct.
