GG Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Ikea, seriously? Sure you want to use them as a case study?
birdog1960 Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Ikea, seriously? Sure you want to use them as a case study? you might want to read the economist link as well.
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 perhaps you should read the economist link. ikea was briefly mentioned among many other businesses arising from the robust entrepreneurial atmosphere in those stale nordic socialisms. but you knew that, right? .Nordic soft socialism works because it is applied to diminishing small, ethnically and culturally homogenous populations with ravenously defended shared cultural values and expectations; strong an limiting immigration policy, and ridgid assimilation demands placed on immigrants. And that still has zero bearing on the idiocy of defending the nationalization of markets by citing the success of a company that has thrived under a market economy. Nitwit.
reddogblitz Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 It's not an opinion, it's a fact, as history has borne out. Or are you going to now ask that I present evidence of the causal links between nationalization of markets and their inevitable collapse? And Sanders absolutely calls for the nationalization of markets. He describes it as the dissolution of investment banks. It means the same exact thing. Yes. Show me. No it doesn't.
birdog1960 Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) Nordic soft socialism works because it is applied to diminishing small, ethnically and culturally homogenous populations with ravenously defended shared cultural values and expectations; strong an limiting immigration policy, and ridgid assimilation demands placed on immigrants. And that still has zero bearing on the idiocy of defending the nationalization of markets by citing the success of a company that has thrived under a market economy. Nitwit. wow. break open a thesaurus did u? except as the economist article points out they are selling to a globally changing set of demographics. this isn't about their small countries. it's about the big, open minds fostered in those liberal socialisms. and sanders is a proponent of nordic style socialism. what is it about that statement that doesn't stick? i'm trying to imagine furniture that you might design….bad image... Edited July 31, 2015 by birdog1960
....lybob Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 That has a population roughly the size of New Jersey. I'm sure that'll extrapolate well. 26 million, more like the population of Texas-
DC Tom Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) perhaps you should read the economist link. ikea was briefly mentioned among many other businesses arising from the robust entrepreneurial atmosphere in those stale nordic socialisms. but you knew that, right? …. A robust entrepreneurial atmosphere created by implementing capitalist, market-based economic methods. With mature companies fleeing the country. Perhaps you should have read the economist link. 26 million, more like the population of Texas- Finland, not Sweden, dumbass. Edited July 31, 2015 by DC Tom
Magox Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Yes. because socialist nordic countries industries like ikea woefully lack all those things: http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21570834-nordic-region-becoming-hothouse-entrepreneurship-if-doubt-innovate?zid=293&ah=e50f636873b42369614615ba3c1 he's much more likely to gain some control over his destiny with sanders than with trump. I've already explained this to you, it helps that they have population of only 7 million with the oil revenues to pay for it all. Try again Yes. Show me. No it doesn't. Why show you? You won't even read the damn links
birdog1960 Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 A robust entrepreneurial atmosphere created by implementing capitalist, market-based economic methods. With mature companies fleeing the country. Perhaps you should have read the economist link. Finland, not Sweden, dumbass. well, no. gross mischaracterization but that's expected. here's what the piece actually said: The student revolution was part of a wider reconsideration of the proper relationship between government and business. This had started in 2008, when the Finnish government shook up the universities (and created Aalto) in an attempt to spur innovation. But it was speeded up by Nokia’s problems. Finland had become dangerously dependent on this one company: in 2000 Nokia accounted for 4% of the country’s GDP. The government wanted to make the mobile-phone giant’s decline as painless as possible and ensure that Finland would never again become so dependent on a single company. The Finns created an innovation and technology agency, Tekes, with an annual budget of €600m and a staff of 360. They also established a venture-capital fund, Finnvera, to find early-stage companies and help them get established. The centrepiece of their innovation system is a collection of business accelerators, partly funded by the government and partly by private enterprise, that operate in every significant area of business and provide potential high-growth companies with advice and support from experienced businesspeople and angel investors. Read more at http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21570834-nordic-region-becoming-hothouse-entrepreneurship-if-doubt-innovate#RdDxOLpjxiyJmCzB.99
Rob's House Posted July 31, 2015 Author Posted July 31, 2015 Yes. because socialist nordic countries industries like ikea woefully lack all those things: http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21570834-nordic-region-becoming-hothouse-entrepreneurship-if-doubt-innovate?zid=293&ah=e50f636873b42369614615ba3c1 Really? Speaking of the Nordic model: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571136-politicians-both-right-and-left-could-learn-nordic-countries-next-supermodel In the 1970s and 1980s the Nordics were indeed tax-and-spend countries. Swedens public spending reached 67% of GDP in 1993. Astrid Lindgren, the inventor of Pippi Longstocking, was forced to pay more than 100% of her income in taxes. But tax-and-spend did not work: Sweden fell from being the fourth-richest country in the world in 1970 to the 14th in 1993. Since then the Nordics have changed coursemainly to the right. Governments share of GDP in Sweden, which has dropped by around 18 percentage points, is lower than Frances and could soon be lower than Britains. Taxes have been cut: the corporate rate is 22%, far lower than Americas. The Nordics have focused on balancing the books. While Mr Obama and Congress dither over entitlement reform, Sweden has reformed its pension system (see Free exchange). Its budget deficit is 0.3% of GDP; Americas is 7%. On public services the Nordics have been similarly pragmatic. So long as public services work, they do not mind who provides them. Denmark and Norway allow private firms to run public hospitals. Sweden has a universal system of school vouchers, with private for-profit schools competing with public schools. Denmark also has vouchersbut ones that you can top up. When it comes to choice, Milton Friedman would be more at home in Stockholm than in Washington, DC.
birdog1960 Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) Really? Speaking of the Nordic model: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571136-politicians-both-right-and-left-could-learn-nordic-countries-next-supermodel i thought we were discussing bernie sanders and his particular leanings in regards to socialism, not how you or anyone else chooses to define it: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/what-do-sweden-socialism-and-bernie-sanders-have-common Conservatives see socialism as a system that “takes everything from the rich and gives it to the undeserving poor,” a compelling talking point but totally wrong especially when seen in the context of a nation like Sweden and the actual practice of Democratic Socialism. In fact, Sweden is not a socialist country in the classical sense at all. Marx and Engels would be very disappointed with Sweden where 90% of industry is privately owned. Genuine “socialism,” in principle, is where the people own the means of production, and profit is meant for the public good, not an elite, capitalist class. Sweden is a modern social democratic nation, as are most European countries where, the Middle Way between collectivism and individualism has been carefully crafted and this: Most political scientists agree that Sweden was indeed the “precursor” nation for most of the social welfare policies now the norm in Western European democracies, such as universal healthcare, free education through university levels, comprehensive care for the elderly and the disabled, paid parental leave following childbirth, and extensive employment and pension benefits. Compassion and care for the well-being of all citizens, diligently managed and woven into the DNA of the citizenry, while building wealth, successful global commerce, and a modern technological society are not mutually exclusive. This marriage, a genuine “capitalism with a human face” is the essence of social democracy. Edited July 31, 2015 by birdog1960
reddogblitz Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) Why show you? You won't even read the damn links You have no idea what I read and what I don't. I read the first page of the link you (or somebody) sent. No, I did not read the whole Patriot Act, did you? Edited July 31, 2015 by reddogblitz
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 You have no idea what I read and what I don't. I read the first page of the link you (or somebody) sent. No, I did not read the whole Patriot Act, did you?I linked it, and I read it, and read the supporting material to comprehend it. And quite frankly, you're a !@#$ for doing less, and then expecting your opinions to hold equal merit.
reddogblitz Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) I linked it, and I read it, and read the supporting material to comprehend it. And quite frankly, you're a !@#$ for doing less, and then expecting your opinions to hold equal merit. Congrats on reading the whole thing. You're a better man than me. Name calling is always an effective way to make one's point. Edited July 31, 2015 by reddogblitz
Rob's House Posted July 31, 2015 Author Posted July 31, 2015 i thought we were discussing bernie sanders and his particular leanings in regards to socialism, not how you or anyone else chooses to define it: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/what-do-sweden-socialism-and-bernie-sanders-have-common Conservatives see socialism as a system that takes everything from the rich and gives it to the undeserving poor, a compelling talking point but totally wrong especially when seen in the context of a nation like Sweden and the actual practice of Democratic Socialism. In fact, Sweden is not a socialist country in the classical sense at all. Marx and Engels would be very disappointed with Sweden where 90% of industry is privately owned. Genuine socialism, in principle, is where the people own the means of production, and profit is meant for the public good, not an elite, capitalist class. Sweden is a modern social democratic nation, as are most European countries where, the Middle Way between collectivism and individualism has been carefully crafted and this: Most political scientists agree that Sweden was indeed the precursor nation for most of the social welfare policies now the norm in Western European democracies, such as universal healthcare, free education through university levels, comprehensive care for the elderly and the disabled, paid parental leave following childbirth, and extensive employment and pension benefits. Compassion and care for the well-being of all citizens, diligently managed and woven into the DNA of the citizenry, while building wealth, successful global commerce, and a modern technological society are not mutually exclusive. This marriage, a genuine capitalism with a human face is the essence of social democracy. You hold up the Nordic countries as the great socialist success story when in truth it does not resemble the brand of socialism you or Bernie Sanders subscribe to.
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Congrats on reading the whole thing. You're a better man than me. Name calling is always an effective way to make one's point. How can you possibly be qualified to offer an opinion on something you haven't read? Seriously? How?
reddogblitz Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 How can you possibly be qualified to offer an opinion on something you haven't read? Seriously? How? I can offer an opinion on whatever I want as can you. It's a free country. Just because I haven't read the whole thing doesn't mean I don't know anything about it. All I did was ask you to explain how 90% of it was on the books already. You couldn't do that. I never said I was an expert on it. I just asked because I was genuinely curious. If you read it and are such an expert it should be easy to answer.
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) I can offer an opinion on whatever I want as can you. It's a free country. Just because I haven't read the whole thing doesn't mean I don't know anything about it. All I did was ask you to explain how 90% of it was on the books already. You couldn't do that. I never said I was an expert on it. I just asked because I was genuinely curious. If you read it and are such an expert it should be easy to answer. All opinions are not equal. Mine, having read the law, and supporting documents, is superior. How the !@#$ did we get to a place where !@#$s who haven't read what they are opining on believe their opinions hold equal or superior weight with those who have? And from where do those !@#$s get the balls to demand that those of us who have read the law, and have bothered to understand it, disprove their self-admitted ignorant positions about the law? !@#$ you, you intellectually lazy piece of garbage. You are everything that is wrong with this country. Edited July 31, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker
reddogblitz Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) All opinions are not equal. Mine, having read the law, and supporting documents, is superior. How the !@#$ did we get to a place where !@#$s who haven't read what they are opining on believe their opinions hold equal or superior weight with those who have? And from where do those !@#$s get the balls to demand that those of us who have read the law, and have bothered to understand it, disprove their self-admitted ignorant positions about the law? !@#$ you, you intellectually lazy piece of garbage. You are everything that is wrong with this country. I never offered any opinion other than I think it's good Bernie voted against it and I still do. I just asked you to clarify yours which obviously you can't or won't do. If you have to read the whole Patriot Act to discuss it, then you and a few others can discuss it in a telephone booth. Good for you for reading. Would be nice if you could share some of your magnificent insights, but alas, for some reason won't. More name calling. Nice. Edited July 31, 2015 by reddogblitz
Recommended Posts