General Public slowly but surely rejecting the idea of secularism?

[velu]

Minority appeasement is indian definition of secularism

[Muloghonto]

7 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Classy post, ad hominem right off the bat.  

 

The only blind fanatic is you. You have at various points attributed all sorts of magical properties to a set of European countries. You even claimed that the fact that they are less religious than the US that the children of divorce would not be negatively affected.  I provided you scores of research studies that proved the opposite, and I demolished your other claim that the high rates of Atheism in Europe were a significant factor in their happiness. On your part you provided no evidence to back your claims. Before calling someone else blind or fanatic, why don't you look in a mirror and learn to back your claims with evidence. 

 

Except there is no link between divorce and negative affect on children, i've provided categoric evidence of that. Apparently quoting medical papers is not evidence in your book but cherry-picking a line or two out of outdated research is 'evidence'.
I will point out that it is you who's claimed that the rise in depression in the western world is related to marriage, a classic case of unscientific, data-ming endeavour, for you have not presented any evidence for the fact. Classic case of correlation leading to causation mistakes.

 

Quote

You abuse libertarians (side note: it's funny that you assume I am one because I was cheering for Johnson to give America a 3rd party to vote for) yet it was libertarian policies that created most of the Western world that you claim to love so much, including the US, the single most wealthy and powerful nation in human history. See the Sweden section below. 

Typical Indian opportunist. You go live in your 'richest and most powerful nation', then when you grow up, you will want to live in a nation that takes care of its people.

 

Quote

The funny thing is that you already showed you don't even know the difference between socialism and capitalism, making up excuses like claiming when people talk about Scandinavian Socialism they are talking about capitalism.

No, the funny thing is, you think i don't know the meaning of the word socialism, despite me saying 'socialist' in quotations and supplying what i meant immediately afterwards- nanny capitalism. As per 'making up excuses', i take it you have zero knowledge of how American news media actually depicts Scandinavia, using the term 'socialist' all the freaking time. 

 

Quote

 First of all, no one uses that term as a synonym for capitalism.

False. Scandinavian socialism is an oft used term in media and common population, its because government assistance is seen as socialism in North America.

 

Quote

 Even the welfare state isn't a "left" idea. Every major conservative party in the world supports varying degrees of welfare.  

You expose your ignorance over basic economic policy. Welfare is a 'left' idea. Profit is a 'right' idea. Every major conservative party supporting some tokenism of welfare state is irrelevant, since every major conservative party also supports the 'left' idea of minimum wage. 

Just because you are a left or right party does not mean their policies are 100% left or right.

 

Quote

 

Your trumpeting minimum wage shows your economic illiteracy, minimum wages are negative toward the economy, especially in the current age of automation. Overtime and max work week are also a hindrance depending on the situation/worker in question. In the US, workers compensation was started by Southern Democrats in Alabama and Georgia, these were not the "left". You are 0/4. 

The capitalist greedy-wolf is out ! 

You decrying minimum wage shows your ignorance of worker conditions in the 1800s that sparked massive communist wave in industrial enters of the world. 
 

Quote

New Zealand and Ireland, two of the more powerful economies in the world, relative to size, have two of the strongest economies in the world. Ireland blows the rest of the developed world away in real gdp growth rate growing at 7.6 %, the same as India, but at a much higher base. The rest of Europe struggles to even reach 2% real gdp growth, NZ is solidly at 2.2% real gdp growth. Notice how the reduction in the size of government is correlated with this. 

There you go again, confusing correlation with causation. Reducing government spending will increase economic growth overall, but there is no trickle-down, so it helps the top 10% while hardly anything changes for the rest 90%. That much is evidenced by the growing wage gap of the US from 70s to current times. 

The German economy grew by 3.6% in 2010, despite being one of the biggest governments there is. 

Either way, economic growth/decline is a multivariate scenario, not dictated by a singular cause.

 

Quote

Your nanny state is no model to follow. Prove otherwise or continue making your empty claims, your    choice. 

There is nothing left to prove. The nanny state model affords the highest HDI and lowest GINI quotient for its citizens, while being less in debt than the hyper-capitalist USA. 

The fact that the average citizen in USA may go broke if they have a stomach ulcer versus the average Swede who has government paid medical care, schooling, child support, daycare, pension etc. despite having less overall national debt than USA is proof enough that the nanny state model is the best model. 

You are blind or biassed otherwise. 

but that is common for young demagauges like you who are here only to make money and then * off back home to mama and papa. 

 

So far, it is your claims that are empty and without anything more than repeated failures to differentiate causation and correlation. 

Quote

Helpful advice, next time, instead of trying to take a shot at my age, worry about your own lack of knowledge of basic economics. 

Bachchey, you are in no position to give anyone life advice. Hopefully you can correct your comprehension problem before you actually find a job, or else it will be difficult for you to prosper in your land of cut-throat capitalism. The fact that you think a comment like " 'socialist'-aka nanny state capitalism" means confusing capitalism and socialism, shows your distinct lack of comprehension skills more than anything else.

The fact that your idea of economic prosperity ends with GDP per capita and fails to take into considerations like GINI coefficient or HDI,shows your basic lack of economic knowledge. 

GDP per capita is a very rough indicator for economic health, if you don't know this, there is no point in arguing with you. 

As per falling GDP per capita of the Swedes, this is largely irrelevant to the people, because if you gave me two scenarios :

A : GDP per capita is $50,000. You pay for your own schooling of kids, healthcare, no pension

B : GDP per capita is $40,000. Your kids go to school, healthcare is publicly funded, pension, daycare.

, it becomes pretty clear which is the more profitable scenario for most people, especially parents. 

 

I'd rather have a government that provides services to all, including me, while taking more in taxes, than a government that does nothing of that sort and puts more money in my pocket. 

 

When you grow up and have kids, maybe you will realize this too. 

Edited November 10, 2016 by Muloghonto

[Vilander]

18 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

None of what you said has any bearing on having publicly funded healthcare, education, social insurance, work safe or daycare programs. The last three categories directly benefit from larger your workforce is, the first two from taxing the mega-rich, something America fails at. 

 

ofcourse you are seeeing it from within, i am seeing american policies that would impact other countries.  I am not aware of obama care and what the issue is, but its a issue sorrounding cost if i am not wrong.

[someone]

Its a mistake to equal indian secularism  with the western one. Even with all their differences, the left and right in the west are generally  proud of their country, will often use the name of god, and firmly not support the convicted terrorists.

 

That same cannot be said of the so called Indian left, who often feel embarrassed of their country, Hindus,  and often sympathetic with terrorists.

 

On the election, its more entitlement. Those entitled people and groups have been rejected. Anti-establishment is the trend. 

[Vilander]

4 hours ago, mishra said:

Yes, Yesterday , Two strange things reported on MSM.

1. Russian celebrating trump win and Party atmosphere in Moscow. Only thing media had to proove "the celebration" was guys mostly answering they are optimistic about US-Russia alliance.

2. 3 women with candle surroinded by 100s of reporter and cameramen was reported as protest against Trumps election win. Result, Tonight, A lot of people on street including Madonna

its pretty pathetic really. There is talk of "How we are going to explain it to our kids"  on radio and misogyny glass ceiling etc. Lol what about Huma Abedin lol, where americans happy with her as chief of staff. I just have a laugh, at times nervous but yeah i'll just head back home if things get difficult.

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, Vilander said:

its pretty pathetic really. There is talk of "How we are going to explain it to our kids"  on radio and misogyny glass ceiling etc. Lol what about Huma Abedin lol, where americans happy with her as chief of staff. I just have a laugh, at times nervous but yeah i'll just head back home if things get difficult.

To be fair, anyone would take Huma Abedin over Trump if it came to their own politics. One is a foreign affairs hawk. Other is a detriment to social stability of the home state.

 

5 minutes ago, Vilander said:

ofcourse you are seeeing it from within, i am seeing american policies that would impact other countries.  I am not aware of obama care and what the issue is, but its a issue sorrounding cost if i am not wrong.

Americans don't want to pay more taxes so they can have publicly funded education, healthcare, etc.

Instead, they want the rich to go to Harvard and the poor to not be able to afford it. Hence their problem with Obamacare.

 

[Vilander]

23 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

To be fair, anyone would take Huma Abedin over Trump if it came to their own politics. One is a foreign affairs hawk. Other is a detriment to social stability of the home state.

 

Americans don't want to pay more taxes so they can have publicly funded education, healthcare, etc.

Instead, they want the rich to go to Harvard and the poor to not be able to afford it. Hence their problem with Obamacare.

 

There is an other way to look at this. Imagine America wanting to get to say a left society, you would want that to be gradual. Eventually everything has to be social ( we can feed more people and server more needs if it is social instead of individual wealth) the question how does the society get there and would a un democratic society be innovative enough to survive and thrive. You would not want the bolshevik social democratic way you i guess are a Bernie sander kinda guy. Trump in the middle would actually make way for a gradual shift in the coming seasons for USas they would have seen their version of too far right for comfort during his tenure. But right now Geo politically Trump is not bad for India ( thats all i really care), may be a bit bad for Canada ( as we would have to increase defense spending by 1%) but nothing alarming.

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, Vilander said:

There is an other way to look at this. Imagine America wanting to get to say a left society, you would want that to be gradual. Eventually everything has to be social ( we can feed more people and server more needs if it is social instead of individual wealth) the question how does the society get there and would a un democratic society be innovative enough to survive and thrive. You would not want the bolshevik social democratic way you i guess are a Bernie sander kinda guy. Trump in the middle would actually make way for a gradual shift in the coming seasons for USas they would have seen their version of too far right for comfort during his tenure. But right now Geo politically Trump is not bad for India ( thats all i really care), may be a bit bad for Canada ( as we would have to increase defense spending by 1%) but nothing alarming.

I am a Canadian kinda guy, despite being a dual citizen (US-Canada), i call myself Canadian and my permanent address is in Canada. 

This is because i am not a believer in anything, i see cold, hard facts. And facts show us that societies where there are curbs on the top 1%, mostly in form of taxes, to fund a welfare state model, where people have publicly funded education, healthcare, child support, etc. are the best off societies in terms of education, poverty, etc.

And how do you do any of it 'gradually' ? what, gradually tax the rich so you can have healthcare in 100 years ?

No, nanny-states require pretty aggressive tax increase strategies to materialize.

 

As per Trump not being bad for India, Trump offered to mediate in Kashmir dispute, Pakistan accepted. You don't think telling an egotist 'we don't need your advice' (India's position on Kashmir), while our enemies go 'please come and mediate for us against the evil Indians' is not going to be bad for us ?

Right, because you know, all Indians care about are Huma Abedin and what the tilt of the 'advisers' are.

 

[Vilander]

23 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

I am a Canadian kinda guy, despite being a dual citizen (US-Canada), i call myself Canadian and my permanent address is in Canada. 

This is because i am not a believer in anything, i see cold, hard facts. And facts show us that societies where there are curbs on the top 1%, mostly in form of taxes, to fund a welfare state model, where people have publicly funded education, healthcare, child support, etc. are the best off societies in terms of education, poverty, etc.

And how do you do any of it 'gradually' ? what, gradually tax the rich so you can have healthcare in 100 years ?

No, nanny-states require pretty aggressive tax increase strategies to materialize.

 

As per Trump not being bad for India, Trump offered to mediate in Kashmir dispute, Pakistan accepted. You don't think telling an egotist 'we don't need your advice' (India's position on Kashmir), while our enemies go 'please come and mediate for us against the evil Indians' is not going to be bad for us ?

Right, because you know, all Indians care about are Huma Abedin and what the tilt of the 'advisers' are.

 

Gradually in a democratic socialist way basically. Not in a communist party authoritarian way. 

On Trump- Modi, remains to be seen, i honestly do not think Trump would be as bad as what Hillay/Huma could have been but he'd first have a steep learning curve within US for some time then comes his real engagement of the world. In any rate the only issue India has with US is pakistani funding, beyond that i do not think US has any ability to engage or force India on Kashmir, not more that what China is already doing.

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, Vilander said:

Gradually in a democratic socialist way basically. Not in a communist party authoritarian way. 

On Trump- Modi, remains to be seen, i honestly do not think Trump would be as bad as what Hillay/Huma could have been but he'd first have a steep learning curve within US for some time then comes his real engagement of the world. In any rate the only issue India has with US is pakistani funding, beyond that i do not think US has any ability to engage or force India on Kashmir, not more that what China is already doing.

Trump is your classic ego-driven autocrat. That is what most successful businessmen are. And with people like them, they can turn against you really quick if they feel they are wasting their efforts/you are being dismissive of them and they can be your best buddy if you butter them up. 

The latter is what Pakistan is doing and the former is what India is guaranteed to do re: Kashmir. 

This means, i don't think Trump is going to be pro-India for very long.

 

[Vilander]

48 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Trump is your classic ego-driven autocrat. That is what most successful businessmen are. And with people like them, they can turn against you really quick if they feel they are wasting their efforts/you are being dismissive of them and they can be your best buddy if you butter them up. 

The latter is what Pakistan is doing and the former is what India is guaranteed to do re: Kashmir. 

This means, i don't think Trump is going to be pro-India for very long.

 

Yup its a test for Modi, he has to curb his natural instincts. Eitherway i see China benefiting vis-a-vis India (but they'd have their own substantial problems elsewhere if US-Russia reconcile), but we can make sure pakistan does not.

[Muloghonto]

6 minutes ago, Vilander said:

Yup its a test for Modi, he has to curb his natural instincts. Eitherway i see China benefiting vis-a-vis India (but they'd have their own substantial problems elsewhere if US-Russia reconcile), but we can make sure pakistan does not.

If China wins big, Pakistan too will win via them. 

Btw, China is not stupid. Infact, their beurocrats are some of the most entrenched, as their system is a giant pyramid, not overhaul of parts every few years ala democracy. 

China will offer Trump economic concessions and demand strategic concessions instead, calculating that Trump will give them strategic concessions in Asia if he can win on his #1 platform : Jobs & economy, while China can 'tank it' for 4-8 years of slightly less favourable terms economically with the US but win over our lifetimes by getting strategic consessions in Asia. 

[Vilander]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

If China wins big, Pakistan too will win via them. 

Btw, China is not stupid. Infact, their beurocrats are some of the most entrenched, as their system is a giant pyramid, not overhaul of parts every few years ala democracy. 

China will offer Trump economic concessions and demand strategic concessions instead, calculating that Trump will give them strategic concessions in Asia if he can win on his #1 platform : Jobs & economy, while China can 'tank it' for 4-8 years of slightly less favourable terms economically with the US but win over our lifetimes by getting strategic consessions in Asia. 

yup if there is a US-China rapprochement everyone else is f'd, it would be existential for India. There has never been one between two super powers through in history, leave alone a right wing western super power and an authoritarian eastern super power block. India could always give tawang and provide access to indian ocean via Indian landmass to China and survive then. US can forget ever dominating IOR or POR then. It would be a cute India-China alliance. With Russian need for dominating east europe there is always the cuter Russia-China-India. If India whole heartedly makes itself available to China-Russia combine at a slight territorial setback, they would view pak as a collateral and they are not democracies so do not give a f about backstabbing someone.

[Muloghonto]

10 minutes ago, Vilander said:

yup if there is a US-China rapprochement everyone else is f'd, it would be existential for India. There has never been one between two super powers through in history, leave alone a right wing western super power and an authoritarian eastern super power block. India could always give tawang and provide access to indian ocean via Indian landmass to China and survive then. US can forget ever dominating IOR or POR then. It would be a cute India-China alliance. With Russian need for dominating east europe there is always the cuter Russia-China-India. If India whole heartedly makes itself available to China-Russia combine at a slight territorial setback, they would view pak as a collateral and they are not democracies so do not give a f about backstabbing someone.

It won't be territorial setback for india, it will be economic. Any sort of rapprochement between India-China wold require either China to be severely weakened economically or India letting Chinese goods through at even lower tariff, killing off the domestic market.

 

Normally most US leaders won't take the above mentioned deal you said, but Trump is the likeliest to, since as a businessman, he would be powerfully motivated to deliver quantifiable gains in economics and not care as much about strategic losses in geo-politics.

 

Thats the scary part.

[mishra]

^ Trump will reduce taxes. May be force other NATO to pay more for security specially rich EU nation (Read Germany) as they are the ones who want a buffer zone between Russia and themsleve and pipeline from Middleeast to EU.

On China that 45% duty, He isnt going to do, But he will force some concession on that name.

 

Mideast, He will go back to Iran with a stick as long as OPEC does what US wants.

 

Russia is threat to Germanay/EU only. He wont change a zilch with US Russia relations if EU is happy to pay more for US arms. But I find it hard for CIA to figure out that mentality shift that its China and NOT Russia isnt that bigger of threat to US

 

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, mishra said:

^ Trump will reduce taxes. May be force other NATO to pay more for security specially rich EU nation (Read Germany) as they are the ones who want a buffer zone between Russia and themsleve and pipeline from Middleeast to EU.

On China that 45% duty, He isnt going to do, But he will force some concession on that name.

 

Mideast, He will go back to Iran with a stick as long as OPEC does what US wants.

 

Russia is threat to Germanay/EU only. He wont change a zilch with US Russia relations if EU is happy to pay more for US arms. But I find it hard for CIA to figure out that mentality shift that its China and NOT Russia isnt that bigger of threat to US

 

Imagine a scenario where China says 'ok, we will increase valuation of our currency by 2%, if you recognize the nine-dash-line'. of all the politicians who i think will instantly say yes, Trump is the most likely one.

 

[Vilander]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

It won't be territorial setback for india, it will be economic. Any sort of rapprochement between India-China wold require either China to be severely weakened economically or India letting Chinese goods through at even lower tariff, killing off the domestic market.

 

Normally most US leaders won't take the above mentioned deal you said, but Trump is the likeliest to, since as a businessman, he would be powerfully motivated to deliver quantifiable gains in economics and not care as much about strategic losses in geo-politics.

 

Thats the scary part.

We'll know before long. FTA's are usually on complementary basis (comparative advantage- India cant compete with chinese tarrifs and so no advantage on finished goods, but services yes however there would be domestic protection as in Indians need to learn Mandrin and myriad Chinese languages or have sub contracts so its a torturous route but not impossible) India runs a huge trade deficit with China already, although free trade could be a different ball game, but then Indians can scrub the bottom better than Chinese, the thing with India is , we are f'n resilient. swim through shit and make it if it has to be done types.

[Tibarn]

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Except there is no link between divorce and negative affect on children, i've provided categoric evidence of that. Apparently quoting medical papers is not evidence in your book but cherry-picking a line or two out of outdated research is 'evidence'.
I will point out that it is you who's claimed that the rise in depression in the western world is related to marriage, a classic case of unscientific, data-ming endeavour, for you have not presented any evidence for the fact. Classic case of correlation leading to causation mistakes.

Nice some more ad hominems in your post. You are devolving to abuse when your bs is called out, as expected.  

 

I don't know if you are trolling, but you provided no study, let alone a study proving your ridiculous claim. It looks like you are ignorant of psychology as well as the aforementioned economics, ecology, biology, genetics, yet seem to believe your unverified opinions pass as fact. It's sad that you mirror those people you troll in the God and Religion thread. 

 

 I provided numerous studies.  Provide proof for your claims. Anybody can go to the Triple Talaq thread and see what "evidence" you provided, none. You also weaseled out of answering any of the studies I provided. Your standard of proof is "because I say so." Your standard retort is "I have reams of research but I won't provide any because it is a chit chat forum." You aren't fooling anybody, especially not me.

 

In fact, I will post them all again. Hopefully you don't weasel out again this time answer them or provide your own proof. Or run away, like in the other thread. (For anyone who wants to see how little evidence this guy gives, please read through the Triple Talaq thread. )

 

Sweden

Gauffin et al.

Parental divorce has a similar effect at causing Alcohol related illness and death in children as parental death and growing up in a low income home.

 

Canada(North America)

Bolgar et al.

Young adult children of divorce reported more problems with submission/control. Children of divorce experienced problems with intimacy. 

 

Finland

Palosaari et al.

24% of boys who experienced divorce at ages 7-12, 9% between 13 to 16, and 6% in young adulthood were depressive. Girls the impact was standard regardless of age. 

 

France

Roustit et al

Children of divorce, as adults, report worse perceived General Health and Mental Health than children of interparental violence. A child of divorce is more likely to report a very poor/poor/ fair self health assessment in terms of general, physical and mental health than a good self assessment.

 

Belgium 

Donath et al

Parent separation/divorce has a significant relationship with adolescent suicide attempts

 

Sweden

Laftman et al

Adolescents in non-traditional family types report worse subjective health than adolescents in intact families

 

Norway

Paananen et al

Despite a 6.8% increase in divorce rate between 1997 and 2009, indicating a greater social acceptance, no signs of attenuated effects on mental health were observed.

 

Sweden

Lindstrom et al

Parental separation/divorce in childhood was with few exceptions significantly associated with ever having had suicide thoughts with the highest odds ratios for those who
had experienced parental separation during ages 0–4 years. Parental separation/divorce in childhood was
significantly associated with suicide attempts among men who had experienced parental separation/
divorce at ages 0–4 and 15–18, and among women at any age 0–18.

 

Sweden

Bergström et al

Living in a nuclear family was positively associated with almost all aspects of wellbeing in comparison to
children with separated parents. Children in joint physical custody experienced more positive outcomes, in terms
of subjective wellbeing, family life and peer relations, than children living mostly or only with one parent.

 

Denmark

Nielsen et al

Childhood exposure to SFLE, especially parental divorce
seems to increase the risk of infectious disease hospitalization.

 

Sweden

Rosen et al

eEven when a wide range of demographic and socioeconomic circumstances are included in multivariate models, children of single parents still have increased risks of mortality, severe morbidity, and injury.

 

Norway

Størksen et al

Parental divorce was prospectively associated with a relative change in anxiety and depression, subjective well-being, self-esteem, and school problems. Considering boys separately, parental divorce was prospectively associated only with school problems. Amongthe girls, divorce was prospectively associated with all variables. The effect of divorce on relative change was
partially mediated by paternal absence.

 

Finland

Korkeila et al

Major events such as divorce can negativelly effect optimisim at adult age  even if education, living
alone, recent life events, somatic health and depressive mood were taken into account.

 

 

Strawman again. Do you do anything other than strawman other people's arguments? Again, prove your ridiculous claims or leave me out of your hallucinations. You constantly tu quoque whenever I point out your consistent correlation = causation. Then you claimed to be a scientist, instead of answering any of your fallacious logic. Prove what you claim. 

 

I claimed that divorce leads to depression which I backed up with over half a dozen studies, based on countries you selected, which could be an explanation to the increase in depression in the western world. 

 

You claimed the rise in depression is because of greater willingness for treatment, for which you provided 3 studies which disproved your own claims.  Apparently, you spend most of your time insulting people over the internet instead of actually reading what you post. 

 

You also claimed that it is because antidepressants were recently made, which was again false. 

 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Typical Indian opportunist. You go live in your 'richest and most powerful nation', then when you grow up, you will want to live in a nation that takes care of its people.

 

I am getting my education in the US, something that you clearly don't have. I am moving back to India afterwards. My family lives back in India. I don't have to explain my educational choices to some abusive troll like you. 

 

You continue to prove your ignorance; there are numerous benefits for old people in the US. Social security, medicare, medicaid are all available to the elderly. 

 

By the way, I like how you insult Indians, typical brown englishman. 

  

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

False. Scandinavian socialism is an oft used term in media and common population, its because government assistance is seen as socialism in North America.

Again, you are making up definitions. You being ignorant of basic economics is on you, don't blame North America for your ineptitude. You claim to live in part of Canada where all there is to do is some weed and get hookers. Hookers aren't a reliable source of economic discussion. Try again. 

 

 If you want to debate made up terms with your made up definitions, do it with someone who takes you seriously.  Anyone with an ounce of economic knowledge can see through the BS you spout. 

 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

No, the funny thing is, you think i don't know the meaning of the word socialism, despite me saying 'socialist' in quotations and supplying what i meant immediately afterwards- nanny capitalism. As per 'making up excuses', i take it you have zero knowledge of how American news media actually depicts Scandinavia, using the term 'socialist' all the freaking time. 

Firstly, it's funny that you apparently live in Canada, but you apparently watch American news enough to state that they claim Scandinavia is Socialist "all the time." The US media doesn't talk about Scandinavia much, they are irrelevant countries globally, sorry to break it to you. The US doesn't even talk about India in the news.

 

Secondly, I don't really care if you watch American news or not. They don't represent any part of America expect for NY, where most of their headquarters are located.  You are free to actually talk to people like I do, but that would actually require effort.

 

Thirdly, once again, use your made up definitions and made up terms with your hookers. No one with an ounce of economic knowledge would take you seriously. 

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

You expose your ignorance over basic economic policy. Welfare is a 'left' idea. Profit is a 'right' idea. Every major conservative party supporting some tokenism of welfare state is irrelevant, since every major conservative party also supports the 'left' idea of minimum wage. 

Just because you are a left or right party does not mean their policies are 100% left or right.

False, you continue to expose yourself. Profit isn't an idea, it certainly isn't a right idea. You apparently don't know what an idea is either.

 

Welfarism isn't left, it wasn't invented by the modern left, it isn't exclusive to the left. The underpinning philosophy isn't left either. Prove your claim.

 

Quote

The capitalist greedy-wolf is out ! 

You decrying minimum wage shows your ignorance of worker conditions in the 1800s that sparked massive communist wave in industrial enters of the world. 

 Uh-oh, another ad hominem. 

 

The closet communist comes out! First equates capitalism and socialism as the same thing to promote his bogus ideas, then abuses capitalism when push comes to shove. Ironic. 

 

You yourself are from India, got education like a leech from India, and ran away to Canada contributing nothing to India. Pot meet kettle.

 

I am paying my way through my education in a foreign country to return to India when my education is finished. I think I know who is an opportunist/greedy.  Don't project yourself onto me. 

 

I claimed minimum wage is bad economic policy. This is economic fact, something that I can back up with studies. You, like always, will weasel out, shift goal posts, ad hominem, appeal to authority, etc, etc.

 

You are confusing minimum wage with working conditions. Worker protection laws are different than minimum wage. Once again you display poor English knowledge.  Also appeal to emotion, pretending that you care about workers. 

 

Quote

There you go again, confusing correlation with causation. Reducing government spending will increase economic growth overall, but there is no trickle-down, so it helps the top 10% while hardly anything changes for the rest 90%. That much is evidenced by the growing wage gap of the US from 70s to current times. 

The German economy grew by 3.6% in 2010, despite being one of the biggest governments there is. 

Either way, economic growth/decline is a multivariate scenario, not dictated by a singular cause.

Fallacy fallacy. There are numerous economic studies that show the same thing. Provide a study otherwise continue to vomit your nonsense. 

 

You are the one that claims the world should adopt the Scandinavian model, specifically highlighting the nanny-state. Prove your claim, with actual evidence, that the nanny state leads to economic growth, or weasel out again. (Hint you usually choose the second option). 

 

Anecdotal evidence fallacy. You continue to prove your ignorance in economics. Germany's real gdp growth was 1.5 for the past year. Those are the real gdp growth rates from 1999-2013. You also apparently don't know the difference between nominal and real gdp. I like how you also did a cherry-picking fallacy along with your anecdotal evidence fallacy.  

Country	1999	2000	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
Germany	1.5	3	0.4	-0.1	1.7	0.9	2.7	2.5	1	-4.7	3.5	3.1	0.7	0.5

 

Economic growth is a multivariate system, you don't say, I think you need a noble prize in economics for that cutting insight.  Nearly everything is a multivariate system, the point of science, which you know nothing about, is to isolate variables that likely cause the result. 

 

You are the one advocating an economic model, without the backup of proof, to the rest of the world. Apparently you need to learn that economics as a field aims to isolate variables that lead to growth. Low government expenditure is one such factor that has support in the field. Prove your great economic theories. 

 

Let me reveal something to you that anyone with basic economics knowledge knows, government expenditure in welfare comes after a certain level of growth has already been achieved. It doesn't lead to growth. 

 

Wage gap  I'm glad you are resorting to buzz words now, getting desperate are we? Prove that the wage gap is bad. 

 

Quote

There is nothing left to prove. The nanny state model affords the highest HDI and lowest GINI quotient for its citizens, while being less in debt than the hyper-capitalist USA. 
The fact that the average citizen in USA may go broke if they have a stomach ulcer versus the average Swede who has government paid medical care, schooling, child support, daycare, pension etc. despite having less overall national debt than USA is proof enough that the nanny state model is the best model. 
You are blind or biassed otherwise. 

but that is common for young demagauges like you who are here only to make money and then * off back home to mama and papa. 
 
So far, it is your claims that are empty and without anything more than repeated failures to differentiate causation and correlation. 
 

There is nothing left to prove because you didn't prove anything. When your standard is zero, you only have to reach zero. Give a peer reviewed study  study that the nanny state is a model for growth. 

 

I'm the scientist providing graphs, studies, and asking for the same in return. You're the pseudo-scientist providing buzzwords, insults, and no studies, let alone anything of substance.

 

Prove any of your claims or weasel out.  

 

Quote

Bachchey, 

 

Get off your high horse and prove your claims.

 

You may impress whatever hooker you meet with your insults and pseudo-science, not me. Whatever gutter you were born in you are free to stay in with the other borderline retards who provide no sources/facts in a discussion.   

 

Your entire argument is that people should follow the Scandinavian model, yet you don't prove their nanny state is the reason their economy is good. Then you have the gall to try to say correlation doesn't equal causation. Prove your claim or join the circus you clown. 

 

I already have a job as a researcher, I pay my way through my education. I am not a leech like you. 

 

Maybe if you were actually a scientist, you would actually provide evidence.

 

Also stop visiting my ICF profile daily, it's a little creepy...

 

Next time, I won't be polite. I will respond to your ad hominems with the same. That will be a win for you, bringing someone to your gutter level of discussion. 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Tibarn said:

Nice some more ad hominems in your post. You are devolving to abuse when your bs is called out, as expected.  

 

I don't know if you are trolling, but you provided no study, let alone a study proving your ridiculous claim. It looks like you are ignorant of psychology as well as the aforementioned economics, ecology, biology, genetics, yet seem to believe your unverified opinions pass as fact. It's sad that you mirror those people you troll in the God and Religion thread. 

 

Not when BS is being called out, but when BS is being peddled and evidence not acknowledged.

Quote

http://www.webmd.com/women/news/20060209/kids-harmed-when-parents-fight#1

Quote

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2012/06/15/parents-fighting-may-have-long-lasting-effect-on-kids

 

As i said, try again. 

 

Quote

I am getting my education in the US, something that you clearly don't have. I am moving back to India afterwards. My family lives back in India. I don't have to explain my educational choices to some abusive troll like you. 

 

You continue to prove your ignorance; there are numerous benefits for old people in the US. Social security, medicare, medicaid are all available to the elderly. 

 

By the way, I like how you insult Indians, typical brown englishman. 

  

You don't have to explain anything to me, but it is clear why you are pro-US lack of social programs/libertarian : it suits your purpose, since your purpose is to get education and/or make money and * off. So why the heck would you care for a system which is designed to improve living standards of those who live there, instead of a system designed to make money more than anything else ?

 

Social security, medicaid, medicare- those are available in name only. When you pay out of your pocket, it is NOT a social program, unless you are literally paying 1% of the service cost or something so little it doesnt matter.

I am not insulting Indians, i am insulting people who are opportunists that prefer society remains the way it is to benefit them only rather than raise the overall level for all society.

 

Quote

Again, you are making up definitions. You being ignorant of basic economics is on you, don't blame North America for your ineptitude. You claim to live in part of Canada where all there is to do is some weed and get hookers. Hookers aren't a reliable source of economic discussion. Try again. 

 

 If you want to debate made up terms with your made up definitions, do it with someone who takes you seriously.  Anyone with an ounce of economic knowledge can see through the BS you spout. 

 

As i said, before calling someone ignorant, learn some punctuation skills first. If one says something in quotations and then supplies the actual position, there is no ignorance or ambiguity.

And i am not inventing anything. 

https://socialistworker.org/2016/11/07/can-socialism-be-elected-into-power

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/is-scandinavian-socialism-really-a-cause-of-happiness/

http://www.dailycardinal.com/article/2016/04/scandinavian-socialism-would-not-work-in-the-united-states

 

Now learn the basics of punctuation and debating- which is acknowledging the commonly held views as well as technical definitions of things. 

As you can see, the term 'scandinavian socialism' is a popular terminology, just like people say 'you don't know nothing yet'. Nobody except pedants go 'thats double negative, yo' and instead figure it is a commonly held view of talking.

When someone says something in quotations and then provides what it means right after, there is no ambiguity.

Also, i don't live in hookerville anymore. Never did acually, residence was always a city. I suppose when you grow up and have a job, you'd realize what '6 on 4 off' means.

 

Quote

Firstly, it's funny that you apparently live in Canada, but you apparently watch American news enough to state that they claim Scandinavia is Socialist "all the time." The US media doesn't talk about Scandinavia much, they are irrelevant countries globally, sorry to break it to you. The US doesn't even talk about India in the news.

Yes, i am sure you listen to each and every single US news broadcast to claim such ignorant nonsense. 

Listen, you have been here less half a dozen years or so, don't lecture people who've lived here longer than you've been alive how stuff works here.

 

Quote

 

Thirdly, once again, use your made up definitions and made up terms with your hookers. No one with an ounce of economic knowledge would take you seriously. 

If they understand how punctuation works, they will be fine. Which you don't, which is why you are having a problem.

 

Quote

False, you continue to expose yourself. Profit isn't an idea, it certainly isn't a right idea. You apparently don't know what an idea is either.

 

Welfarism isn't left, it wasn't invented by the modern left, it isn't exclusive to the left. The underpinning philosophy isn't left either. Prove your claim.

If you actually read Keynes and Marx, it becomes clear what welfarism is, it is as left of a concept as it comes.

i don't have time to explain basic economic theory to people who can't punctuate, never mind know economics.

 

Quote

 

The closet communist comes out! First equates capitalism and socialism as the same thing to promote his bogus ideas, then abuses capitalism when push comes to shove. Ironic. 

Judging by this, US should raise the TOEFL standards for its foreign students. 

Quote

 

You yourself are from India, got education like a leech from India, and ran away to Canada contributing nothing to India. Pot meet kettle.

 

Actually the amount of remittence i've sent back to India is already few orders of magnitude greater than what most Indians of m job description make in their lifetime. When you send money to USA for leeching off of their system, you can open that yap of yours.

 

Quote

 

I claimed minimum wage is bad economic policy. This is economic fact, something that I can back up with studies. You, like always, will weasel out, shift goal posts, ad hominem, appeal to authority, etc, etc.

It is not a fact, it is an opinion. If it is a fact, prove it.

 

I am confusing nothing, i do mean minimum wage. 

Quote

You are the one that claims the world should adopt the Scandinavian model, specifically highlighting the nanny-state. Prove your claim, with actual evidence, that the nanny state leads to economic growth, or weasel out again. (Hint you usually choose the second option). 

Right after you prove your claim that minimum wage being bad for economy is a fact.

I hope you use your scientific education when you support a case for 'fact'.

Quote

You also apparently don't know the difference between nominal and real gdp. I like how you also did a cherry-picking fallacy along with your anecdotal evidence fallacy.  

Given that nothing i've said refers to nominal or real GDP, you are constructing a straw man yet again.

 

Quote

Nearly everything is a multivariate system, the point of science, which you know nothing about, is to isolate variables that likely cause the result. 

Umm sure. Now we have a biologist lecturing an electrical engineer in multivariate analysis.

Typical 20-something chutiyagiri.

 

Quote

 

You are the one advocating an economic model, without the backup of proof, to the rest of the world. Apparently you need to learn that economics as a field aims to isolate variables that lead to growth. Low government expenditure is one such factor that has support in the field. Prove your great economic theories. 

Don play semantics with me bachchay. You do the exact same thing- you claimed no good idea came out of the left before i made any comment. So prove that statement. 

Analyze every single position of the left and prove they are not good. 

Quote

There is nothing left to prove because you didn't prove anything. When your standard is zero, you only have to reach zero. Give a peer reviewed study  study that the nanny state is a model for growth. 

 

I'm the scientist providing graphs, studies, and asking for the same in return. You're the pseudo-scientist providing buzzwords, insults, and no studies, let alone anything of substance.

 

Prove any of your claims or weasel out.

So i have to prove that an economy that has lower national debt, provides greater services to its citizens fiscally, has lower poverty level and higher education levels,  is a superior economy ? LOL.

 

You are providing nothing more than cherry picked & irrelevant crap. 

 

Quote

 

Your entire argument is that people should follow the Scandinavian model, yet you don't prove their nanny state is the reason their economy is good. Then you have the gall to try to say correlation doesn't equal causation. Prove your claim or join the circus you clown. 

Right after you prove your claims you made first in this very thread, clown.

 

Quote

 

I already have a job as a researcher, I pay my way through my education. I am not a leech like you. 

 

Maybe if you were actually a scientist, you would actually provide evidence.

Let us know how its going when you have a real job. which means working for a bottomline driven company. Not working for dude who is getting research grants.

 

[Tibarn]

You get more and more pathetic... more personal attacks. As promised, I will respond in kind. 

17 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Not when BS is being called out, but when BS is being peddled and evidence not acknowledged.

Give me scientific sources you clown not webmd, the equivalent of wikipedia. Your BS is getting predictable. I apparently have to repeat myself to you, over and over again. It's like talking to a brick wall, or an Islamist, which you do a good job of mirroring. You lack even basic knowledge of science and reliability of sources. Let's see those "legions of research from university sources you promised."

 

Do I really have to repost your claim, via the Triple Talaq thread

Quote

Except there is no link between divorce and negative affect on children, i've provided categoric evidence of that. Apparently quoting medical papers is not evidence in your book but cherry-picking a line or two out of outdated research is 'evidence'.

17 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Quote

http://www.webmd.com/women/news/20060209/kids-harmed-when-parents-fight#1

Quote

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2012/06/15/parents-fighting-may-have-long-lasting-effect-on-kids

Show me the medical paper that supports your claim clown. When a scientist says paper they mean something peer-reviewed and reputable. Go play imaginary scientist elsewhere. 

Quote

If you want, i can quote you legions of research papers from universities that show children are better off with two divorced parents that are civil with each other versus two parents who make each other miserable but refuse to divorce. The 'deleterious issues' with children are not because of divorce, it is because of the example parents set for the children. When parents act like babies, it is what makes children act out and have issues. 

 Let's see your legions clown. I already said, as it being stated in the papers I provided, that quarreling parents have a negative effect on children's outcomes. Your claim was that the deleterious issues were entirely due to fighting parents and that divorce has no effect on children. Let's see you provide a paper that backs up your preposterous claim.

 

By the way clown, you asked me to base the research on Europe only; shifting goalposts for yourself are we?   

 

Come on clown, still no response to my actual peer-reviewed papers. You claim they are outdated, as if you read them. Hint, science is based on evidence, not arbitrary timelines made by an internet troll such as yourself.   

 

Also, I'm waiting on you to prove your claim that the increase in depression in the West is due to greater willingness to get treated or recently invented anti-depressants.

 

 

The rest of your meandering post, void of intellectual rigor or scientific content, will be addressed in general terms below. I will not humor your continued avoiding the question and obfuscation of issues in your attempts to salvage whatever shallow pride you still have left:

 

Your claim: Scandinavia has a superior economic model that must be implemented in other countries, you specifically mentioned India in another thread. 

 

Your corollary claim to the above was essentially: The nanny-state had a significant effect in making Scandinavia an economic success. 

 

If you are going to make such a far-reaching claims, one would hope you would be intellectually honest enough to provide evidence for it, or at least answer some of the questions I asked you earlier, as below, from earlier in the thread:

Quote

1) You are claiming to know what model(s) are best when you don't provide any economic study to back your claim. Your standard response is that this is a chit chat forum so you don't want to bring papers here.

2) You don't address the issue of scalability. 

3) You don't address causality.

4) You don't explore the effects of high spending governments on economic growth. 

5) You don't explore adaptability.

6) You don't explore economic history of the countries you tout

7) You are not even able to properly place Capitalism on an ideological spectrum, hint it isn't left. No economist worth his salt associates the left with Capitalism. You are free to make up your own definitions for whatever words you want, but don't try that nonsense with me.

8) You don't define successful, and I doubt you are qualified, based on the rest of your post, to decide what is the most successful model. 

Aside from not answering any of those questions, you don't address the evidence, ie charts from actual economic research that I have provided. This is fallacious of you clown, specifically the avoiding the question fallacy, not unexpected from you.  

 

Here is more actual data for you clown, take it back to the circus with you and spread it among the other rejects and misfits. I should not have to teach you the same things multiple times.

 

Here's the economic history of Scandinavia, something else you are ignorant of:

Denmark became a capitalist society in end of the 19th century/ beginning of the 20th century, and  it displayed the expected rapid growth rate. (James Beddy 1943), (Kristensen 1989). 

 

Pre-1870, Sweden was an impoverished nation which had massive immigration to the US. After economic liberation in 1870, it experienced similar rapid growth to Denmark  (Sanandaji 2010b). That rapid growth continued until 1936 to 1970, when the social democratic rule began where growth slowed.  (Sanandaji 2010b) (Maddison 2010).

Quote

Figure 1 shows the economic development between 1870 and 1970 in Sweden and other comparable western European countries. During this 100-year period, Sweden was characterized by small-government policies. The country was also neutral in both world wars, avoiding much of the destruction that occurred elsewhere in Europe. This, alongside a catch-up effect, can explain why
living standards in Sweden rose three times as rapidly as in the UK. In 1870 Sweden’s GDP per capita was 57 per
cent lower than in the UK. In 1970 it had risen to become 21 per cent higher

However, Sweden’s wealth creation slowed down following the transition to a high tax burden and a large
public sector. Figure 2 shows the development in the same
countries from 1970 until the fnancial crisis of 2008
 

Denmark followed a similar pattern. Te social democratic era in Denmark can be said to have begun in 1924.
Between 1870 and 1924, Denmark had the 6th highest
growth rate in the industrialised world. Between 1924 and
2008, however, Denmark’s growth was only ranked 16th
compared with other industrialised countries during the
same period. As in Sweden, the social democrats in Denmark were initially pragmatic, implementing their policies
slowly. Te shift from low and moderate taxation to higher
levels of taxation occurred around the 1970s. Again, much
like Sweden, Denmark experienced strong growth until
1970, but started to lag behind after the transition towards
a large public sector (Figures 1 and 2)
 

 

(Sanandaji 2010b) (Maddison 2010).

 

Policies did steer sharply to the left during the late 1960s in Sweden, with an overall tax burden rise, and the new system also discriminated heavily against individuals who owned businesses. (Axelsson 2006)
 

Quote

In 2004, 38 of the 100 businesses with the highest revenues in Sweden were entrepreneurial: in other words
started as privately owned businesses within the country.
of these firms, 21 were founded before 1913. Additionally,
15 were founded between 1914 and 1970. only two had
been formed after 1970. If the 100 largest firms are instead
ranked according to how many people they employed,
none of the largest entrepreneurial firms were founded
after 1970 (ibid.)
 

Reliance on a few large companies, often founded more
than a century ago, is also common in the other Nordic
nations. As an example, Nokia contributed fully a quarter
of Finnish growth from 1998 to 2007; this single company,
founded in 1865, generated nearly a fifth of the country’s
exports. 
 

(Axelsson 2006)(The Economist 2012).

 

Quote

As late as 1975 Sweden was
ranked as the 4th richest nation in the world according
to OECD measures. As shown in Table 4, the policy shift
that occurred dramatically slowed down the growth rate.
Sweden dropped to 13th place in the mid 1990s. In 2010,
following a period of recovery from the country’s crisis and
the free-market reforms that followed, Sweden had risen
to 10th position.

Finland almost dropped out of the top
20 ranking during the mid 1990s, until recovering to 14th
position in 2010: this recovery coincided with long-term
reforms towards more economic freedom. Denmark’s position fell from 7th position to 10th between 1970 and 1980.
Tree decades later, Denmark had regained its previous
ranking, after an impressive array of market-oriented reforms. of significant sized economies, only Japan, which
is a subject of constant discussion for its ‘decades of lost
growth’ and with huge demographic problems, has come
anywhere near to dropping so many places as Sweden

(OECD)(Sanandaji 2015)

 

Sweden and Denmark clearly display a downward growth trend since the increase in government size. Both countries showed massive declines in private spending and entrepreneurship since the government expansion in 1970. (Hansen 2012).

 

Quote

In accordance with Keynesian theory, increased government spending is shown to
lead to higher output. However, the two researchers also
demonstrate that, when government increases spending
and/or taxes, there is a strong negative effect on private investment (Blanchard and Perotti 2002).Cohen et al. (2011: 2)
 

 

Quote

Between 1950 and 2000, the Swedish population grew
from seven to almost nine million. But astonishingly the
net job creation in the private sector was close to zero (see
Figure 3). Jobs in the public sector expanded significantly until the end of the 1970s. After this point it became difficult
to further expand the already large public sector – simply
because taxes had already reached such a high level that
it was not plausible to raise them further. When the welfare state could grow no larger, overall job creation came
to a halt – neither the private sector nor the public sector
expanded. Private sector job growth did finally occur from
the 1990s following wide-ranging economic liberalisation
(Bjuggren and Johansson 2009; Ekonomifakta).

 

 

To expand on this figure, the Scandinavian model would require a government to employ, in India's case, millions upon millions more people who are added to the workforce yearly, in conjunction to current workers, and workers who lose jobs due to high taxation to pay for all the government spending.  Only a total imbecile could think this could be scalable to a mammoth country like India. 

 

So clown, how many public jobs do you think this scales to in India?  

 

 

Quote

The McKinsey report also showed that, while official unemployment in Sweden was somewhat above 5 per cent in
2004, this figure was quite misleading. Much of the true
unemployment was hidden by counting people as employed who were on various government programmes or
by excluding some people from the unemployment figures
who could work but did not find jobs. Te report notes
that the government at the time only counted 239,000
individuals as unemployed but that, additionally, 106,000
people were on government labor market programmes.
There were also 140,000 so-called latent job candidates,
individuals who were classified as not being in the labor
force but who wanted to work and could start working
within 14 days (e.g. full-time students who would rather
work). Including these groups, the unemployment number would have risen to 485,000 (10 per cent of the labour
force). Additionally, Sweden had 132,000 underemployed
individuals and 215,000 people able to work but excluded
from the official labor force statistics. Te latter figure
included people in early retirement or on prolonged sick
leave beyond Sweden’s normal historic levels from the  1970s. Adding all the above groups, the total unemployment figure was found to be fully 832,000, or 17 per cent of
the labour force (ibid).
 

She shows that the
true unemployment level in Sweden has varied between 14
and 18 per cent since 1996. In 2013, the latest available year,
it was 14 per cent compared with the official statistic of
8 per cent.
 

 

(Mckinsey)(ibid)

 

Sweden competing with China at Shanghai Statistics. Of course a leech like yourself probably thinks that being unemployed is a good thing. By the way, circus freak, I research for a private company. 

 

 

 

 

Okay circus freak, let's hear your explanation of how these tax rates would spur enough private job creation to employ both the current number of workers in India, and the millions of new workers added each year. 

 

 

Quote

High life expectancy
was not simply caused by large welfare states.2
Te argument for adopting a Nordic economic model
as suggested by the left is straightforward: life expectancy
and other social outcomes are good in this region; therefore, if Nordic tax and welfare policies are adopted in the
UK or the US, the same result will emerge there. But any
deeper analysis shows that these good outcomes existed
before the introduction of Nordic tax and welfare policies.
 

Equally interesting is the case of Iceland. In 1960 the life
expectancy in Iceland was below that of Norway and Sweden, and higher than that of Denmark and Finland. In
2005 Iceland had better life expectancy than all the major
Scandinavian countries. This was despite the fact that Iceland deviates from the larger Scandinavian countries by
having a moderate welfare model, supported by a tax take of around 36 per cent of GDP

in Iceland was 82.4 years, compared with 81.8 in Sweden, 81.3 in Norway, 80.5 in Finland and 79.8 in Denmark
(World Bank Database). Evidently, a moderately sized
public sector can be combined with long life expectancy
in Scandinavia.
 

 

Look clown, Scandinavia had superior health indices prior to your beloved nanny-state. Their increased government spending didn't even necessarily improve their performance relative to Western peers. 

 

News flash clown, improved health indices are related to improved technology, increased availability, and increased patient adherence. Please provide proof that your magic nanny-state model improves any of the three. 

 

Egalitarianism

Quote

A comparison of historical rates of income inequality
in Sweden, the US, Canada, France and Netherlands shows
interesting results. By 1920, well before the existence of a
large-scale welfare state, Sweden had among the lowest
levels of inequality within this group of countries. Te
authors of the study, economists Jesper Roine and Daniel
Waldenström, note the following regarding the evolution
of top income shares in Sweden during the period between
1903 and 2004: ‘We find that, starting from levels of inequality approximately equal to those in other Western
countries at the time, the income share of the Swedish
top decile drops sharply over the first eighty years of the
twentieth century. Most of the decrease takes place before
the expansion of the welfare state and by 1950 Swedish top
income shares were already lower than in other countries’
(Roine and Waldenstrom 2008: 366).

 

Most of the shift towards
higher equality happened before the introduction of a large
public sector and high taxes (Atkinson and Søgaard 2013).
Te same paper compares the top 10 per cent income
shares in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. In all three countries the share dropped markedly between 1900 and 1970;
it continued to fall somewhat until the mid-1980s, and has
since increased again to the levels around 1970. A similar
trend can be shown for the incomes of the top 1 per cent.
Again, the changes mostly occurred before the shift towards high taxes (ibid.). Tino Sanandaji argues in another
study: ‘American scholars who write about the success
of the Scandinavian welfare states in the postwar period
tend to be remarkably uninterested in Scandinavia’s history prior to that period. Scandinavia was likely the most
egalitarian part of Europe even before the modern era. For
example, it was the only major part of Western Europe that
never developed full-scale feudalism and never reduced its
farmers to serfdom’ (Sanandaji 2012b: 56–57).
 

Oh no! Your beloved Scandinavia was more or less egalitarian before the nanny-state. What will you do clown?

 

 

Quote

Sweden has thus gone from being a nation which
successfully integrated the foreign born into the labour
market, to one where many immigrants are trapped in
long-term dependency on benefit payments. This change
is linked to immigration policy, but also to the general economic policy. Te expansion of the welfare state since the
mid twentieth century has created a situation where the
incentive to work has been reduced, while the incentive to
live off benefit payments has increased. At the same time,
regulations and trade union domination of the labour market impede entry into the workforce. As a consequence, the
ability to integrate foreign-born people has significantly
worsened (Sanandaji 2009).
 

What, do you see this clown? Your beloved Scandinavia doesn't seem to hire immigrants! What will you do when you go there to lick firang boots? I guess you could always bring one of your Canadian hookers along with you.

 

What a model, no? Lack enough workers --> import workers from foreign country--> import more than you can employ --> increase burden on country's safety net.

 

Quite a model, did you think of it circus freak? 

 

Wait, there's more!!!

 

They don't even seem to be able to employ educated immigrants, let alone uneducated. This is perfect, isn't it clown?

 

 

Quote

Finland has historically received few refugee immigrants. Te integration failures of the other Scandinavian
countries might explain the rise of the anti-immigration
Finns Party, previously known as the True Finns. Te party
went from receiving below 2 per cent of the vote in 2003
to 4 per cent in 2007. In 2011 it gained 19 per cent of the
vote. Sweden continues to have a uniquely free approach
to immigration. Te country combines high levels of refugee and family immigrants with a welfare system that
hinders integration. The result is a growing popular discontent. The Swedish anti-immigration party, the Swedish  Democrats, has neo-Nazi origins. Still, the party has more than doubled its support in the last four consecutive elections. Te Swedish Democrats have gone from gathering 0.4 per cent of the vote in 1998 to becoming the third largest party with 13 per cent in 2014.
 

What! It cannot be! It looks you may have to bleach your skin next time you decide to go leech off another country my ignorant brown Englishman. 

 

 

 

Gender equality in employment:

 

 

 

Quote

Indeed, these problems have been noted for some years.
In 1998 the International Labor ofce published a report
entitled ‘Gender and Jobs: Sex Segregation of occupations
in the World’. Tere it was noted that an unusually gendersegregated labour market had developed in Scandinavian
countries, since many women worked in the public rather
than the private sector. Te report concluded: ‘in terms
of differences amongst industrialized countries, several
studies comment on how Nordic countries, and in particular Sweden, have among the greatest inequalities’ (Anker
1998: 48).
Te overall picture is thus clear: few women in the
Nordic nations reach the position of business leaders, and
even fewer manage to climb to the very top positions of directors and chief executives. How can egalitarian Scandinavian countries, in most regards world leaders in gender
equality, have low rates of female directors and chief executives, while the nations of Central and Eastern Europe are
leaders in terms of women in senior positions?
 

A key explanation lies in the nature of the welfare state.
In Scandinavia, female-dominated sectors such as health
care and education are mainly run by the public sector.
A study from the Nordic Innovation Centre (2007: 12–13)
concludes:
Nearly 50 per cent of all women employees in Denmark
are employed in the public sector. Compared to the male
counterpart where just above 15 per cent are employed in
the public sector. This difference alone can explain some
of the gender gap with respect to entrepreneurship. The
same story is prevalent in Sweden.
 

Te lack of competition reduces long-term productivity
growth and overall levels of pay in the female-dominated
public sector. It also combines with union wage setting to
create a situation where individual hard work is not rewarded significantly: wages are flat and wage rises follow
seniority, according to labour union contracts, rather than
individual achievement. Women in Scandinavia can of
course become managers within the public sector, but the
opportunities for individual career paths, and certainly for
entrepreneurship, are typically more limited compared
with in the private sector.
 

 

Oh no, their economies are structured in an anti-woman manner!!! That sounds like the ideal place for you circus freak, you're too much of a moron to compete with other people and you assign yourself credibility based on your age. This looks like the perfect place! You won't have to compete with half the work force and you can get paid more than younger, superior people than yourself! No wonder you love it so much!!!

 

 

More data for you: 

Most of the region is reducing taxes, and likely expenditure. It's almost like they realized that an economic system isn't measured by arbitrary values like HDI, GINI, and it's reputation among the clowning population. 

 

 

You see circus freak, their great economy was solely a result of adopting capitalist economic policies before most other countries did, partially spurred by their inferior quality of land and resources. Everything I have provided in this post and my earlier post are called evidence. You should try producing some for your various claims. The data and history show that the nanny-state came afterwards. 

 

Now please provide your well-informed insight into how adopting the current Scandinavian system would be the best model  to help India improve as a country. Explain why India should follow the current Scandinavian model, rather than the one that Scandinavians themselves used to reach their current wealth status.

 

By the way, you deracinated retard, I never said the US was an ideal economy or anything of the like. You can freely attack it all you want; it won't get you anywhere. As you can see, the US and Canada have similar government expenditure, so you can continue to attack a country similar to your beloved Canada. 

 

By the way, I am not the one that engaged with you. You, like a headless chicken, rushed into a confrontation with me, making numerous spurious claims and personal comments right off the bat. When asked for relevant evidence to back up your claims, you resorted to personal attacks, insults, avoiding the question, and everything but providing anything reputable to back up your claims. If anyone needs to prove what they say, it is you. 

 

The next time you try to show off how well informed you are,bring facts/research/data, or stick to discussions with your Canadian hookers, your weed-dealer, or your daughters, all of whom meet your intellectual standard.  

 

 

Finally, I realize that you and your family enjoy living in a gutter, but kindly leave me out of your low class behavior. Pack-up your ad hominems, personal attacks, etc and save them for someone who thinks you are worth anything.  Don't bother responding without actual data next time. I have wasted enough time with you. 

 

Edited November 11, 2016 by Tibarn