Voters steer Europe to the right

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 16:35
VIEWED: 24282
PAGE 14 of 23

KPO: Can you edit your image please?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
True, greed/self-interest is a natural human instinct and so is sharing. What I'm more interested in though is not what is done with the spoils but the method employed to gain them in the first place. I'm talking about capitalism vs socialism as systems to create wealth. And I think the 'naturalness' of capitalism as a solution to this problem comes from the fact that it arose out of people's sincere desire to make money, whereas socialism seems heavily tainted with other agendas such as 'social justice' or whatever - I don't even think making money is its primary concern.

---

And the problem I have with that view, is it requires ignoring data that doesn't agree with it. A desire for equality is as inbuilt, if not more so, than a desire to accumulate wealth.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

BSCM wrote:

My point to Signy was to teach the connection between free-markets and free-thought. A free market doesn't exclude one from a need to survive. Do not confuse your need to work with a misunderstanding of what economic freedom is. In socialized euro countries where economic freedom is less, people still have jobs. They also take home far less on average purchasing power than americans do. Worse still would be the old system behind the iron curtain of eastern europe where citizens were forced at pitchfork point to work for good the good of the people.

---

I'm not sure I buy this argument, even with my supposedly much greater purchasing power...

As I understand it - and I may well be wrong here - what you have left in the way of "take home" pay in a country like Denmark is actually LESS; in other words, the government takes out a greater chunk of your pay right up front, to the tune of about 40% of your gross pay.

However, what you're left with in the form of "take-home" pay is actually YOURS TO TAKE HOME. In other words, you're not paying property taxes with it, nor school taxes, nor school tuition, nor worrying about how and get your health coverage figured out and how to pay for your auto insurance, etc., etc. So while you may get a bigger percentage of your gross pay to take home with you here in the U.S., by the time you've paid for all the "free market" stuff like your various insurances and taxes, you're actually left with less real money in your pocket to spend as you see fit.

At least, that's how it was explained to me by a friend from Copenhagen. She may have painted it in broad strokes and missed something in translation, because it sounds to me like a worker's paradise. You work, you get paid, you get good benefits and vacation, and when you're off work, you're not wasting all your free time trying to figure out how to keep your head above water.

And it shows in their relative happiness. Studies repeatedly list Denmark as the happiest country on Earth, by a pretty sizable margin. (Note that I didn't call it "the happiest PLACE on Earth; I don't want to get sued by the Disney family corporation!)

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Do not confuse your need to work with a misunderstanding of what economic freedom is. In socialized euro countries where economic freedom is less, people still have jobs. They also take home far less on average purchasing power than americans do.

---

# 1 Luxembourg: $79,421.60 per capita
# 2 Qatar: $78,723.23 per capita
# 3 Bermuda: $71,067.59 per capita
# 4 Jersey: $56,159.98 per capita
# 5 Kuwait: $55,875.75 per capita
# 6 Norway: $53,285.21 per capita
# 7 Brunei: $52,432.48 per capita
# 8 Singapore: $49,879.10 per capita
# 9 Ireland: $46,628.37 per capita
# 10 United States: $45,759.46 per capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_pur_pow_par_percap-purchasin
g-power-parity-per-capita

---

What's interesting about that list to me, is that all the countries above the US are small countries (and some of them oil rich states/tax havens) - but basically I think it must be an advantage being a small country. Big European countries like the UK, France, Germany are quite a bit further down the list.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

And the problem I have with that view, is it requires ignoring data that doesn't agree with it. A desire for equality is as inbuilt, if not more so, than a desire to accumulate wealth.

---

Maybe, but did you hear me say otherwise?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kpo:
I said economies are like natural systems, so analogy was implied;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You also said:

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitalism allows an economy to be natural

---

I said it in the same sentence as that previous quote where I'd set up the analogy...

I don't buy this idea of the whole point of civilisation being to subvert nature - and you giving examples of where it apparently does subvert nature certainly doesn't prove that that's the point. But it doesn't matter, since the word 'natural' was being used as a metaphor:

And if a 'natural' metaphor is so confusing in terms of 'unnatural' human innovation and its development, why are you using one yourself?

Quote:

---

Barter and Trade are unnatural constructs of proto-human civilisation. They're off-shoots of Humans ability to create tools and organisations, technology, that creates surpluses.

---

A quite natural offshoot, one might say.

I'm not saying capitalism mirrors the natural order of things, dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest etc., and so that's why we should have it. I can agree with you that civilisation can transcend all that. I'm saying capitalism is a natural/organically devised solution to the problem of creating wealth effectively, and in that sense it works better than any imposed, more artificial system. I've said I view socialism as an unnatural solution because it wasn't devised to solve this problem, but another one.

Quote:

---

and even another fallacy. Who says capitalism is the only, or even the best way of delivering that?

---

lol, another fallacy. Competition was something I pointed out as a healthy trait in economies, similar to in the natural world - where did I say capitalism was the only way to deliver it? That's a view you've projected onto me, like this one:

Quote:

---

There's people through out history who've thought the same, like the Spartan's and Roman's who practised infanticide of newborns that didn't fit the bill.

---

The whole dog-eat-dog thing as natural order of things, I presume? How did you get that from this quote:

"I think subverting the natural order in civilisation might just be a means towards another, higher end."

Mystifying. I also didn't understand your last bit on lynxes - was that a significant QED?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

BSCM ?

Not much I can add to the argument either, as my idea of economics is "Get yo hands off my money!" unless I happen to be in voluntary agreement with what you plan to use it for.

(Side Note: My former township got main street paved, and for LESS than the bid limit I locked in on my way out, finally, bwahahahahaha !!)

I did wanna make a recommendation to you regarding reading material and politics, however.

Ringo's "The road to damascus"
http://www.webscription.net/p-355-the-road-to-damascus.aspx
It's available via the Baen Free Library, and while set in Keith Laumers BOLO universe, offers excellent political commentary as well as a frightening example of just how FAST things can go to hell in a handbasket if either "side" gains too much power - POPPA actually encompasses the worst traits of both ends of our political spectrum and quite credibly so.
(As opposed to the usual anvilicious strawmen many authors these days are fond of)

It's a good read for a lotta reasons, many of which will be obvious - but also a factor in my decision to play off both "sides" poisonous natures as antidote to each other while crushing the foundations of their parties.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Capitalism allows an economy to be natural and therefore be healthy and vibrant

---

You should try reading Man Against Myth. The myth of capitalism being "natural" is well-entrenched, but it's false. It's no more "natural" than Marxism, or communism, or feudalism.

Quote:

---

I'm not saying capitalism mirrors the natural order of things, dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest etc.

---

You REALLY should read Man Against Myth. First of all, the whole concept of "survival of the fittest" doesn't mean fierce intra-species aggression. That's a complete misunderstanding/ perversion of Darwinism.

Quote:

---

I'm saying capitalism is a natural/organically devised solution to the problem of creating wealth effectively, and in that sense it works better than any imposed, more artificial system.

---

How is capitalism any more "naturally created " than tribalism. Or feudalism? Or mercantilism? Each arrangement is simply responding to the technologies and issues of the day. And maybe something will come later that's even MORE "natural", durable, and survivable.

Quote:

---

I've said I view socialism as an unnatural solution because it wasn't devised to solve this problem, but another one.

---

IMHO all economic systems are about wealth creation.

Quote:

---

Competition was something I pointed out as a healthy trait in economies, similar to in the natural world - where did I say capitalism was the only way to deliver it?

---

Capitalism does NOT deliver competition. In fact, that's the one thing that capitalists hate MOST, the one thing that capitalists try to get rid of as much as possible. The goal is to grab as much market share as possible, and build a monopoly, because THAT way leads to higher profits. Competition??? HAHAHAHA!!! Capitalist have no desire for it!

Quote:

---

What's interesting about that list to me, is that all the countries above the US are small countries (and some of them oil rich states/tax havens) - but basically I think it must be an advantage being a small country. Big European countries like the UK, France, Germany are quite a bit further down the list.

---

what's interesting about the list is that you've completely misinterpreted it. The list (which is per capita GDP) tends to mislead people into thinking that it represents the TYPICAL life style. It doesn't- at least not for the USA! We have such a HUGE disparity of wealth... here's an example: you have ten ball-players on a bench. Nine of them make $100,000 a year, and one makes $10,000,000. The AVERAGE salary is a million dollars, but....

KPO, you say that we all engage in capitalism because we want some sort of physical reward. Indeed, we do. That is the ONLY rational reason to support ANY economic system. But capitalism doesn't deliver the goods to the typical participant as well as other systems. So... I ask again: What's in it for me?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

My point to Signy was to teach the connection between free-markets and free-thought.

---

I have never seen less free thought than in the USA. Acquaintances from Russia and China (RUSSIA, mind you) have often said that the USA population is more heavily propagandized than in their countries. I find people's thoughts tend to be very narrow, and focused almost exclusively in "What can I buy, and how cheap is it?" REAL freedom would mean having some control over the important aspects of your life: the ability to work at a job that you like, to bargain for your wage with equal power as your employer, to be able to control your personal future and solve collective problems effectively, ot have some time left over for personal development, friends and family... NOT the freedom to choose from 20 different kinds of toilet paper or open a Subway!

Quote:

---

A free market doesn't exclude one from a need to survive. Do not confuse your need to work with a misunderstanding of what economic freedom is.

---

Do not confuse OUR market with a "free" market. Just because it's called "free" doesn't make it so.

Quote:

---

In socialized euro countries where economic freedom is less, people still have jobs. They also take home far less on average purchasing power than americans do.

---

This is the whole problem with "average" versus "typical", which I addressed already.

Let me tell you what I see.

All economies are about wealth creation. Wealth creation comes about when more can be made with less effort. THAT depends on the development of tools (which rests on a threshold population density) www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090604144324.htm
the division of labor, the accumulation of "stuff" (made possible by the transition from mobile gatherer-hunters to fixed agrarian societies), trade, peace, cooperation, and the harnessing of animal and then non-animal power (wind, steam, water, coal, oil, solar). Counterpoised against this development are the forces of nature... famine, disease, drought, depletion... which can bring complex civilizations down.

Non of this is specifically related to capitalism. Many of the huge discoveries and developments... fire, agriculture, animal husbandry, weaving, writing, mathematics, biology, geography, metallurgy etc. ... came well before capitalism.

There are prolly BETTER ways to create wealth, BETTER ways distribute the rewards, and BETTER ways to ensure our long-term survival than capitalism.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Thanks for fixing your image.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
What's interesting about that list to me, is that all the countries above the US are small countries (and some of them oil rich states/tax havens) - but basically I think it must be an advantage being a small country. Big European countries like the UK, France, Germany are quite a bit further down the list.

---

What's interesting to me is when you look at GDP those big countries appear at the top. PPP is a poor measure in my opinion, I only posted it because those were the figures BSCM alluded to, and the figures are still somewhat different to what he claimed of them, despite favouring the United States for similar reasons that Kwicko has already gone over, amongst others.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
I said it in the same sentence as that previous quote where I'd set up the analogy...

---

You also said it IS natural. Don't admonish me because you put forth a mixed message.

Regardless, it makes bugger all difference if you were saying it is natural, or if you were saying it's like natural, since the objections are largely the same (objections you've ignored rather than argued against).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
I don't buy this idea of the whole point of civilisation being to subvert nature - and you giving examples of where it apparently does subvert nature certainly doesn't prove that that's the point.

---

Then make an argument for your position, or get over it. Because saying “nuhuh!” really doesn't prove anything.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
But it doesn't matter, since the word 'natural' was being used as a metaphor:

And if a 'natural' metaphor is so confusing in terms of 'unnatural' human innovation and its development, why are you using one yourself?

Quote:

---

Barter and Trade are unnatural constructs of proto-human civilisation. They're off-shoots of Humans ability to create tools and organisations, technology, that creates surpluses.

---

A quite natural offshoot, one might say.

---

Hmm, I'm projecting views? Where did I say is was a natural off-shoot? You might say that, but clearly I wouldn't, which is why I didn't

Seriously you're really rather scraping through the bottom of the barrel with this attempt at a turning of tables, and it's a little dishonest. Saying “off-shoot” is language denoting something developed from, not necessarily that it's a natural occurrence, unless the context makes that clear.

Now it maybe analogous to perhaps saying "Capitalism is a natural development from Mercantilism", but that's not what you said. You said Capitalism is (or is like) a natural system. Two completely different things, two different uses for the same word. Trying to equate the two is nothing but Equivocation.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
I'm not saying capitalism mirrors the natural order of things, dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest etc., and so that's why we should have it.

---

That's exactly what you said. If that's not what you meant, it's not my fault for reading what you said rather than what you meant.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
I'm saying capitalism is a natural/organically devised solution to the problem of creating wealth effectively, and in that sense it works better than any imposed, more artificial system.

---

Did it grow on the Capitalism tree? I was rather thinking a person made it up, which would make it unnatural by definition.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
lol, another fallacy. Competition was something I pointed out as a healthy trait in economies, similar to in the natural world - where did I say capitalism was the only way to deliver it?

---

Because it's not like talking about how Capitalism is the "natural" response to this problem at all implies that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
The whole dog-eat-dog thing as natural order of things, I presume? How did you get that from this quote:

"I think subverting the natural order in c

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME