Imagine how rich they would all be if they weren't socialist.
See, you can spin this the other way, too.
Imagine how rich they would all be if they weren't socialist.
See, you can spin this the other way, too.
Maybe you should go back to 8th grade biology and learn the meaning of "homogenous" before taking on issues of a grander scale.
reer wrote:
Training pretty well. wrote:I'm sure that many "socialist" countries could spend more on their military but they know that it's easier to just mind your own business and keep yourselves out of trouble than to be constantly prepared for war. The US didn't always used to be like this. Pre WWII we didn't have this insane budget for the military and it didn't stop us from mobilizing and saving Europe's butt when it came time.
I'm not saying the U.S. needs to insert itself into every corner of the world or needs to get involved in unnecessary wars, but your comments demonstrate that you are blithely unfamiliar with history and how the world works. Unfortunately it benefits no one if we decide to become isolationist and sit on the sidelines. And, as another poster alluded to, the U.S. indirectly subsidizes the defense budgets of many other countries who rely on our protection and equipment. It's a mutually beneficial relationship, which just so happens to allow certain countries to retain more money in their coffers to pay for their beloved and bloated social programs.
I think you're confusing "isolationism" and peaceful diplomacy. Bombing countries is whar isolates us from them.
It doesn't work in Nordic countries. They don't lead the world in any industry. They don't invent anything. They watch what we do in America and copy it as best they can.
Socialism holds them back. Those who truly have the entrepreneurial bug move somewhere else (like here). They have perfected the copycat model. If they weren't 98+% white, even that would fall apart.
What they do lead in is healthcare and education ... but those are governmental entities. The private sector lags far far behind many others.
It is blatantly clear that any form of left-wing policies holds an economy back. A lot of these pampered Euros you see rioting on TV are getting their first dose of economic reality in many years. The 'free lunch' is not so free after all.
Also, check the extremely low birthrate of native Scandinavians. In a few more generations they may become extinct as a distinct racial group.
You're right, we don't emulate Europe at all. And Europe hasn't led the US in scientific productivity for two decades now.What world do you live it?
photofinish wrote:
It doesn't work in Nordic countries. They don't lead the world in any industry. They don't invent anything. They watch what we do in America and copy it as best they can.
Socialism holds them back. Those who truly have the entrepreneurial bug move somewhere else (like here). They have perfected the copycat model. If they weren't 98+% white, even that would fall apart.
What they do lead in is healthcare and education ... but those are governmental entities. The private sector lags far far behind many others.
Only 13 companies with a market cap of $20+ billion. Now, count up the US companies.
Siberian Orientals have over the ages learned teamwork in order to survive in the cold. Scandinavians descend from Mongols and Siberians.
Because they have a population size roughly equal to that of LA county, tremendous petroleum revenue, and a populace that largely works in the service industry catering to tourists.
sjjsj wrote:
So what exactly in the military's budget should be cut?
I don't care to take the time to dive into this as deeply as is probably necessary to satisfy you (hey-o!), but I'll take a crack at it:
- Cut back on troops. People are incredibly expensive; of the $700B defense budget, personnel made up $150B. Why spend so much on combat troops when we're not (or don't need to be) at war? I don't know exactly how many is "sufficient," but I doubt it's out of the question to reduce this amount by 30-40%.
- Cut back on the frequency of major procurement. The F-35 is the most expensive and massive military procurement in the history of the world. It's also the most unnecessary. No doubt the fighter is an incredible achievement of technology (for all intents and purposes it is an improvement from its predecessor), but we most certainly don't need it. The F-16 is perfectly adequate for our military needs. Even if it weren't, upgrades and retrofitting (or just building new ones! We already have the most expensive part - the design - worked out!) would be way cheaper. There are MANY more procurement examples similar to F-35.
- Once you cut those two things, Ops and Maintenance (the greatest piece of the pie) will follow.
The fact that the US spends so much in comparison to its "enemies" should be a signal that it is spending too much. There is no Nazi Germany. There is no USSR. There is no massive superpower that is threatening the US or its allies. There are only a handful of small rogue nations and terrorist organizations. We need a large enough military to combat the direct threats and a large enough intelligence community to combat the indirect threats.
Colorful graphics and food for thought:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/defense-spending-fact-of-the-day_n_1746685.htmlhttp://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/06/21/how-to-safely-cut-us-defense-spendingThese countries are also-rans on the world stage because they are socialist. I would not call that success. It's true they have good education and healthcare systems, but these systems are also the reason why they don't amount to much. They spend so much time and effort trying to even things out that they really don't get anywhere as nations. They live in a giant safety net - they will never crash to the ground, but they will also never climb out of it either.
First of all, none of them are "socialist."Second, what defines success to you? Good education, good healthcare, low poverty, and high "hapiness" along with the low risk of ever crashing would do it for me.
Carnivore 69 wrote:
These countries are also-rans on the world stage because they are socialist. I would not call that success. It's true they have good education and healthcare systems, but these systems are also the reason why they don't amount to much. They spend so much time and effort trying to even things out that they really don't get anywhere as nations. They live in a giant safety net - they will never crash to the ground, but they will also never climb out of it either.
[quote]No Way wrote:
First of all, none of them are "socialist."
Second, what defines success to you? Good education, good healthcare, low poverty, and high "hapiness" along with the low risk of ever crashing would do it for me.
I think this is the key point while these countries have some socialistic programs they are overwhelmingly capitalistic. Even the most socialist countries in history have had a great deal of capitalism ingrained in their societies. In the USSR and North Korea there was and is extensive bartering and black market exchange.
Also many of these countries that have huge socialistic programs loan huge amounts of money from capitalists. The socialistic countries who have disallowed the borrowing from the free market have all clasped in a very short time. The huge debt of these nations will probably come back to haunt them in the next several decades.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just making up vague numbers and vague points (where did you get this 30-40% figure???). You're in no position to claim that you actually know how much military is or is not necessary. You dont even know what they are spending the money on (no, you're pie chart does not tell you what they are spending money on). Furthermore, did you ever consider that perhaps things cost less in China? Or that maybe China just doesn't feel as threatened by the things that threaten us?And there is no threat to the US? Are you kidding??? China, North Korea, Iran, the entire Mediterranean, etc.
Rocky Mountain Hi wrote:
sjjsj wrote:So what exactly in the military's budget should be cut?
I don't care to take the time to dive into this as deeply as is probably necessary to satisfy you (hey-o!), but I'll take a crack at it:
- Cut back on troops. People are incredibly expensive; of the $700B defense budget, personnel made up $150B. Why spend so much on combat troops when we're not (or don't need to be) at war? I don't know exactly how many is "sufficient," but I doubt it's out of the question to reduce this amount by 30-40%.
- Cut back on the frequency of major procurement. The F-35 is the most expensive and massive military procurement in the history of the world. It's also the most unnecessary. No doubt the fighter is an incredible achievement of technology (for all intents and purposes it is an improvement from its predecessor), but we most certainly don't need it. The F-16 is perfectly adequate for our military needs. Even if it weren't, upgrades and retrofitting (or just building new ones! We already have the most expensive part - the design - worked out!) would be way cheaper. There are MANY more procurement examples similar to F-35.
- Once you cut those two things, Ops and Maintenance (the greatest piece of the pie) will follow.
The fact that the US spends so much in comparison to its "enemies" should be a signal that it is spending too much. There is no Nazi Germany. There is no USSR. There is no massive superpower that is threatening the US or its allies. There are only a handful of small rogue nations and terrorist organizations. We need a large enough military to combat the direct threats and a large enough intelligence community to combat the indirect threats.
Colorful graphics and food for thought:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/defense-spending-fact-of-the-day_n_1746685.htmlhttp://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/06/21/how-to-safely-cut-us-defense-spending
photofinish wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_Nordic_companiesOnly 13 companies with a market cap of $20+ billion. Now, count up the US companies.
You do know that not all countries have the same population, right?! Finland, for instance, has a population of 5.4 million - about 1/55th that of the US. I'd say they're doing pretty well.
But whatever Nokia's fate, is having a large number of $20+ billion market cap companies really more important than providing your population with good education, healthcare, and sense of stability and "society"? (Assuming it's sustainable, of course - but I don't see any sign that Finnish society is less sustainable than America's.)
i don't want to come off as a racist, but sadly i have to say these nordic countries don't have a "gangsta" rap culture from poor, black neighborhoods.
they also don't have a large border with the 3rd world country of mexico with hispanics who will mow lawns and not pay any income tax but instead send money out of america.
photofinish wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_Nordic_companiesOnly 13 companies with a market cap of $20+ billion. Now, count up the US companies.
So that proves that a large domestic market is essential to corporations' growth potential. How is that relevant?
Mortician wrote:
It "works" in Norway because they have a lot of natural resources (oil).
Denmark has no significant natural resources. Why does it work there?
brownsmith76 wrote:
i don't want to come off as a racist, but sadly i have to say these nordic countries don't have a "gangsta" rap culture from poor, black neighborhoods.
they also don't have a large border with the 3rd world country of mexico with hispanics who will mow lawns and not pay any income tax but instead send money out of america.
lol those issues have nothing to do with why "socialism" wouldn't work in the US. Those populations are so minor.