3 ms·

> I live in "socialist sympathizing" Sweden, and disagree with the broad brush of "suffered with communist/socialist sympathizing governments for a long time".

> I live in "socialist sympathizing" Sweden, and disagree with the broad brush of "suffered with communist/socialist sympathizing governments for a long time". Communist is not socialist, and socialist sympathizing governments don't automatically lead to suffering. I'm sure there are many socialism sympathizers in Sweden, but it's not a socialist country. It's a welfare state, and conflating the two to mean the same is a serious mistake that keeps being repeated. If you want to distribute wealth, there must be wealth to be distributed. How was that wealth created in the first place? Sweden, like other Nordic countries often used by misguided people to show how "socialism works", is a market economy, ranking high in economic freedom. The top income tax for companies, for example, is lower than in the US. Luckily for you, your shades of red have not been in power. > I want you to say why that's meaningful. It's meaningful because defenders of Cuba's dictatorship say that Cuba would be heaven on earth if it weren't for the embargo. Why should they even want to trade with the evil empire though? Again, I'm making a comparison between Latin American governments who claim that all that is bad comes from US trade and defenders of Cuba who claim it's all the fault of lack of trade. > All other Caribbean countries can trade with "every other country in the world", and yet some are still living in poverty equivalent or worse than Cuba. Communism implies poverty. That doesn't mean absence of communism implies wealth. For example, a tribal community is not communist and is not wealthy. And of course the Bahamas would be worse off if trade with the US would suddenly stop. That's the whole point. Trade is beneficial, and not an imperialist weapon.

dalke 10y ago
You said "Latin America has suffered with communist/socialist sympathizing governments for a long time." You did not say they were socialist countries, just like I did not say that Sweden was a socialist country. Yet it appears that you think I claim that Sweden is socialist. Your reference to "The top income tax for companies" is irrelevant. The US has far more ways to avoid the official tax rate than is reasonable, in that it benefits the larger companies that can afford accountants. Quoting http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/09/eric-bolling/does-us-have-highest-corporate-tax-rate-free-world/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/09/... "Another 2011 study by the Congressional Research Service put the U.S. effective rate at 27.1 percent, slightly lower than the OECD average of 27.7 percent." Quoting http://www.doingbusiness.org/~/media/GIAWB/Doing%20Business/Documents/Special-Reports/Paying-Taxes-2014.pdf http://www.doingbusiness.org/~/media/GIAWB/Doing%20Business/... : > However, while the rate of corporate income tax has a high public profile, corporate income tax is a relatively small part of Sweden’s Total Tax Rate. Just less than 16 percentage points relate to corporate income taxes while just over 35 percentage points relate to labour taxes and mandatory contributions. Over the nine years of Paying Taxes the Total Tax Rate for labour taxes and mandatory contributions has dropped slightly from 36.9% in 2004 to 35.5% in 2012. In 2012, the Total Tax Rate stayed at 52.0% for the fourth year in a row and so remains well above the global average. You write "defenders of Cuba's dictatorship ... defenders of Cuba who claim it's all the fault of lack of trade". Do you take me as a defender? I have not said it would be "heaven on Earth". Nor have I ever said it was "all the fault of lack of trade". If anything, I have pointed out that there is no single explanatory factor. What I ask is for some backing to your opinion. You write "Communism implies poverty". Do you regard China ("socialist market economy") and Vietnam ("ardently capitalist communists") as communist? The latter seems to be doing well at reducing poverty. If trade is beneficial, then is stopping trade detrimental? Can I consider forcing others to also stop trade a form of economic weapon? If not, what would be an "imperialist weapon", other than a battleship off your coast? That is, are you objecting to the metaphor of "weapon" for "economic action", or the principle that trade can be used to influence a country's internal policies? If the latter, what do you think of the boycott and divestment from apartheid South Africa? Was it a non-imperialist weapon?
- andrenth 10y ago
  You said Sweden is socialist sympathizing. I said that Sweden does not implement socialism, but a welfare state. As I understand it, those sympathizers of socialism in Sweden are actually sympathizers of a welfare state, while erroneously calling it "socialism". This is very different from Latin America, where socialism really means it (see Cuba, Venezuela, for example). Point taken about Sweden's corporate taxes, though it doesn't detract from the fact that there's nothing socialist about its economy. China and Vietnam reduce poverty the more they embrace capitalism... Not a coincidence I guess. Even in far from ideal conditions, the presence of an even somewhat free market improves the quality of life of the population. Trade is beneficial and stopping trade can be used as a weapon. However, what is usually claimed in Latin America is that having trade is the imperialist weapon, which is absurd. My whole point in this thread is that the people who claim that the US are evil imperialists simultaneously claim Cuba would be better off if not for the embargo. I'm simply pointing out this contradiction.

dalke 10y ago

You said "Latin America has suffered with communist/socialist sympathizing governments for a long time." You did not say they were socialist countries, just like I did not say that Sweden was a socialist country. Yet it appears that you think I claim that Sweden is socialist. Your reference to "The top income tax for companies" is irrelevant. The US has far more ways to avoid the official tax rate than is reasonable, in that it benefits the larger companies that can afford accountants. Quoting http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/09/eric-bolling/does-us-have-highest-corporate-tax-rate-free-world/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/09/... "Another 2011 study by the Congressional Research Service put the U.S. effective rate at 27.1 percent, slightly lower than the OECD average of 27.7 percent." Quoting http://www.doingbusiness.org/~/media/GIAWB/Doing%20Business/Documents/Special-Reports/Paying-Taxes-2014.pdf http://www.doingbusiness.org/~/media/GIAWB/Doing%20Business/... : > However, while the rate of corporate income tax has a high public profile, corporate income tax is a relatively small part of Sweden’s Total Tax Rate. Just less than 16 percentage points relate to corporate income taxes while just over 35 percentage points relate to labour taxes and mandatory contributions. Over the nine years of Paying Taxes the Total Tax Rate for labour taxes and mandatory contributions has dropped slightly from 36.9% in 2004 to 35.5% in 2012. In 2012, the Total Tax Rate stayed at 52.0% for the fourth year in a row and so remains well above the global average. You write "defenders of Cuba's dictatorship ... defenders of Cuba who claim it's all the fault of lack of trade". Do you take me as a defender? I have not said it would be "heaven on Earth". Nor have I ever said it was "all the fault of lack of trade". If anything, I have pointed out that there is no single explanatory factor. What I ask is for some backing to your opinion. You write "Communism implies poverty". Do you regard China ("socialist market economy") and Vietnam ("ardently capitalist communists") as communist? The latter seems to be doing well at reducing poverty. If trade is beneficial, then is stopping trade detrimental? Can I consider forcing others to also stop trade a form of economic weapon? If not, what would be an "imperialist weapon", other than a battleship off your coast? That is, are you objecting to the metaphor of "weapon" for "economic action", or the principle that trade can be used to influence a country's internal policies? If the latter, what do you think of the boycott and divestment from apartheid South Africa? Was it a non-imperialist weapon?

andrenth 10y ago
You said Sweden is socialist sympathizing. I said that Sweden does not implement socialism, but a welfare state. As I understand it, those sympathizers of socialism in Sweden are actually sympathizers of a welfare state, while erroneously calling it "socialism". This is very different from Latin America, where socialism really means it (see Cuba, Venezuela, for example). Point taken about Sweden's corporate taxes, though it doesn't detract from the fact that there's nothing socialist about its economy. China and Vietnam reduce poverty the more they embrace capitalism... Not a coincidence I guess. Even in far from ideal conditions, the presence of an even somewhat free market improves the quality of life of the population. Trade is beneficial and stopping trade can be used as a weapon. However, what is usually claimed in Latin America is that having trade is the imperialist weapon, which is absurd. My whole point in this thread is that the people who claim that the US are evil imperialists simultaneously claim Cuba would be better off if not for the embargo. I'm simply pointing out this contradiction.