3 ms·

The poster above was discussing attitudes towards government in Canada, it seems a bit of a non-sequitur to bring up East Germany, North Korea, and Maoist China

The poster above was discussing attitudes towards government in Canada, it seems a bit of a non-sequitur to bring up East Germany, North Korea, and Maoist China. This is one of the very strange dichotomies which seems to exist in the US, as if when considering economics or government there are only two sides of the coin, and anything even vaguely centre left is on the same side as Communism. What didibus said applies to almost every developed country in the world, there are definitely those ideas towards government in Germany (including West Germany before reunification), Japan, and the UK. In most developed countries, you would be hard-pushed to find any party which followed attitudes you might describe as 'starve the beast', 'the best government is the least government' and so on. Even the most conservative parties in those countries in general do not think like that.

lacampbell 10y ago
Here's the crux of it - most developed countries in the world are poorer than the US. I'm in NZ, often held up as some kind of social democratic Utopia by progressive Americans. Salaries are lower, housing is unaffordable in places that are in no way comparable to San Francisco or New York, and goods are extremely expensive due to sky high import and sales taxes.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  Is life for the median (or below) worker worse or better though, in terms of access to health care, housing, education, jobs, etc.? As a counterpoint, US is only #8 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Very_high_human_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Dev...
- kristopolous 10y ago
  Well sure, but changing the economic system won't modify the fact that it's an island of 4 million people that's so far out on the periphery that it isn't even included on some world maps (https://www.reddit.com/r/MapsWithoutNZ/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MapsWithoutNZ/). The same economic realities can be said about Hawaii.
  - lacampbell 10y ago
    It's two major islands, closer to 5 million people, and we have a sales tax ("goods and services" or GST) of 15% that applies to everything, even groceries or imported electronics. This of course largely hits the working class. The rich don't rely on getting income from generating real value here - income tax is far too high. The key to becoming wealthy is to invest in property and rent it out at exorbitant prices to working class people.
    - kristopolous 10y ago
      Sorry, didn't know it was two islands ... shows my ignorance. I really don't know of New Zealands' economic structure. The argument I was trying to put forth is that there's a broader context that has exogenous influence upon any society and by extension, its economy. I could have a broader discussion on taxation if you want, but I find it's important to establish, and agree, upon a number of facts before those can start being productive. It's a long haul conversation.
- Brakenshire 10y ago
  Most of the US's extra growth relative to those countries is down to increasing population. You can look back 50 years and you won't find much difference in terms of growth if you control for number of people: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&series=SP.POP.TOTL,AG.SRF.TOTL.K2,EN.POP.DNST,NY.GNP.ATLS.CD,NY.GNP.PCAP.CD,NY.GNP.MKTP.PP.CD,NY.GNP.PCAP.PP.CD,NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG,NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG# http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&ser... By the end of that time period the US had become a much more powerful country, but the average person was not significantly more wealthy compared to those in other developed countries than they were at the start. Which would lead me to think the difference is mostly down to other factors - for instance natural resources, mining, timber, agriculture etc and also cheap plentiful land for house-building, the only industrial nation left standing after WWII, etc.

lacampbell 10y ago

Here's the crux of it - most developed countries in the world are poorer than the US. I'm in NZ, often held up as some kind of social democratic Utopia by progressive Americans. Salaries are lower, housing is unaffordable in places that are in no way comparable to San Francisco or New York, and goods are extremely expensive due to sky high import and sales taxes.

smallnamespace 10y ago
Is life for the median (or below) worker worse or better though, in terms of access to health care, housing, education, jobs, etc.? As a counterpoint, US is only #8 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Very_high_human_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Dev...
kristopolous 10y ago
Well sure, but changing the economic system won't modify the fact that it's an island of 4 million people that's so far out on the periphery that it isn't even included on some world maps (https://www.reddit.com/r/MapsWithoutNZ/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MapsWithoutNZ/). The same economic realities can be said about Hawaii.
- lacampbell 10y ago
  It's two major islands, closer to 5 million people, and we have a sales tax ("goods and services" or GST) of 15% that applies to everything, even groceries or imported electronics. This of course largely hits the working class. The rich don't rely on getting income from generating real value here - income tax is far too high. The key to becoming wealthy is to invest in property and rent it out at exorbitant prices to working class people.
  - kristopolous 10y ago
    Sorry, didn't know it was two islands ... shows my ignorance. I really don't know of New Zealands' economic structure. The argument I was trying to put forth is that there's a broader context that has exogenous influence upon any society and by extension, its economy. I could have a broader discussion on taxation if you want, but I find it's important to establish, and agree, upon a number of facts before those can start being productive. It's a long haul conversation.
Brakenshire 10y ago
Most of the US's extra growth relative to those countries is down to increasing population. You can look back 50 years and you won't find much difference in terms of growth if you control for number of people: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&series=SP.POP.TOTL,AG.SRF.TOTL.K2,EN.POP.DNST,NY.GNP.ATLS.CD,NY.GNP.PCAP.CD,NY.GNP.MKTP.PP.CD,NY.GNP.PCAP.PP.CD,NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG,NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG# http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&ser... By the end of that time period the US had become a much more powerful country, but the average person was not significantly more wealthy compared to those in other developed countries than they were at the start. Which would lead me to think the difference is mostly down to other factors - for instance natural resources, mining, timber, agriculture etc and also cheap plentiful land for house-building, the only industrial nation left standing after WWII, etc.