It aint necessarily so - that big-government is bad (1 Viewer)

[Lafayette]

Is BigGov such a bad thing?

To see some remarks on this forum, one might be led to believe that BigGov was Evil Incarnate.

However, a study shows that such might be a very, very wrong conclusion: Bigger government makes for more satisfied people, international study finds. Note that this study was done by questioning nationals in the countries covered by the scope of the investigation.

Excerpt:

Four measures of government policies were used by Flavin and co-researchers at the University of Notre Dame and Texas A&M University:
*The overall size of government consumption as a percentage of national gross domestic product.
*Social welfare expenditures as a percentage of the gross domestic product.
*Welfare state generosity measured in terms of the ease of access to welfare benefits, the expansiveness of coverage to citizens of different statuses and life circumstances, and the degree to which social benefits replace incomes lost due to unemployment, retirement, or family circumstances.
*Labor market regulations governing such circumstances as job dismissals, temporary employment, and mass layoffs.

The study's findings held true regardless of whether respondents were rich or poor. The researchers also ruled out alternative explanations such as an individual's health, education level, and marital status as well as the gross national product and unemployment rate of the country that he or she lives in.

"Are we saying we need a bigger government to be happier? No," Flavin said. "Instead, our goal is to objectively examine the data and let people draw their own conclusions. If anything, this study is a conversation-starter about what role we envision for government in our lives and the advantages and disadvantages of government intervention into the market economy."

Countries ranked from most to least satisfied—with 10 the highest level of satisfaction—included:
Denmark: 8.20
Switzerland: 8.10
Iceland: 8.04
Ireland: 7.95
Austria: 7.95
Finland: 7.82
Sweden: 7.82
Canada: 7.82
Norway: 7.78
Netherlands: 7.76
United States: 7.61
Australia: 7.58
Great Britain: 7.51
Belgium: 7.49
Germany: 7.08
Italy: 7.05
Portugal: 7.05
Spain: 6.96
France: 6.85
Greece: 6.67
Japan: 6.63

"Elsewhere is better?" No, that is not necessarily so either. It depends upon many aspects, first and foremost of which are Social Factors (acceptance of foreigners, language barriers, standard of living, etc.)

For instance, consider the above ranking. The Italians are some of the most happy people you can live with and amongst. Unfortunately the Italians cannot seem to find and elect competent politicians to run their economy "from the top down". In fact, when you look at the lack of linkage between Good Governance and Ethnicity, note in the above list how many Latin countries are ranked at the bottom, and how many nordic countries at the top. And yet, when it comes to retirement, the bottom ranked countries are some of the most popular destination for retirees from other European countries at the top of the list!

We cannot say, either, that the US is very high up the scale. In fact, the conclusion from that list is obvious: BigGovernance in the form of important Social Services provided and well-managed by government administrations in the EU countries are why the top-nations in the above listing are European. In fact, that is the reason, I submit, that the nordic countries of Europe have such a high-ranking.

OK, now let's all chew on that conclusion .... !

NB: Notice that the work, work, work nation of Japan, which makes true the adage, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy".

 

[Captain Adverse]

People are always content when provided bread and circuses. Especially when it's free or at a miniscule personal cost.

Now I do believe that some government is necessary because existence in a state of nature (anarchy) is fairly precarious.

Such government should provide for the common defense, education for the young, and law enforcement to aid in protection of life, property, and essential liberty. I'd even include public health, foreign diplomacy, and a standard currency. That to provide these services a basic tax can be levied.

Anything else? Only as needed and even then with as little demand on individual life, liberty, and property rights as possible.

Welfare...not so much and only until a person can be trained and provided with the ability to take care of themselves.

 

[austrianecon]

This is a joke. The countries with the biggest Governments and most controlling Governments have the lowest ratings. Did you fail to notice that? The top 4 have qualities most Libertarians would love, especially Switzerland.

 

[joG]

Is BigGov such a bad thing?

To see some remarks on this forum, one might be led to believe that BigGov was Evil Incarnate.

However, a study shows that such might be a very, very wrong conclusion: Bigger government makes for more satisfied people, international study finds. Note that this study was done by questioning nationals in the countries covered by the scope of the investigation.

Excerpt:



"Elsewhere is better?" No, that is not necessarily so either. It depends upon many aspects, first and foremost of which are Social Factors (acceptance of foreigners, language barriers, standard of living, etc.)

For instance, consider the above ranking. The Italians are some of the most happy people you can live with and amongst. Unfortunately the Italians cannot seem to find and elect competent politicians to run their economy "from the top down". In fact, when you look at the lack of linkage between Good Governance and Ethnicity, note in the above list how many Latin countries are ranked at the bottom, and how many nordic countries at the top. And yet, when it comes to retirement, the bottom ranked countries are some of the most popular destination for retirees from other European countries at the top of the list!

We cannot say, either, that the US is very high up the scale. In fact, the conclusion from that list is obvious: BigGovernance in the form of important Social Services provided and well-managed by government administrations in the EU countries are why the top-nations in the above listing are European. In fact, that is the reason, I submit, that the nordic countries of Europe have such a high-ranking.

OK, now let's all chew on that conclusion .... !

NB: Notice that the work, work, work nation of Japan, which makes true the adage, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy".

I don't really agree totally with your take on the data. As a matter of fact, i find extraordinary ,something you do not mention. Consider for a moment the size of the populations and their diversities of the countries on the list. I suspect that any analysis of the data without looking into these factors loses important aspects of societal success.

 

[DA60]

The ignorant masses think they are getting something for nothing...of course they love it. They are ignorant/stupid.

Government should look after those who cannot look after themselves. It should provide the basics of existence to those that need it.

But once government starts giving more then just the basics, they start skewing the economy for the worse and they start becoming increasingly inefficient, corrupt and wasteful.

All federal government's are corrupt. And the more non-life threatening services they provide the masses for 'free', the more exponentially corrupt and inefficient they become.
Anyone who does not understand this, does not understand government, IMO.

 

[Lafayette]

THE DOUBLE WHAMMY

Consider for a moment the size of the populations and their diversities of the countries on the list. I suspect that any analysis of the data without looking into these factors loses important aspects of societal success.

You hope.

Yes, the EU has a great diversity from Iceland in the far north-west to Greece in the far south-east. The EU has a population of just less than twice that of the US. And, to belong, a country must adhere to the principles of a Social Democracy. But, like the US, landmass size and population don't make a difference when it comes to establishing government services supporting people's lives.

More so, what is unconscionable is that some people think other people are "mooching off my tax-dollar!" See below who is "mooching off the Federal Government in terms of total tax-take.

If national priority is a question of a common desire to "do what is right and correct", then the duty of a government is more than just National Defence, firefighting, policing, building highways and assuring Retirement Funds. It is in assuring that those, for whatever reason, are incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold are given a hand-up and not just a hand-out.

MY POINT?

There are only two sources of tax-dollars, one personal and the other corporate. All other revenue sources of the government are in Treasury T-Notes (ie, Debt).

The Double-Whammy in the US is both low Corporate Taxation due to "tax breaks" and Personal Income taxation that is a 30% flat-rate on upper-incomes constituting more than half the income-tax take. Corporate Tax rates are presently a rip-off favoring American corporations, which generate the Net After-tax income that flows into Personal Income by means of high salaries, stock-options (et cetera) that is insufficiently taxed as personal income at a flat-rates of below 30%.

In all, it is a finely orchestrated rip-off of the American economy to benefit a HIGHLY SELECT FEW of Plutocrat Families that try to manipulate federal governance in order to maintain the taxation status quo.

If I've shown many times the latter (the combo of high household-income and low-taxation that shifts upward into Wealth). Here is now an historical depiction of the Corporate Income that produces the Personal Income for the rich and super-rich, which has diminished from a post-war high of 40% to just barely above 10% today:

Taxation in America, both Corporate and Personal is rigged to favor a specific class of upper-income families ... that one might call Our Corporate Monarchists*.

*I'm not playing with words. Look at the third definition of "monarch" here.

 

[joG]

THE DOUBLE WHAMMY



You hope.

Yes, the EU has a great diversity from Iceland in the far north-west to Greece in the far south-east. The EU has a population of just less than twice that of the US. And, to belong, a country must adhere to the principles of a Social Democracy. But, like the US, landmass size and population don't make a difference when it comes to establishing government services supporting people's lives.

More so, what is unconscionable is that some people think other people are "mooching off my tax-dollar!" See below who is "mooching off the Federal Government in terms of total tax-take.

If national priority is a question of a common desire to "do what is right and correct", then the duty of a government is more than just National Defence, firefighting, policing, building highways and assuring Retirement Funds. It is in assuring that those, for whatever reason, are incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold are given a hand-up and not just a hand-out.

MY POINT?

There are only two sources of tax-dollars, one personal and the other corporate. All other revenue sources of the government are in Treasury T-Notes (ie, Debt).

The Double-Whammy in the US is both low Corporate Taxation due to "tax breaks" and Personal Income taxation that is a 30% flat-rate on upper-incomes constituting more than half the income-tax take. Corporate Tax rates are presently a rip-off favoring American corporations, which generate the Net After-tax income that flows into Personal Income by means of high salaries, stock-options (et cetera) that is insufficiently taxed as personal income at a flat-rates of below 30%.

In all, it is a finely orchestrated rip-off of the American economy to benefit a HIGHLY SELECT FEW of Plutocrat Families that try to manipulate federal governance in order to maintain the taxation status quo.

If I've shown many times the latter (the combo of high household-income and low-taxation that shifts upward into Wealth). Here is now an historical depiction of the Corporate Income that produces the Personal Income for the rich and super-rich, which has diminished from a post-war high of 40% to just barely above 10% today:

Taxation in America, both Corporate and Personal is rigged to favor a specific class of upper-income families ... that one might call Our Corporate Monarchists*.

*I'm not playing with words. Look at the third definition of "monarch" here.

It is this, that is incorrect: "There are only two sources of tax-dollars, one personal and the other corporate." Therefore the logic behind Graphs like the one above are false. The tax "paid by corporations" is inevitably paid by people, as it is always a person at the end of the economic chain. It is also wrong in the sense that the tax might paid by a person or a company. What economic function is impacted is quite another matter. Does it reduce savings and investment or does consumption take the hit in the next period. Or is the consumption impact in 2 years or 15?
Your argument is at a much too populist level to be of anything but populist value.

 

[Lafayette]

RIPP-OFF OF TOTAL CORPORATE TAXATION

The tax "paid by corporations" is inevitably paid by people, as it is always a person at the end of the economic chain.

You could not be more wrong. You're flailing with desperation to say just about anything.

Consumers pay a product/service price, made up of the commercial price plus a sales tax. From the commercial price is derived Corporate Revenues, which are then taxed - the point being from the infographic is that, over time, they have benefited throughout from lower and lower corporate taxation. (Which may, or may not, have been intended by our "democratic representatives".)

It is also wrong in the sense that the tax might paid by a person or a company. What economic function is impacted is quite another matter. Does it reduce savings and investment or does consumption take the hit in the next period. Or is the consumption impact in 2 years or 15?

Which is irrelevant to the final outcome as shown in the info-graphic. I have shown resulting history, and you make excuses totally irrelevant (to my point) of a how market-economy unfolds historically.

The fact of the matter is that what you claim (may be happening) results nonetheless in the infographic posted as regards the finality of historic Total Corporate Taxation.

Which is a rip-off given that those who benefit the most - the corporate heads manipulating their cohorts-in-authorized-corporate-crime (by means of high salaries and stock-options and joy-rides in the corporate jet with attractive hostesses). Today's industry is a money-pump for those arriving at the top. In the hopes that they can "get rich quick", of which they all dream with a greedy passion.

And those at the bottom doing "9-to-5"? Just grain for the mill ...

MY POINT? Corporate taxation "sunset clauses".

*Thousands of years, and nothing fundamentally has changed. Greedy people seek commercial power, whether we called them once Monarchs (and they warred for agricultural land) or today the Plutocrats (who manipulate elected legislators to obtain/maintain unfair privileges).
*We review fundamentally ALL taxation (corporate and household):
**Putting Income Taxation back up to above 75% beyond an income of 1 megabuck per year and 95% beyond $1.5M, and,
**Keeping Corporate Taxation at current rates but close the "exceptions", which - as the above linked article stated - once passed cannot be "un-passed" unless they have a "sunset clause" (which they do not). So,
**We need yet another law stipulating that any taxation regulation must have a "sunset clause". And it is up to the Legislature to extend the law for another period of time based only upon its merits, and the PotUS to authorize it.

 

[Lafayette]

The ignorant masses think they are getting something for nothing...of course they love it. They are ignorant/stupid.

Who are you to write about the "ignorant masses"? Watch your language!

We, the sheeple, are not as stoopid as you may think ...

 

[joG]

RIPP-OFF OF TOTAL CORPORATE TAXATION



You could not be more wrong. You're flailing with desperation to say just about anything.

Consumers pay a product/service price, made up of the commercial price plus a sales tax. From the commercial price is derived Corporate Revenues, which are then taxed - the point being from the infographic is that, over time, they have benefited throughout from lower and lower corporate taxation. (Which may, or may not, have been intended by our "democratic representatives".)



Which is irrelevant to the final outcome as shown in the info-graphic. I have shown resulting history, and you make excuses totally irrelevant (to my point) of a how market-economy unfolds historically.

The fact of the matter is that what you claim (may be happening) results nonetheless in the infographic posted as regards the finality of historic Total Corporate Taxation.

Which is a rip-off given that those who benefit the most - the corporate heads manipulating their cohorts-in-authorized-corporate-crime (by means of high salaries and stock-options and joy-rides in the corporate jet with attractive hostesses). Today's industry is a money-pump for those arriving at the top. In the hopes that they can "get rich quick", of which they all dream with a greedy passion.

And those at the bottom doing "9-to-5"? Just grain for the mill ...

MY POINT? Corporate taxation "sunset clauses".

*Thousands of years, and nothing fundamentally has changed. Greedy people seek commercial power, whether we called them once Monarchs (and they warred for agricultural land) or today the Plutocrats (who manipulate elected legislators to obtain/maintain unfair privileges).
*We review fundamentally ALL taxation (corporate and household):
**Putting Income Taxation back up to above 75% beyond an income of 1 megabuck per year and 95% beyond $1.5M, and,
**Keeping Corporate Taxation at current rates but close the "exceptions", which - as the above linked article stated - once passed cannot be "un-passed" unless they have a "sunset clause" (which they do not). So,
**We need yet another law stipulating that any taxation regulation must have a "sunset clause". And it is up to the Legislature to extend the law for another period of time based only upon its merits, and the PotUS to authorize it.

Where you go wrong is in the assumption that the "final graphic" be in any way final. It only shows the point of taxation. That is where analysis of the cascade of impacts over time begins. It affords very little insight into the structure of how different groups are affected.

 

[Lafayette]

It affords very little insight into the structure of how different groups are affected.

Well put. Finally!

But neither is that the intent, nor in any way is that important. Because it is evident that key parameter mentioned, Household Income, is also linked closely with Corporate Management and, by that, the entire Corporate Management class.

The Top 10Percenters who garner nearly half the total National Income and the Top-10% who move that income into 70% of the nation's Wealth. (Piketty research, on Income here and Wealth here)

Unless, of course, we've started paying cleaning-ladies stock-options?

My Point: Undoubtedly the biggest piracy of wealth in the history of mankind, and that is no exaggeration!

 

[Chomsky]

It is this, that is incorrect: "There are only two sources of tax-dollars, one personal and the other corporate." Therefore the logic behind Graphs like the one above are false. The tax "paid by corporations" is inevitably paid by people, as it is always a person at the end of the economic chain. It is also wrong in the sense that the tax might paid by a person or a company. What economic function is impacted is quite another matter. Does it reduce savings and investment or does consumption take the hit in the next period. Or is the consumption impact in 2 years or 15?
Your argument is at a much too populist level to be of anything but populist value.

You're missing his point, Jo.

The corporation is not just a fictitious monolithic entity, but is a legal entity that skews the benefits to a select few: those at the top.

That was his point, not the benefit to the corp itself.

 

[Chomsky]

THE DOUBLE WHAMMY



You hope.

Yes, the EU has a great diversity from Iceland in the far north-west to Greece in the far south-east. The EU has a population of just less than twice that of the US. And, to belong, a country must adhere to the principles of a Social Democracy. But, like the US, landmass size and population don't make a difference when it comes to establishing government services supporting people's lives.

More so, what is unconscionable is that some people think other people are "mooching off my tax-dollar!" See below who is "mooching off the Federal Government in terms of total tax-take.

If national priority is a question of a common desire to "do what is right and correct", then the duty of a government is more than just National Defence, firefighting, policing, building highways and assuring Retirement Funds. It is in assuring that those, for whatever reason, are incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold are given a hand-up and not just a hand-out.

MY POINT?

There are only two sources of tax-dollars, one personal and the other corporate. All other revenue sources of the government are in Treasury T-Notes (ie, Debt).

The Double-Whammy in the US is both low Corporate Taxation due to "tax breaks" and Personal Income taxation that is a 30% flat-rate on upper-incomes constituting more than half the income-tax take. Corporate Tax rates are presently a rip-off favoring American corporations, which generate the Net After-tax income that flows into Personal Income by means of high salaries, stock-options (et cetera) that is insufficiently taxed as personal income at a flat-rates of below 30%.

In all, it is a finely orchestrated rip-off of the American economy to benefit a HIGHLY SELECT FEW of Plutocrat Families that try to manipulate federal governance in order to maintain the taxation status quo.

If I've shown many times the latter (the combo of high household-income and low-taxation that shifts upward into Wealth). Here is now an historical depiction of the Corporate Income that produces the Personal Income for the rich and super-rich, which has diminished from a post-war high of 40% to just barely above 10% today:

Taxation in America, both Corporate and Personal is rigged to favor a specific class of upper-income families ... that one might call Our Corporate Monarchists*.

*I'm not playing with words. Look at the third definition of "monarch" here.

Well put. Finally!

But neither is that the intent, nor in any way is that important. Because it is evident that key parameter mentioned, Household Income, is also linked closely with Corporate Management and, by that, the entire Corporate Management class.

The Top 10Percenters who garner nearly half the total National Income and the Top-10% who move that income into 70% of the nation's Wealth. (Piketty research, on Income here and Wealth here)

Unless, of course, we've started paying cleaning-ladies stock-options?

My Point: Undoubtedly the biggest piracy of wealth in the history of mankind, and that is no exaggeration!

Absolutely excellent!

I think you presented the case on the macro level very well. I couldn't have done better!

What you're describing, is essentially a plutocratic oligarchic transfer of wealth and capital. It's the exact antithesis of what occurred in post-war America during the hey-day of unionism. And to see the disastrous results, one only needs to look at any economic statistics concerning individuals in a historical context.

What you haven't presented, though I'm sure you're aware, is the 'Why'?

It's very simple, of course: Government responding to and representing the highest bidder; essentially, capitalism run amok!

 

[Abbazorkzog]

In my opinion, a tiny elite ruling over a massive population of people is no worse than a large government organization of people with separated powers and multiple sub-factions vying for power in an eternal power struggle that results in the government turning away from the people and towards serving itself.

Both extremes generally result in a bad time.

Limited but medium-sized government is ideal.
In my opinion, balance is everything.
If you can't find a balance, get rid of the damned thing. Replace it with something else.

 

[imagep]

In my opinion, a tiny elite ruling over a massive population of people is no worse than a large government organization of people with separated powers and multiple sub-factions vying for power in an eternal power struggle that results in the government turning away from the people and towards serving itself.

Both extremes generally result in a bad time.

Limited but medium-sized government is ideal.
In my opinion, balance is everything.
If you can't find a balance, get rid of the damned thing. Replace it with something else.

At least when we have multible sub factions all vying for power, we have some balance, and some rotation of power.

 

[joG]

You're missing his point, Jo.

The corporation is not just a fictitious monolithic entity, but is a legal entity that skews the benefits to a select few: those at the top.

That was his point, not the benefit to the corp itself.

It is true that a company is a legal entity. What is not always the case and is usually not, is that the owners of companies are the select few. Mostly the owners are holders of fund management shares, pension policies or life insurance. In other words, when one hits a company, it will hit the quintessential little man on the street with a policy to protect his family.by reducing the income accruing to the policies via dividend and share appreciation.

What taxing the company will also do, is divert investments to companies in other tax districts and jurisdictions. This will move jobs to countries like Ireland or Holland, Singapore or China reducing jobs and the total tax basis. Even where this is impossible, it will lead to price increases and lower reinvestment. These processes are very complex and take quite a bit of time to work through the system.

 

[joG]

Well put. Finally!

But neither is that the intent, nor in any way is that important. Because it is evident that key parameter mentioned, Household Income, is also linked closely with Corporate Management and, by that, the entire Corporate Management class.

The Top 10Percenters who garner nearly half the total National Income and the Top-10% who move that income into 70% of the nation's Wealth. (Piketty research, on Income here and Wealth here)

Unless, of course, we've started paying cleaning-ladies stock-options?

My Point: Undoubtedly the biggest piracy of wealth in the history of mankind, and that is no exaggeration!

If you want to hit the top income brackets, you should take aim at them an not at insurance policies and pension plans that are among the entities with the greatest exposure to corporate shares.

 

[Lafayette]

Government responding to and representing the highest bidder; essentially, capitalism run amok!

I have a great faith in both Capitalism and the Market-economy, which seems naive given the number of times that both have run amok.

But the urge to amas wealth is also unfortunately a very human trait. Still, "It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools".

And, we-the-sheeple, yes, we are poor craftsmen. With America's low voting-record, we have allowed the Plutocrats to manipulate elections simply by throwing money around. No force was used, no voting-rights usurped and no one waiting at the polls with a wad of hundred-dollar bills to buy our vote.

'Tis a pity, for which we are entirely blameworthy ...

 

[Abbazorkzog]

At least when we have multible sub factions all vying for power, we have some balance, and some rotation of power.

One of the few pros. At least it has some. I can't think of any involving Oligarchy or Dictatorship.

 

[Chomsky]

It is true that a company is a legal entity. What is not always the case and is usually not, is that the owners of companies are the select few. Mostly the owners are holders of fund management shares, pension policies or life insurance. In other words, when one hits a company, it will hit the quintessential little man on the street with a policy to protect his family.by reducing the income accruing to the policies via dividend and share appreciation.

What taxing the company will also do, is divert investments to companies in other tax districts and jurisdictions. This will move jobs to countries like Ireland or Holland, Singapore or China reducing jobs and the total tax basis. Even where this is impossible, it will lead to price increases and lower reinvestment. These processes are very complex and take quite a bit of time to work through the system.

Yes, when I penned that I was aware the stockholders & shareholders in publicly traded corporations would somewhat ameliorate my argument.

But those at the top of even public corporations are withdrawing huge amounts of capital out of the societal share, and I'd argue far more than their supposed value (in a societal sense). And then we have the proliferation of LLC's and other avoidance mechanisms used by individual and small group entities to shelter their capital at far more effective tax rates than other individuals (i.e., the working class).

As to other countries with lower tax rates, well that's the problem: It becomes a race to the bottom! Now those in the bottom countries where the capital is flowing would say this is a good thing, as they watch theirselves rise. So we're kinda' screwed here in this manner, in the first world! :doh

 

[ocean515]

Is BigGov such a bad thing?

To see some remarks on this forum, one might be led to believe that BigGov was Evil Incarnate.

However, a study shows that such might be a very, very wrong conclusion: Bigger government makes for more satisfied people, international study finds. Note that this study was done by questioning nationals in the countries covered by the scope of the investigation.

Excerpt:



"Elsewhere is better?" No, that is not necessarily so either. It depends upon many aspects, first and foremost of which are Social Factors (acceptance of foreigners, language barriers, standard of living, etc.)

For instance, consider the above ranking. The Italians are some of the most happy people you can live with and amongst. Unfortunately the Italians cannot seem to find and elect competent politicians to run their economy "from the top down". In fact, when you look at the lack of linkage between Good Governance and Ethnicity, note in the above list how many Latin countries are ranked at the bottom, and how many nordic countries at the top. And yet, when it comes to retirement, the bottom ranked countries are some of the most popular destination for retirees from other European countries at the top of the list!

We cannot say, either, that the US is very high up the scale. In fact, the conclusion from that list is obvious: BigGovernance in the form of important Social Services provided and well-managed by government administrations in the EU countries are why the top-nations in the above listing are European. In fact, that is the reason, I submit, that the nordic countries of Europe have such a high-ranking.

OK, now let's all chew on that conclusion .... !

NB: Notice that the work, work, work nation of Japan, which makes true the adage, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy".

Actually, what I glean from this subjective study is that it is a combination of small country and big government that causes people to claim they are satisfied.

 

[Chomsky]

I have a great faith in both Capitalism and the Market-economy, which seems naive given the number of times that both have run amok.

But the urge to amas wealth is also unfortunately a very human trait. Still, "It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools".

And, we-the-sheeple, yes, we are poor craftsmen. With America's low voting-record, we have allowed the Plutocrats to manipulate elections simply by throwing money around. No force was used, no voting-rights usurped and no one waiting at the polls with a wad of hundred-dollar bills to buy our vote.

'Tis a pity, for which we are entirely blameworthy ...

Oh, no doubt capitalism and free-markets (relatively peaking) are the way to go; but capitalism must be tempered with social restraint.

Our economic system(s) are man-made and function as a tool of society, not the other way around; as such, these systems need to be tweaked and maintained to assure they are still of adequate benefit.

There's no other practical system of which I'm aware that's better to lift and empower individuals out of poverty, than well implemented capitalism.

But now, as you seem to be alluding, we've allowed our government to be capitalistic! And there's the problem - right there. :doh

 

[Frank Apisa]

Stalin ran a very small government.

Pol Pot ran a very small government.

Saddam Hussein ran a very small government.

Oh...yeah...

...Adolf Hitler ran a very small government.

Small government sucks.

 

[Lafayette]

Actually, what I glean from this subjective study is that it is a combination of small country and big government that causes people to claim they are satisfied.

"Subjective"? (Which means "pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual.")

Have you looked at how the study was made? Across entire populations? Excerpt:

The researchers analyzed data from 21 advanced industrialized countries collected by the World Values Survey from 1981 to 2007, with nearly 50,000 respondents.

So, yes, 50,000 adult human beings were selected to respond and that large a selection is a bona fide "sampling" given the population size.

Perhaps you just don't like the results? Or they don't seem "relevant" to you?

So welcome to a Brave New "Old World", meaning the EU ...

 

[matchlight]

Here, just as in another thread on gun control, an argument based on the effectiveness of a thing misses the point. And that is whether the thing is constitutional. I don't care a damn if it were proven that big central government did everything better than any other form of government. It would be illegitimate here, because it would be the very opposite of the government our Constitution designs--and that is all there is to it. There is another name for illegitimate, arbitrary government: Tyranny.