It's been close to a year... Thoughts on Obama

Astronomer · 04-17-2010, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I'm in no way trying to knock Norway, because your system seems to work really well, but there are a number of differences between the US and Norway which make me wonder how well that system would translate. The biggest one is population: the US is roughly 64 times the size of Norway. I wonder if it would even be possible to make the Norwegian model work in a country that is such a different size. Another possible issue is that the US is a far less culturally and ethnically homogenous place than Norway and as a result I feel like there's less of a sense of "we're all in this together" here than there is in Norway.

Australia is a bigger country than Norway and they have a very similar system and it has been working well for years. Free public healthcare for as long as I can remember, free education, lots of what could be called 'socialist' aspects. So that proves that a system like that can work for larger countries. However, again the US is much MUCH larger than Australia so obviously I'm not comparing them directly, and I guess you can't really compare them.

The Zealand system is pretty much the same as the Australian system. I've always been happy with the amount of tax I pay and the benefits I get. To those who were asking about the amount of tax we pay, I always feel as though I come out on top. I don't feel like I pay much tax at all compared to the amount of benefits I get in areas like health, education, and other government support.

I think Obama's healthcare 'reform' or whatever they are calling it is a step in the right direction. However somebody told me that the healthcare the US will have now is still only at the same level as ours was 30 years ago, so I guess there is still a long way to go.

**Janszoon** · 04-17-2010, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yukon Cornelius

Slowley but surely, rich or poor, unless your are important your freedom is going to sink. The idea of reform is to lump us and ration to us all together... I buying a space shuttle.

I'd invest in a spellchecker first.

boo boo · 04-17-2010, 06:17 PM

WTF we have a black president now?

I need to get out more.

IamAlejo · 04-17-2010, 11:41 PM

I love the usage of "payed" attention in this thread.

That said, the healthcare bill has quite a few flaws, the SEC just went after GS which should be quite a show, and he did quite poorly on choosing his NCAA tournament games. Not a shining year for him.

Unemployment doesn't really bother me too much as it's a lagging indicator.

IamAlejo · 04-18-2010, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

You'd think we got a lot of freeloaders, but the relative unemployment rate in the US is actually 3 times higher than in Norway, from a little over 3% here to just under 10% in the US this year. This is not the source for that statement, but it shows a simple map which shows unemployment in countries. We're doing rather well in comparison to a lot of countries it seems.

Also reading through this part bothered me since it's pretty much completely wrong. Unemployment numbers have nothing to do with freeloading. Those numbers reflect people that are actively searching for jobs but cannot find them, not just a simple number of people unemployed divided by the population. If someone was freeloading, they simply would not be searching for a job, and thus not included in the unemployment numbers at all.

Guybrush · 04-18-2010, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

Also reading through this part bothered me since it's pretty much completely wrong. Unemployment numbers have nothing to do with freeloading. Those numbers reflect people that are actively searching for jobs but cannot find them, not just a simple number of people unemployed divided by the population. If someone was freeloading, they simply would not be searching for a job, and thus not included in the unemployment numbers at all.

Really? How do you know what those numbers are based on? I would think people who don't work for example because their health doesn't allow it would be included in that data. And if you can find a better way to illustrate the relative amount of freeloaders, go ahead.

Akira · 04-18-2010, 07:35 AM

Freeloading implies that they are getting some kind of benefits from the government i.e. in this country it could be unemployment benefits, incapacity benefits, income support, social fund etc. So all these people are recorded by the government and would be included into any unemployment figures where it applies.

People who are not claiming anything and are not looking for work wouldn't be included, but you couldn't call them freeloaders as they are not getting any money from the system.

IamAlejo · 04-18-2010, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Really? How do you know what those numbers are based on? I would think people who don't work for example because their health doesn't allow it would be included in that data. And if you can find a better way to illustrate the relative amount of freeloaders, go ahead.

Because that's what unemployment is?

By that logic, babies and children would be included in unemployment.

IamAlejo · 04-18-2010, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

Now...the specific example I gave was mentioning the banking system. Sure, the banking system is not capitalism, but here in America, the banking system is pretty integral part of capitalism. The way we spend our money, earn money, and gain a foothold in the country based on capitalism is directly related to the way the bank is run. With the fractional reserve system combined with the free market, it is a recipe for disaster. Now, if you don't know how the fractional reserve system works I will be happy to explain it to you.

If you can point out the strawman in this argument, by all means do it.

I'd love to see the complaints with the fractional reserve system. It is needed, if you don't feel comfortable with the banks using it, go ahead and keep your money under your mattress, but have fun keeping up with inflation.

Guybrush · 04-18-2010, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

Because that's what unemployment is?

By that logic, babies and children would be included in unemployment.

Sorry for not explaining better. I guess I'm not used to having to spell it out like that. Since I obviously do, look here. You wrote :

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

Those numbers reflect people that are actively searching for jobs but cannot find them, not just a simple number of people unemployed divided by the population.

This is a statement where you say what sort of people make up the statistics. I reply to you with a question; how do you know that? You reply with "Because that's what unemployment is?". No, it's not.

Did you read Akira's post?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akira

Freeloading implies that they are getting some kind of benefits from the government i.e. in this country it could be unemployment benefits, incapacity benefits, income support, social fund etc. So all these people are recorded by the government and would be included into any unemployment figures where it applies.

People who are not claiming anything and are not looking for work wouldn't be included, but you couldn't call them freeloaders as they are not getting any money from the system.

Here's the kind of insight I was hinting at. There are people who are not actively searching for jobs and who are still unemployed. In this country, they are likely to recieve benefits from the government. This makes them "freeloaders" and because they are registered in a system, they should be part of the unemployment statistic. This means that unemployment stats here do give some insight into how many "freeloaders" you have in the country.

04-17-2010, 11:41 PM	#44 (permalink)
IamAlejo Muck Fusic Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Virginia Beach Posts: 1,575	I love the usage of "payed" attention in this thread. That said, the healthcare bill has quite a few flaws, the SEC just went after GS which should be quite a show, and he did quite poorly on choosing his NCAA tournament games. Not a shining year for him. Unemployment doesn't really bother me too much as it's a lagging indicator. __________________ a man, a plan, a canal, panama