Comments by "Mosern1977" (@Mosern1977) on "Logically Answered" channel.

You don't want politicians to handle it. Those are incompetent everywhere. You want the real experts to handle it, and thankfully that's how Norway did it. Politicians are not allowed to touch it.
6
Very interesting. And of course the reason they get private investors, is because those investors think they can make money of that investment.
3
@Aaron-pv3qq - well, that's not the definition of socialism. Socialism is an economic system, and has nothing to do with how healthcare is financed. Btw pretty sure you already pay for elementary schools, roads, police, military, judges, political parties, fire fighters, social security, prisons, public servants, and a ton of government agencies (ATF, NASA, CIA, FBI, FAA, FCC, etc, etc). Not wanting to pay for any of that is called Anarchism. It is a common form of government in the freest countries in the world - like Somalia. You can do whatever you want in those countries.
2
Best "social welfare programs" in the world? Hahaha. Unless there is no poverty, no begging, no hunger and everyone lives in nice apartments and houses in India now. In that case, he is right. But I doubt that is the reality currently in India.
2
@Aaron-pv3qq - it is very important to differentiate between social democracy (Scandinavia) and socialism (every failed country in the world). Norway, and the rest of Scandinavia are capitalistic countries at heart, equal to or probably more capitalistic than the US in a lot of areas. The main difference is that some larger corporations are owned by the government as a majority share-holder instead of wealthy families, but they are still run as any other business (demands to make profit). Taxes are a bit higher, but so are the deductions. The extra taxes pay for healthcare and education, since it is considered a good thing that the population is healthy and well educated. This gives much lower crime rates as a by-product, and smarter politicians (since they draw from the population at large). That's about it - and finally Norwegians don't want to touch the regressive liberal cultural shit that is oozing out of America/UKs universities with a ten feet pole.
1
@Aaron-pv3qq - socialism has nothing to do with taxes or social programs or stuff like that. You can have socialism and no taxes and social programs, or capitalism and loads of taxes and social programs. The taxes can be spent on social programs, castles, bribes or weapons, doesn't matter. What does matter is that capitalism (if nicely controlled) is best at generating wealth - and socialism suck at it. Then it is up to the people to figure out who should get the wealth created. It turns out it is pretty smart to let the person creating the wealth keep a lot of it for himself. What to do with the rest is different in different countries.
1
@Aaron-pv3qq - social programs are normally paid by taxes like everything else. But before the government can collect taxes, there needs to be money made by people and companies to pay these taxes. That's where capitalism and socialism comes in - they are different ways of organising ownership of companies and wealth generation. (Socialism sucks really bad at it though). But as I said - you can have socialism and no social programs. And you can have capitalism, with social programs. Or a mix. What one wants to spend tax money on is normally an area of great debate amongst politicians and people. But only the most dim-witted of politicians and people will propose socialism as the money making engine. The economic engine should always be capitalism. (Note that in Scandinavia, some of the bigger companies are owned (or partially owned) by the government. Meaning the government does not need to collect as much tax as it otherwise would, as the profits of these companies are to some extent used by the government as income instead of tax).
1
@Aaron-pv3qq - why can not the government own stocks in businesses? And why can it not use the money earned from those stocks to reduce taxes?
1
@Aaron-pv3qq - reality? Norwegian Government has 2% share of Apple, Google, Facebook, and 9000 other companies around the world. Just a part of the returns of those investments make up 20% of the yearly government budget. Meaning much lower taxes for Norwegians than other similar countries. But if you rather want the profit from owning stocks to go to billionairs, that's fine. I'm happy with my government earning money by being a good capitalist investing in foreign companies, and reducing taxes because of it - while at the same time provide good quality public services.
1
@Aaron-pv3qq - well, that's how it is living in a well functioning country.
1
@Aaron-pv3qq - well in that case, Somalia would be the go-to country. In that country you are only responsible for yourself. For some strange reason it turns out that having a successful society does involve interacting with others in a controlled manner. And paying taxes for things are not necessarily bad or more expensive than having to pay for it yourself. I'm not sure I could have afforded private security and military alone for example.
1
@Aaron-pv3qq - maybe the politicians are a clown show because they are voted in by people that doesn't know any better? And the reason for that is that your society does not value education for it all citizens as something as valuable as defense or police.
1
@Aaron-pv3qq - yes, the political system in most countries leaves a lot to be desired. Its like it was invented by crooks to make sure crooks would end up at the top.
1
Norwegian population actually works, and doesn't rely on imported slave labor. Very different concept. Oil is important, but not critical to the economy.
1
@JstJaybeingJay - yes, going from poor to rich is probably very nice. But going from super-rich to ultra-super-rich doesn't really mean much. There is a diminishing return to wealth, and if you have never experienced poverty then earning more money is just not that important to a lot of people.
1