What Is Economic Fairness?

The US doesn't still suffer from human rights abuses as a result of slavery and lingering discriminatory practices. Civil Rights legislation was passed to address those lingering issue in some state more than Those were finally addressed a half century ago. That would be like saying Switzerland still suffers from the effects of the support of Nazism among some of it's population prior to WWII.

You must certainly keep in mind that the total population of the Nordic Countries themselves is only 60% or so of the population of California.

Maintaining the financial and psychological restraints necessary to institute a social democracy model on a Nation 15x's larger and far more culturally diverse would be an almost impossible task.

As I wrote before, among more homogeneous populations of limited population, a social democracy may have it's place. Certainly the United States does not fit that requirement, and it's global largess, let alone it's internal largess, proves the economic model it adheres to is superior for it's purposes and results.

 

It still suffers from the consequences. Takes time for effects to disappear. In terms of evolutionary economics, the impact can effectively be permanent. Britain's system, for example, is the outcome of a battle in the 11th century.

Irrelevant. Easy to embed social democracy, for example, within devolved government systems.

Actually its rather straightforward: you simply have policies, and institutional arragements, which only tolerate lower poverty. The US, for example, has a welfare system based on efficiency rather than equity (i.e. minimising non-poor recipients, rather than ensuring reduction in poverty rates). There's not much complexity involved when you shift emphasis to equity. The complexity would only occur if the state also replaces market functions. It doesn't.

The idea of a homogeneous population in the West is a myth. In addition, the US economic model isn't characterised by any notion of superiority. For example, compared to other Western nations, its historically been reliant on the military sector (for demand management and for R&D). That's decidedly inefficient and the complex private-public relationship generates the dangerous conditions associated with a military-industrial complex.

 

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/october/oecd-bias-in-evaluating-us-health-care-reform
https://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/oecd-brexit-analysis-good-economics-biased-presentation
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=718494

 

We adore the Republican capitalist rich because they invent things that transform our lives. If you could invent something that billions of people wanted to buy, like a cancer cure, you could be adored too. Interesting the way people who invent nothing and contribute nothing are critical of those who do.

 

You think cancer should be cured according to ability to pay? Golly!

 

what? 70% all recent medical patents and military defense of the civilized world doesn't show superiority?? Let France spend $7 trillion on war on terror and then see how much they love the USA from their impoverished little country with the per capita income of Arkansas about our poorest state.

 

no idea what you are trying to say?

 

You referred to buying a cure for cancer. Don't you realise what you're typing?

 

You actually think its a war on terror? Don't you think that's just a tad naive? The military-industrial complex is all about influence costs, creating rents at the expense of the common man

 

Reduction? America spends trillion to totally eliminate poverty. Its about $60K per person. Our poor are very rich compared to African poor.

 

actually 9/11 was real. Hate to burst your bubble.

 

You have higher absolute poverty than Europe. Smeeding proved that using the Luxmebourg Income Study

 

and??????

 

Terrorism is real. The war on terror isn't. What do you think happened to terrorist activity following the Iraqi war? Have a think! Mind you, its cute how much you trust your government!

 

if we have no poverty how can it be higher??

 

Don't you think something so important should be free of the price mechanism? Of course most of the advances are the result of charity...

 

not much and??????????????

 

You can play pretend I suppose. But we know, with certainty, that the US has higher poverty than European countries. The only country that can really compete is Britain (which, except for a spell under Teflon Tony, has high child poverty rates)

 

food clothing and shelter are more important. Does the libcommie want everything free??

 

We'll add "knows nothing about terrorism" to your CV

 

You do like to reply with complete guff. You're effectively referring to denying cancer treatment to people because they can't afford to pay.

 

no pretending free food shelter education health care welfare etc infrastructure military all very very real

 

Don't listen to him mate. It is worse in Europe and it has always been worse in Europe.
Progressives abound.

 

A village government faces far different problems than a huge city faces and there the small state government, say of Norway faces different problems than let's say, Texas. And with size the problems grow larger.

Norway is often given as a good example of social capitalism. But when you are talking of a nation with the population of less than just in the SF Bay area, it changes the context. Norway also has a rather homogenous body of residents. They do not face say the problems of Detroit or even upper NY State.

Trying to compare tiny nations to the extremely large USA is a futile way to look at this. IMO of course.

 

so??? we let 1000's starve to death each day. putting them on welfare would just mean more starve not less. Over your head?