Ben Carson shuts down the liberal media...because he's right

[samouraļ]

Didn't realize that Norway was so theocratic, or is that just wiki nonsense?

The question is why does it matter? Could you possibly raise any dumber points?

[Enayze]

Huh?

Global inequality: How the U.S. compares




All of the aforementioned Scandinavian countries have much lower wealth inequality.

I think you misunderstood me. I said America's wealth inequality is becoming a problem, but even the poor in the United States, can afford more than the overwhelming majority of the world.

You apparently didn't read the portion of the article dedicated to comparing taxation in Norway and Singapore. Despite similar prices on goods, even after a somewhat higher tax rate, the much higher wages in Norway result in still having a lot more money left over after taxes.

The wages in Norway are not much higher, where are you getting that from? The Data doesn't support it. Singapore is the 3rd wealthiest country on the planet based on its per capita income. The annual salary is 82K that is 3 notches above Norway, and even though that is slightly skewed because of the very wealthy, the average is still more or less equivalent to Norway.


The article you posted could barely be called an article. It was biased with poor grammar and had skewed data.

Here is an excerpt

"So, you can see that the prices of groceries and basic necessities in Norway and Singapore costs about the same. But when it comes to housing and cars, public housing in Singapore is as expensive as private housing in Norway, private housing and cars in Singapore is also more than twice as expensive in Singapore than in Norway. Finally, transport passes in Norway is also cheaper than in Singapore."

I am not an English teacher, but that sounds like something that would be posted by someone on this forum. Also the way it is worded "But when it comes to housing and cars, public housing in Singapore is as expensive as private housing in Norway"

or

"And for a median income earner, a Norwegian need only pay 44.2%(As if 44% is a small amount) to tax and social security, while a Singaporean would pay 38% into tax and CPF."

Shows bias,

and what the hell is http://thehearttruths.com/ anyway? Did he mean for it to be thehardtruths.com but didnt luck out with the domain address?

The point is that if Norwegians make more money even after taxes and yet also don't pay out of pocket for health care, they're even better off. How is that controversial?

They make quite a bit less, pay marginally less (in general) for goods/services, and pay less in taxes but have to pay a fair bit more out-of-pocket for health care/tuition.

It's not controversial it is wrong. Norwegians do not make significantly more than Singaporeans after taxes. Both of them make relatively the same each month after taxes at around $3000-3200.

Here is a nice unbiased graph from numbeo.com

Indices Difference Info

Consumer Prices in Singapore are 20.78% lower than in Norway
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Singapore are 4.50% higher than in Norway
Rent Prices in Singapore are 75.74% higher than in Norway
Restaurant Prices in Singapore are 55.04% lower than in Norway
Groceries Prices in Singapore are 23.31% lower than in Norway
Local Purchasing Power in Singapore is 12.34% lower than in Norway

Salaries And Financing
Average Monthly Disposable Salary (After Tax)
Norway
($3,237.35)

Singapore
($2,965.56)

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living...try2=Singapore



The rent is significantly higher in Singapore, but over 90% of people own their homes. The consumer goods are significantly lower than Norways, and the purchasing power of Norway is not significantly higher, especially considering how much more expensive it is. Again a small island city state in Singapore which exercises a very healthy free market model is competing with a country like Norway which is rich with resources (primary oil) that allow it to afford all of its welfare programs.

My main point here, just so we're clear, is that these countries are clear examples of higher taxes/government spending but extremely high quality of life and less income inequality. In other words, it's absurd when conservatives bring up Greece as a fear tactic as to what we're headed for if someone like Sanders were to get his way. Mirroring (as closely as we can) Scandinavian social democracies is hardly the worst thing we could decide to do.

Higher taxes and government spending is ok if the country has an industry to lean on. Norway has a lot of oil money, which allows it to subsidize a good amount of its welfare programs. Places like Germany and France are producers of world renown goods as well. Greece on the other hand doesn't have either of those things, so yes its unfair to bring Greece up.

But its also unfair to equate America with Europe. We didn't become the wealthiest country in the world by following the European model. America is still significantly better off than Norway or any other European country (With maybe an exception to Germany), no matter what you tell me their standard of life is.

Indices Difference Info
Consumer Prices in United States are 32.46% lower than in Norway
Consumer Prices Including Rent in United States are 27.96% lower than in Norway
Rent Prices in United States are 15.28% lower than in Norway
Restaurant Prices in United States are 42.79% lower than in Norway
Groceries Prices in United States are 26.65% lower than in Norway
Local Purchasing Power in United States is 14.30% higher than in Norway

[Jim Jeffries]

The question is why does it matter?

First of all I find it odd when militant atheists bring up Norway as a model that we should follow. Secondly having the church board obviously makes it easier to tax the living hell out of your citizens.

Could you possibly raise any dumber points?

You mean like Norway being a minuscule country with oil, gas and fish coming out of their ears? Yeah I could see why you would want to ignore that. You being so smart and all.

Socialism is awesome becuz um Social Security amirite? The same Social Security that relies on current workers to pay benefits because they already emptied out the "lockbox?" Just like a Ponzi scheme?

[samouraļ]

The wages in Norway are not much higher, where are you getting that from? The Data doesn't support it. Singapore is the 3rd wealthiest country on the planet based on its per capita income. The annual salary is 82K that is 3 notches above Norway, and even though that is slightly skewed because of the very wealthy, the average is still more or less equivalent to Norway.

The bolded is a bigger problem than you're acknowledging. If the annual incomes of two countries have a similar average but one country has much more pronounced income inequality, obviously trying to use that number to say what the average citizen can afford is going to be complicated by that.

When I say that Norwegians tend to make more, I was talking for instance about low-wage workers in the two countries. Comparing those, low-wage workers in Norway make many times more than low-wage workers in Singapore.



Re: that particular blog, he's a Singaporean trying to type in English dude.

It's not controversial it is wrong. Norwegians do not make significantly more than Singaporeans after taxes. Both of them make relatively the same each month after taxes at around $3000-3200.

Let's say this is true - but the Norwegians then do not pay for tuition or health care. You're saying they make virtually the same amount of money after taxes but one of the two countries has virtually no health care costs after that fact nor tuition costs, and prices for goods/services in the two countries are similar.

Consumer Prices in Singapore are 20.78% lower than in Norway
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Singapore are 4.50% higher than in Norway
Rent Prices in Singapore are 75.74% higher than in Norway
Restaurant Prices in Singapore are 55.04% lower than in Norway
Groceries Prices in Singapore are 23.31% lower than in Norway
Local Purchasing Power in Singapore is 12.34% lower than in Norway

Salaries And Financing
Average Monthly Disposable Salary (After Tax)
Norway
($3,237.35)

Singapore
($2,965.56)

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living...try2=Singapore

The rent is significantly higher in Singapore, but over 90% of people own their homes. The consumer goods are significantly lower than Norways, and the purchasing power of Norway is not significantly higher, especially considering how much more expensive it is. Again a small island city state in Singapore which exercises a very healthy free market model is competing with a country like Norway which is rich with resources (primary oil) that allow it to afford all of its welfare programs.

Scandinavian countries can afford their welfare programs because of taxes. Plus, the US is rich in natural resources as well.

According to the OECD, Denmark (26.4 percent), Norway (19.7 percent), and Sweden (22.1 percent) all raise a high amount of tax revenue as a percent of GDP from individual income taxes and payroll taxes. This is compared to the 15 percent of GDP raised by the United States.

They also raise quite a bit from VATs.

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/how-sc...nment-spending

Higher taxes and government spending is ok if the country has an industry to lean on. Norway has a lot of oil money, which allows it to subsidize a good amount of its welfare programs. Places like Germany and France are producers of world renown goods as well. Greece on the other hand doesn't have either of those things, so yes its unfair to bring Greece up.

Well look, you're the one who brought up Singapore. And yes, it's unfair to compare a tiny city-state like Singapore to Norway or the United States, but that's why I'm suggesting that their economy doesn't hold some wonderful key to success for us.

But its also unfair to equate America with Europe. We didn't become the wealthiest country in the world by following the European model. America is still significantly better off than Norway or any other European country (With maybe an exception to Germany), no matter what you tell me their standard of life is.

Why should standard of life be ignored? I'm not saying the USA sucks - I'm all for the USA. What I do think is that we can learn from ideas from other areas and apply them to work here.

[creekrat77]

The Modern human is a vicious species that will kill any and anything that competes with their resources. That is the reason there are no intermediate species between Monkey's swinging in the trees and Humans walking the Earth.

However, not to worry. Continued deforestation will eventually lead to the extinction of all forms of Monkeys which will better back up your theory only if you are able to shut your eyes, ears and close off your brain which you seem to be pretty adept at doing.

Funny, because it appears the theory that modern humans killed off all intermediate species at the pinnacle of their slowly progressing evolutionary adaptations lines up nicely for supporting your own theory.
The point is evolutionary theory is not the proven answer to why adaptations have lead to what we are today. From the beginning to where we are now, it's quite unlikely in the grand scheme of things that it was all a meaningless mistake.

[The Noose]

Funny, because it appears the theory that modern humans killed off all intermediate species at the pinnacle of their slowly progressing evolutionary adaptations lines up nicely for supporting your own theory.
The point is evolutionary theory is not the proven answer to why adaptations have lead to what we are today. From the beginning to where we are now, it's quite unlikely in the grand scheme of things that it was all a meaningless mistake.

From the exert you posted before i thought his argument against evolution was bad. But hearing all of that interview its actually worse.

I dont know what was the content of the letters he received disagreeing with him and his comments on evolution, but he says here that they think "they know all things" and believe they are "the pinnacle of knowledge". Maybe they just think his arguments are terrible? From what he says here, they are indeed terrible...

Maybe God just decided to design many species extremely similar? And gave them the remnants of limbs they no longer need? And gave them similar DNA?

How does he not understand that mutations that help adaptation, aide survival, and those that dont adapt die out? Thats what natural selection is.

Does it make sense that a perfect creator designs thousands of species that all die out? Species that kill and eat each other, even their own young, to survive?

Darwinian evolution makes the most sense.
Him talking about something from nothing and life from non-life isnt evolution. More comments that belong on youtube imo.

[samouraļ]

First of all I find it odd when militant atheists bring up Norway as a model that we should follow. Secondly having the church board obviously makes it easier to tax the living hell out of your citizens.

...that's an inane observation. I don't care whether Norway is religious, I care about what their government policies are. And IIRC, Norway's taxes are lower than the others, and yet it's their religiosity that allows them to tax da shyt out of the citizens? Ok. Such profound insight from this guy.

You mean like Norway being a minuscule country with oil, gas and fish coming out of their ears? Yeah I could see why you would want to ignore that. You being so smart and all.

Socialism is awesome becuz um Social Security amirite? The same Social Security that relies on current workers to pay benefits because they already emptied out the "lockbox?" Just like a Ponzi scheme?

And this, folks, is why educating yourself on a country by skimming a wikipedia page for a couple of minutes is a pretty bad idea. Oh, so it's the oil and gas money that allows them to afford their social programs?

Norway's petroleum income is required by law to be reinvested in their sovereign wealth fund. Only 4% of profits from said fund can be used in the state budget. This may even be reduced in the future.

Attributing Norway's wealth entirely to oil is a pretty lazy thing to do. Convenient out for you to explain away how a country with high taxes and single-payer health care could possibly be doing so well though, I'll admit.

Go read up on that wikipedia page some more and see if you can come up with another convenient explanation as to why a democratic socialist government has somehow managed to create such a prosperous nation with an incredibly high standard of living. Oh, but it must be the fish, right?

But Bernie Sanders gonna wreck da economy doe!

[Jim Jeffries]

...that's an inane observation. I don't care whether Norway is religious, I care about what their government policies are. And IIRC, Norway's taxes are lower than the others, and yet it's their religiosity that allows them to tax da shyt out of the citizens? Ok. Such profound insight from this guy.






And this, folks, is why educating yourself on a country by skimming a wikipedia page for a couple of minutes is a pretty bad idea. Oh, so it's the oil and gas money that allows them to afford their social programs?

Norway's petroleum income is required by law to be reinvested in their sovereign wealth fund. Only 4% of profits from said fund can be used in the state budget. This may even be reduced in the future.

Attributing Norway's wealth entirely to oil is a pretty lazy thing to do. Convenient out for you to explain away how a country with high taxes and single-payer health care could possibly be doing so well though, I'll admit.

Go read up on that wikipedia page some more and see if you can come up with another convenient explanation as to why a democratic socialist government has somehow managed to create such a prosperous nation with an incredibly high standard of living. Oh, but it must be the fish, right?

But Bernie Sanders gonna wreck da economy doe!

I don't need any research on why a country of 5 million people (far less than Arizona ffs,) who relies on NATO for it's protection, is an atrocious model for the 3rd largest country in the world to follow. Never mind one whose government already spends more per capita on healthcare than Canada and is 18.4 trillion in debt due to the entitlement programs already in place. I also wouldn't wish VA style healthcare on the entire country, given the experiences of me and my family.

When did I say Bernie Sanders is going to wreck the economy? That ancient wingnut has zero chance of getting anywhere near the presidency, let alone getting anything passed through congress.

[samouraļ]

I don't need any research on why a country of 5 million people (far less than Arizona ffs,) who relies on NATO for it's protection, is an atrocious model for the 3rd largest country in the world to follow.

That says it all. But you didn't seem to take any objection to fucking Singapore being mentioned as a shining example of what freer markets can accomplish.

I'm glad we at least have established you speak from ignorance.

Never mind one whose government already spends more per capita on healthcare than Canada and is 18.4 trillion in debt due to the entitlement programs already in place. I also wouldn't wish VA style healthcare on the entire country, given the experiences of me and my family.

Oh, no, of course we can't learn from a country with no debt problem. Okay.

When did I say Bernie Sanders is going to wreck the economy? That ancient wingnut has zero chance of getting anywhere near the presidency, let alone getting anything passed through congress.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Jim Jeffries]

That says it all. But you didn't seem to take any objection to fucking Singapore being mentioned as a shining example of what freer markets can accomplish.

No the fact that you thought Singapore was a ******ed comparison, but the US was perfectly viable says it all.

I'm glad we at least have established you speak from ignorance.

Says the guy ignoring the facts that Norway is considerably less than 2% our size and that oil makes up half of their exports.

Oh, no, of course we can't learn from a country with no debt problem. Okay.

States are the laboratories of democracy. How about we try Norway's policies on one of them, considering that most of them are larger than Norway?

The fact is most states don't have a debt problem. Why? Because of their smaller size.