I don't see how you can claim Sweden is a socialist country when the company IKEA has a revenue of $28.8 billion, and several of the founders of that company are in the Forbes Rich list. Unless I'm mistaken, or bozo is mistaken, I thought a socialist country had a cap on how much people could earn, and that there were no "mega-rich" people?
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: January 18, 2025, 5:41 pm
Thread Rating:
|
My name is Ted
|
Ikea is the property of a holding located in the Netherlands which in turn is owned by a non profit organisation.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you 
Well both Wikipedia and Forbes list it as a Swedish company, and the founder is presented as a very wealthy Swedish entrepreneur: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingvar_Kamprad
IKEA is a privately-held, international home products retailer that sells flat pack furniture, accessories, and bathroom and kitchen items in their retail stores around the world. The company, which pioneered flat-pack design furniture at affordable prices, is now the world's largest furniture manufacturer.[1]
IKEA was founded in 1943 by Ingvar Kamprad in Sweden and it is owned by a Dutch-registered foundation controlled by the Kamprad family. IKEA is an acronym comprising the initials of the founder's name (Ingvar Kamprad), the farm where he grew up (Elmtaryd), and his home county (Agunnaryd, in Småland, South Sweden).[2] INGKA Holding B.V. is the parent company for all IKEA Group companies, including the industrial group Swedwood, which manufactures IKEA furniture, the sales companies that run IKEA stores, as well as purchasing and supply functions, and IKEA of Sweden, which is responsible for the design and development of products in the IKEA range. INGKA Holding B.V. is wholly owned by Stichting INGKA Foundation, which is a non-profit foundation registered in Leiden in the Netherlands. Inter IKEA Systems B.V. in Delft, also in the Netherlands, owns the IKEA concept and trademark, and there is a franchising agreement with every IKEA store in the world. The IKEA Group is the biggest franchisee of Inter IKEA Systems B.V. Inter IKEA Systems B.V. is not owned by INGKA Holding B.V., but by Inter IKEA Holding S.A. registered in Luxemburg, which in turn is part of Inter IKEA Holding registered in the Netherlands Antilles. The ownership of the holding companies has not been disclosed.[3] In August 2008, IKEA also announced that it had created IKEA GreenTech, a €50 million venture capital fund. Located in Lund (a university town in Sweden), it will invest in 8-10 companies in the coming five years with focus on solar panels, alternative light sources, product materials, energy efficiency, and water saving and purification. The aim is to commercialise green technologies for sale in IKEA stores within 3-4 years. [4][5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA
Best regards,
Leo van Miert Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Ok, evidently I was mistaken, but it does not change the fact that the founder is Swedish and is a multi-billionaire. I found another example, the company Ericsson which has an even greater revenue than IKEA is located in Sweden. I'm sure I could find many more multi-billion dollar companies in Sweden, so I fail to see how it is a socialist state? It certainly doesn't look like the wealth is distributed any more fairly than in a capitalist system :S
 RE: My name is Ted
April 6, 2009 at 2:35 pm
(This post was last modified: April 6, 2009 at 2:40 pm by bozo.)
(April 5, 2009 at 6:26 pm)Tiberius Wrote:(April 5, 2009 at 5:12 pm)bozo Wrote: Sorry, but who wants socialism is very much the point.Yet again you dodge around the question. I wonder why this is? It's a pretty simple question: If I were a top-end earner in a socialist system, would there be any barriers stopping me from spending my money on more "luxurious" accommodation for my family? In order, again, I'm not dodging anything, but I won't let you set the agenda in a response. Who wants socialism was the debate. You clearly don't. Rich entrepreneurs like Sugar depend on exploiting their workers to get rich. Without the workers they are nothing. Capitalism needs unemployment ( and a strong, well looked-after police force ) in the bad times. Under socialism that is not the case. Prince Charles inherited his position of privilege.....he's no Sugar. Accountants. Very funny I'm pissing myself with laughter! Actually it was the lord of the manor in my servant days. And what rhymes with " bankers "? Finally, unfounded remark? Are you not fond of capitalism then? (April 6, 2009 at 11:45 am)Tiberius Wrote: I don't see how you can claim Sweden is a socialist country when the company IKEA has a revenue of $28.8 billion, and several of the founders of that company are in the Forbes Rich list. Unless I'm mistaken, or bozo is mistaken, I thought a socialist country had a cap on how much people could earn, and that there were no "mega-rich" people?For many years Sweden was viewed as the leading western socialist country. It had a fine welfare system which looked after people. I remember well the comment of a Swedish capitalist in the 1980's ( he was a salesman, I was a buyer in those days ) who complained bitterly thay " you can't get rich in Sweden ". I knew then that they were on the right track. Adrian, you can't joke your eway out of every corner. We haven't reached the stage yet where the mega-rich and the underclases have been eliminated.  A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
(April 6, 2009 at 2:35 pm)bozo Wrote: I'm not dodging anything, but I won't let you set the agenda in a response. Who wants socialism was the debate. You clearly don't.No, the debate was on socialism in general. I said I couldn't see how socialism could work, especially by eradicating the mega-rich and lower-classes. If you did this, and created a single "class", then there would still be upper and lower bounds, because there would be people who earned higher than others. My question (which you still have not answered, dodging every single time I ask) is a valid one. If I'm ever going to accept socialism, I want to know whether I would be able to support my family in a better environment if I were a high earner. I don't have an agenda here, and I'm just asking questions any capitalist would ask. Quote:Can you show me any evidence that Sugar exploits his workers? I'm sure most of his workers don't feel that way. I worked at a company owned by one of the largest banks in the world, Santander. Every day I worked I was earning money for the chairman, a multi-billionaire. Did I feel exploited? No. Y'know why? Because I had a decent job with a very nice paycheck for my age. Quote:Capitalism needs unemployment? Bullshit. You are the one saying we should eradicate accountants, and you probably include stockbrokers (hey they fiddle with numbers too!) and most bankers in that group. You can't talk about unemployment when your ideal society would end with all these people out of a job! Capitalism creates as many jobs as is required by every business. The more businesses there are, the more jobs there will be. Quote:Prince Charles inherited his position of privilege.....he's no Sugar.He inherited his position sure, I never said he didn't, and I'm not against inheritance. He formed his various businesses on his own though. I have no problem with him continuing his business as long as he doesn't get money from the state. Quote:Accountants. Very funny I'm pissing myself with laughter! Actually it was the lord of the manor in my servant days.Y'know, I don't think that's been used before, but maybe we could call it the "bozo fallacy". X rhymes with Y therefore X equals Y. Nice. If you want to discuss banks then bring up something more...oh I don't know, sensible? Quote:Finally, unfounded remark? Are you not fond of capitalism then?I'm not "fond" of capitalism, it's got flaws sure. But it's the best system we have that works as well as can be hoped. Your unfounded remark was how by Libertarian politics is a "mask" for my economic ideas. Quote:We haven't reached the stage yet where the mega-rich and the underclases have been eliminated.Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm quite possibly so on this point), but doesn't socialism kinda depend on the mega-rich and underclasses being eliminated? I mean, how can you claim Sweden is a socialist country if the mega-rich and underclasses are still there? (April 6, 2009 at 5:51 pm)Tiberius Wrote:(April 6, 2009 at 2:35 pm)bozo Wrote: I'm not dodging anything, but I won't let you set the agenda in a response. Who wants socialism was the debate. You clearly don't.No, the debate was on socialism in general. I said I couldn't see how socialism could work, especially by eradicating the mega-rich and lower-classes. If you did this, and created a single "class", then there would still be upper and lower bounds, because there would be people who earned higher than others. My question (which you still have not answered, dodging every single time I ask) is a valid one. If I'm ever going to accept socialism, I want to know whether I would be able to support my family in a better environment if I were a high earner. I don't have an agenda here, and I'm just asking questions any capitalist would ask. Again, in order: I was talking globally. You attempt to hone in on an individual. Go work on a production line in a ( biscuit ) factory...I have... and report back. You clearly don't understand the nature of capitalism. Go read Marx. You agree Charles is no Sugar? What rhymes with " Hayter " ? You want to live in America...live the American Dream....fond??? You'd better re-read what I said about Sweden and where socialism is now. A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
Well seeing as you continue to dodge my initial question I'll assume you don't want to talk about this anymore. I don't care if you are talking globally, because I want to know how socialism will affect ME the individual. If you can't answer a simple question about me wanting to do the best for my family, then I suspect the answer is going to be "oh, well in a socialist system you can't do that!" or something similar.
Sorry, but if that is the case then socialism is worse than I thought. Perhaps my view on this is wrong, but you can hardly blame me after you have dodged such a simple question for so many posts... (April 6, 2009 at 8:55 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Well seeing as you continue to dodge my initial question I'll assume you don't want to talk about this anymore. I don't care if you are talking globally, because I want to know how socialism will affect ME the individual. If you can't answer a simple question about me wanting to do the best for my family, then I suspect the answer is going to be "oh, well in a socialist system you can't do that!" or something similar. I have dodged nothing. On this particular one I was arguing that one day the majority of the world would see that socialism gave them a better life than capitalism. If you remember, I said that the mega rich would not give up their wealth and power easily. You question whether an individual would benefit. That depends on the individual. If that individual were I then I'd be content. If it were you, on the other hand,then I suspect you wouldn't be. A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)
