My name is Ted

[leo-rcc]

Ok, evidently I was mistaken, but it does not change the fact that the founder is Swedish and is a multi-billionaire.

I am not disputing that, but I find Ikea in itself is a bad example since the revenues from the company does not come out of Sweden but out of the Netherlands. There has to be a reason for that, and my guess would be the political/fiscal climate of Sweden.

I found another example, the company Ericsson which has an even greater revenue than IKEA is located in Sweden.

You mean Sony-Ericsson? Either way, that really doesn't say all that much.

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?

MTN is an African multi-billion dollar company, that does not reflect on the companies origin or the countries it operates in, it is just where the business started.

I do not consider Sweden any more a socialist state as I do the Netherlands where there are socialistic principles in its government. But using the origin of multinational companies as an example against the political structure of the country is not correct.

If companies grow and the political structure of a country inhibits the capitalistic growth of that company they place their financial and fiscal headquarters somewhere else.

[Tiberius]

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.

Evidently you always won at dodgeball as a child. You are just too good! You have repeatedly dodged my question, and then when you eventually get around to answering it, you change the entire question and answer something that has NO relation to my original! ULTIMATE DODGE!!!

My question (for the...what is it? 5th time now?) is this: (and I'm going to bold it for you)

If I were a top-end earner living in a socialist system, would I be able to use some of my well-earned money to buy better accommodation for my family?

It really is a very simple question bozo. I'm not asking if an individual would benefit from socialism, I'm asking whether an individual could protect his family in a socialist system (note: this is supposing the socialist system is all currently set up, and the upper/lower classes are non-existent). So please. For The Love Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, answer the fricken question.

[bozo]

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.

Evidently you always won at dodgeball as a child. You are just too good! You have repeatedly dodged my question, and then when you eventually get around to answering it, you change the entire question and answer something that has NO relation to my original! ULTIMATE DODGE!!!

My question (for the...what is it? 5th time now?) is this: (and I'm going to bold it for you)

If I were a top-end earner living in a socialist system, would I be able to use some of my well-earned money to buy better accommodation for my family?

It really is a very simple question bozo. I'm not asking if an individual would benefit from socialism, I'm asking whether an individual could protect his family in a socialist system (note: this is supposing the socialist system is all currently set up, and the upper/lower classes are non-existent). So please. For The Love Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, answer the fricken question.

Didn't you know I was nicknamed " the artful dodger " when I were a lad?!!
The problem with your question is that you are still approaching the issues from a very capitalist perspective. I don't blame you for that particularly, you are probably from the generation known in some places as the Thatcher generation. Thus you show fear in the prospect of living as a family unit under a socialist regime.You ask if you can " protect " that unit. If what you want is to carry on being a capitalist under socialism i.e. being " better" than the rest then the answer would be no. But, you would be living in a more just society. Your family would have access to all the things that make life worth living..affordable home,healthcare,education, good food, culture, sport..the list goes on...and you would not have to be in the rat race,working excessively long hours to impress " the man " like under capitalism.
Lose the fear, I'm not offering a police state.

[Tiberius]

Very well. If that is the case then socialism isn't a system I'd even want to consider. The whole point of capitalism is it meets the needs of people. If I need better accommodation or better food, I work harder to get it. The UK government already gives accommodation to people who do not work, so that system appears to be socialist as you describe it. It's not a system I support, as these people do not contribute anything to society.

[Ted1205]

How is capitalism for the people if it hangs poor and unlucky people out to dry. All capitalism is based on is how well you can work the system and how many people you can shit on. Socialism will help everyone. People with a lot of money will still be able to buy things, but so will poor people. I guess that really gets on your nerves that a poor man can be equal with a rich man. But I would like to see everyone equal.

[fr0d0]

People are all equals, and the problem with the gap that money puts between people is that it's completely false. Money = power leads to oppression.. no one has the right to do that to another person.

[Kyuuketsuki]

People are all equals

Are they? In an ideal world perhaps but the one thing we known about this world (these cultures) we live in ... it's far from ideal.

Money = power leads to oppression.. no one has the right to do that to another person.

Yeah, yeah ... another idealistic assertion that can't be specifically supported.

Borrowing the words of Richard Prior from "Car Wash" IMO (and it is only my opinion) money may well be the root of all evil but it's also the solution to a lot of our problems. Ultimately money is neither good nor bad, it is simply a means to an end and it is humans who decide which end to use it for.

Kyu

[Giff]

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?

I haven't really explain everything clearly. We are and were not a complete socialistic country. We mixed socialism and capitalism. We were on the other hand more capitalistic before then we have been recently. Especially with this new right wing goverment.

Anyhow, what I want to say what socialism and welfare have done for my country is that it has erased the working class and nearly all poberty.

Now when we are less socialistic and the welfare has been limited have the gaps between classes increased.

So Adrian there are super rich people since we have influences from both socialism and capitalism. However rich people pay a special tax called the "rich man tax" which is roughly about 50%. The income that big companies get also being taxed, don't how high the % is there.

Since we are a monarchy do we have 5-6 parties. For most of the time, atleast since the WWII and forward have "Socialdemokraterna" (Socialdemocrats) lead ower country. Which is a socialistic party. Which did wonders for this country which were one of europes poorest countries during the beginning of the 20th century.

[fr0d0]

People are all equals

Are they? In an ideal world perhaps but the one thing we known about this world (these cultures) we live in ... it's far from ideal.

How aren't they really tho'? What makes you or me inferior to another person?

Money = power leads to oppression.. no one has the right to do that to another person.

Yeah, yeah ... another idealistic assertion that can't be specifically supported.

It was a bit of a bland statement, I wasn't intending to make a strong debating point. I think it's so evident tho' it doesn't need supporting.

Borrowing the words of Richard Prior from "Car Wash" IMO (and it is only my opinion) money may well be the root of all evil but it's also the solution to a lot of our problems. Ultimately money is neither good nor bad, it is simply a means to an end and it is humans who decide which end to use it for.

Misquote - money isn't the root of all evil - the love of money is.

[Ted1205]

You know, I have been thinking about what people have been saying here. I think I would now consider myself and Independent Liberal.