@[WOLF] Zephyrum

The reason our influence grew under him is because he took charge right after our economic problems were faltering down and our potential was just about to be fully unleashed. He didn't do badly, but then again, he wasn't nearly as good as people claim him to be.

Couldn't agree more, but still, his presidency was a success.



@Genghis

Us spending is absurd, I'll agree with you, and the gvt should cut spending. But not on the social issues. Just cut spending on the military and stop giving subsidies, and it will cover the us deficit easely.

It's not absurd to have social programs when you paid for them. Right now, the US taxes on the middle class is high, and there's low return for it.

Sweden, a country with many social programs, has a debt worth 40.6% of it's GDP. Was at 72.8% twenty years ago.
Denmark, a country with many social programs, has a debt worth 44.5% of it's GDP. Was at 72.6% twenty years ago.


The us has shitty social programs, and a debt worth over 100% of it's GDP, and has increased like hell on the last 20 years. Maybe the problem isn't the social programs huh?

Maybe the problem isn't the social programs huh?

They are quite a big modifier towards it - being the third most populous country in the world, it is a lot harder to keep everyone up to date with taxes and sustain the huge machine that is the american public welfare/healthcare. I just can't see those things working on a country with a big population.

Sweden has a population of 9 million people. Denmark is even farther behind - 5 million. For comparison, the city of São Paulo alone has 11 million, NYC has around 8 million. Gets quite unsustainable at these numbers.

Shouldn't administrative costs go down as the population goes up on a per capita basis?
The US spends sh*ttons on military(More than the next 14 countries combined), and our social programs are inefficient. We also hand out an absurd number of subsidies, these could probably be cut down without any real impact on an economy.

https://mises.org/library/sweden-poorer-you-think

http://www.eclectecon.net/2010/03/swedish-socialism-the-failure-of-elitist-planning-and-intervention.html

@MGSB get something more recent, 2002 and 2010 really man, you could probably get 2013 stats by now.

Trump's secret is that he will make America great again by building a wall in Canada.

@[wolf]japan77

Shouldn't administrative costs go down as the population goes up on a per capita basis?
The US spends sh*ttons on military(More than the next 14 countries combined), and our social programs are inefficient. We also hand out an absurd number of subsidies, these could probably be cut down without any real impact on an economy.

Yea, I believe it should too. But it depends on the efficiency of the current administration. In nordic countries, the efficiency is very high, while in the US, it's rather medium/low.


@Major General Smedley Butler

You just shared articles of two very neo-liberal sites. I wouldn't expect them to defend Sweden/Denmark. If anyone has a doubt about their success, just check on the UN sites...

Rank by HDI
1st - Norway
4th - Denmark

Edited 2/23/2016 18:02:20

Scotland could take #2 if it had independence. Socialism would become very popular, very fast, and the North Sea Oil would be an intensifier, that allows it to snowball up into the top 10.

I'm a pretty big fan of Norway, however their economic reliance on oil has always struck me as troublesome. What are they going to do when that runs out?

Scotland, if it ever becomes independent, will face down the same puzzle.

How I view it, is that Norway is actually a very stable country, with very stable services and devices, but it uses the oil as an intensifier, which makes it wealthy.

Natural resources do not create wealth.

Stability creates wealth.

Without oil Norway's GDP would be around that of Gabons. Without stability you cannot have wealth, but that does not guarantee wealth.

Populist anti establishment. Americans really hate the government and our current system. (yes that's our fault, that's why Trump and Sanders have this much support).

@Major General Smedley Butler

Without oil Norway's GDP would be around that of Gabons.

Not really lol. Without oil, norway would have a gdp per capita closer to denmark maybe. Still, not gabon.


@OxTheArtist

Scotland could take #2 if it had independence.

Scotland's independence will hurt more then will do good, at least on the short term. Plus, scotland's oil will soon be gone, you can't count on it as a main source of income on the long run.
However, the conservative party in the UK is very stupid, and the previous sentence might not be true in a few years.


For oil arguments:
- The world is actually in a clean energy path, so oil isn't a ressource that will be very important in 20-30 years.
- The price of the barrel is at 30$ right now, and might reach 20$ by the end of the year, so it's not really a lucrative business in many countries. In the US and Brazil oil companies are actually losing money in the extraction of oil.
- Norway and Scotland's oil reserves will be non-existant in the medium term.

Ummm in the coming years, only about 0.2-2.5% of energy will be from so-called renewable resources.

I think Trump (as a moderate) is popular because people are looking for change.
Domestic and foreign violence has increased greatly, the proverbial hydra of terrorism's heads are growing back faster than they can be destroyed, and although I'm no expert on economics, things seemed to be doing iffy in that area.
And in a time when violent suicide bombers are causing international havoc, along with the migrant crisis from it, people want someone that can change things.
On top of that, the rather recent yet rapid growth of PC culture is something the Internet, and to a lesser extent reality, is ticked off about.
Trump's ideas of restricting illegal immigration and temporalily banning Muslims from entering the US is something people like. "He's keeping us safe from danger". The San Bernandino shootings didn't help disprove his idea.
I can agree with him in some areas (stopping outsourcing and being tougher on illegal immigrants), but banning Muslims and his wall are a bit too far out.

Overall, he wants change. The US wants change. (this is also why Bernie is becoming popular) And with his rather interesting way of speaking (look it up), and bold, crowd-stirring ideas, the American people like him. Many may disagree with him in some areas or not at all, but his rather outlandish comments just gather more attention to him.

Remember, this guy is a business mogul. He's a businessman. He's good at getting people into an idea.

He honestly doesn't actually believe the crazy shit coming out of his mouth, he's a moderate. The people around him have no clue where the radical crazy came from. He's conning the GOP right now. Watch, as soon as he gets the nomination he pivots left.

He's conning the GOP right now. Watch, as soon as he gets the nomination he pivots left.


+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Been saying this for months. Glad some people have clarity. Trump is a con-artist. He's acting like Buchanan, but we all know he's closer to Clinton.

@Genghis, not really no...

Renewables were accountable for 16.7% of the world's energy consumption in 2010, and that percentage has raised since, and will continue raising.





So, go away with your pro-oil stupid arguments. Renewable energies will take over non-renewable energies in the medium-long term.

Scotland's independence will hurt more then will do good, at least on the short term. Plus, scotland's oil will soon be gone, you can't count on it as a main source of income on the long run.

Please, bring your arguments. I've had an independence debate before and I'd happily have one again.

Scotland has a huge surplus of oil, and according to oilofscotland.org , businessforscotland.co.uk , telegraph.co.uk , and more creidble sources, Scotland's oil will last for over 100 years. There are currently at least 30 billion barrels of oil in the North Sea for Scotland, and possibly double that amount, in the potential 300 oil fields of Scotland's North Sea Oil portion (telegraph).

So, not only will the oil benefit in the short, term, the fact that Scotland has water on 3 sides of the country, and that it is on an island, allows lots of wind and water to be generated. Renewable energy is becoming more and more popular, so the oil will simply become free money sooner or later, with renewable energy dominating the country.

So tell me, with the Tories STEALING Scotland's off-shore oil, how would Scotland be harmed from getting independence? The equivalent of over £2,000 gets stolen from every Scottish citizen, from the amount of oil the Tories steal from Scotland (they take but they don't give back), and this wouldn't happen if Scotland had independence!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25451385

This BBC article in 2013 outlines the Scottish energy usage.

Nuclear power provided 34.4% of electricity generated in Scotland in 2012, while 29.8% came from renewables, 24.9% came from coal, 8% from gas and 2.8% from oil and other sources.

While you may say that there is an "over reliance on nuclear power", I'd say that this isn't bad, because Scotland isn't in a geographically volatile area, like Japan, nor are the designs flawed in any way, like the Soviet Union. Where do I think the nuclear waste should go? The moon. I can't say that that'll happen, but that's my personal opinion. We aren't using the moon for anything else, are we? May as well fill the craters up with nuclear waste, because our planet doesn't want it.

I actually think for a majority of non-coastal developed nations, nuclear power is the way to go. Its smart, clean, and a highly efficient source.