Bernie's Socialist Utopias Would Rank Among the Poorest of U.S. States

[Agit8r]

No sh*t Sherlock. Average includes all the Billlionaires' money, and averages it out. Median gives a more realistic measure of what the everyday citizen has.

mean vs. median vs. average on Vocabulary.com

Average includes all the Billlionaires' money, and averages it out.

Yes.

Median gives a more realistic measure of what the everyday citizen has.

No it doesn't. The median number in the US from your source was $43,585.
Everyone above that number could double their income and the median number would remain unchanged.
Not so useful then, is it?

Theoretically perhaps. But we know that that isn't the case, now don't we

We know that since Obama took office, median income is nearly unchanged, while real GDP has grown about $2 trillion, nearly 14% .

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism? What's that?

Neoliberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

We always hear the left gloat about how wonderful Europeans have it with all of their nanny state welfare programs, but the fact of the matter is the average American enjoys a higher standard of living than the average European.

Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute has put together some apples-to-apples data suggesting the answer is no. At least if the goal is more economic output and higher living standards.

Most European countries (including Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Belgium) if they joined the US, would rank among the poorest one-third of US states on a per-capita GDP basis, and the UK, France, Japan and New Zealand would all rank among America’s very poorest states, below No. 47 West Virginia, and not too far above No. 50 Mississippi. Countries like Italy, S. Korea, Spain, Portugal and Greece would each rank below Mississippi as the poorest states in the country.

And here’s the table Mark prepared.

Most of Europe Is a Lot Poorer than Most of the United States | Daniel J. Mitchell

They're always pining and yearning for the scandanavian states. Of course its no utopia over there. Libs love to romanticize about trains, controlling people, herding the masses, indefinite fondling about far away socialist utopias etc.

And this may pour some rain on their parade....

Sweden has recognized the failure of socialism/liberalism and embraced conservative practices:

1. THIRTY YEARS AGO Margaret Thatcher turned Britain into the world’s leading centre of “thinking the unthinkable”. Today that distinction has passed to Sweden….Sweden has reduced public spending as a proportion of GDP from 67% in 1993 to 49% today…. It has also cut the top marginal tax rate by 27 percentage points since 1983, to 57%, and scrapped a mare’s nest of taxes on property, gifts, wealth and inheritance. This year it is cutting the corporate-tax rate from 26.3% to 22%.
2. Sweden has also donned the golden straitjacket of fiscal orthodoxy with its pledge to produce a fiscal surplus over the economic cycle. Its public debt fell from 70% of GDP in 1993 to 37% in 2010, and its budget moved from an 11% deficit to a surplus of 0.3% over the same period.
3. Most daringly, it has introduced a universal system of school vouchers and invited private schools to compete with public ones. Private companies also vie with each other to provide state-funded health services and care for the elderly….Sweden is pioneering “a new conservative model”…
4. …Sweden’s quiet revolution has brought about a dramatic change in its economic performance. The two decades from 1970 were a period of decline: the country was demoted from being the world’s fourth-richest in 1970 to 14th-richest in 1993, …The two decades from 1990 were a period of recovery: GDP growth between 1993 and 2010 averaged 2.7% a year and productivity 2.1% a year, compared with 1.9% and 1% respectively for the main 15 EU countries.
5. For most of the 20th century Sweden prided itself on offering what Marquis Childs called, in his 1936 book of that title, a “Middle Way” between capitalism and socialism…As the decades rolled by, the middle way veered left. The government kept growing: public spending as a share of GDP nearly doubled from 1960 to 1980 and peaked at 67% in 1993.
   1. Taxes kept rising. The Social Democrats (who ruled Sweden for 44 uninterrupted years from 1932 to 1976 and for 21 out of the 24 years from 1982 to 2006) kept squeezing business. “The era of neo-capitalism is drawing to an end,” said Olof Palme, the party’s leader, in 1974. “It is some kind of socialism that is the key to the future.”
6. The other Nordic countries have been moving in the same direction,… Denmark has one of the most liberal labour markets in Europe. It also allows parents to send children to private schools at public expense and make up the difference in cost with their own money. Finland is harnessing the skills of venture capitalists and angel investors to promote innovation and entrepreneurship.
7. But the new Nordic model begins with the individual rather than the state. It begins with fiscal responsibility rather than pump-priming: all four Nordic countries have AAA ratings and debt loads significantly below the euro-zone average. It begins with choice and competition rather than paternalism and planning.
   1. The leftward lurch has been reversed: rather than extending the state into the market, the Nordics are extending the market into the state.
8. “The welfare state we have is excellent in most ways,” says Gunnar Viby Mogensen, a Danish historian. “We only have this little problem. We can’t afford it.”
   http://www.economist.com/news/speci...einventing-their-model-capitalism-says-adrian

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Average includes all the Billlionaires' money, and averages it out.

Yes.

Median gives a more realistic measure of what the everyday citizen has.

No it doesn't. The median number in the US from your source was $43,585.
Everyone above that number could double their income and the median number would remain unchanged.
Not so useful then, is it?

Theoretically perhaps. But we know that that isn't the case, now don't we

We know that since Obama took office, median income is nearly unchanged, while real GDP has grown about $2 trillion, nearly 14% .

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism? What's that?

Neoliberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

Many Democrats want to move away from reduced government control of the economy?

 

[Agit8r]

Theoretically perhaps. But we know that that isn't the case, now don't we

We know that since Obama took office, median income is nearly unchanged, while real GDP has grown about $2 trillion, nearly 14% .

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism? What's that?

Neoliberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

Many Democrats want to move away from reduced government control of the economy?

Lax regulation, for-profit healthcare, etc.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

We know that since Obama took office, median income is nearly unchanged, while real GDP has grown about $2 trillion, nearly 14% .

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism? What's that?

Neoliberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

Many Democrats want to move away from reduced government control of the economy?

Lax regulation, for-profit healthcare, etc.

What lax regulations? We are one of the most regulated countries in the world.

 

[Agit8r]

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism? What's that?

Neoliberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

Many Democrats want to move away from reduced government control of the economy?

Lax regulation, for-profit healthcare, etc.

What lax regulations? We are one of the most regulated countries in the world.

Except for vast methane leaks, manure lagoons, flammable water exploding oil rigs...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We know that since Obama took office, median income is nearly unchanged, while real GDP has grown about $2 trillion, nearly 14% .

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism? What's that?

Neoliberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

Many Democrats want to move away from reduced government control of the economy?

Lax regulation, for-profit healthcare, etc.

When were Democrats against more regulation or against government run "free" healthcare?

 

[Agit8r]

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism? What's that?

Neoliberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

Many Democrats want to move away from reduced government control of the economy?

Lax regulation, for-profit healthcare, etc.

When were Democrats against more regulation or against government run "free" healthcare?

in theory or practice?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism? What's that?

Neoliberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

Many Democrats want to move away from reduced government control of the economy?

Lax regulation, for-profit healthcare, etc.

When were Democrats against more regulation or against government run "free" healthcare?

in theory or practice?

Either.

 

[Vigilante]

Hell.....

 

[georgephillip]

We always hear the left gloat about how wonderful Europeans have it with all of their nanny state welfare programs, but the fact of the matter is the average American enjoys a higher standard of living than the average European

What does Gini have to say about the subject?

"A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth."
International inequality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Agit8r]

Neoliberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

Many Democrats want to move away from reduced government control of the economy?

Lax regulation, for-profit healthcare, etc.

When were Democrats against more regulation or against government run "free" healthcare?

in theory or practice?

Either.

Obama Buys Into Business’s Regulation Myth: Margaret Carlson

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

Many Democrats want to move away from reduced government control of the economy?

Lax regulation, for-profit healthcare, etc.

When were Democrats against more regulation or against government run "free" healthcare?

in theory or practice?

Either.

Obama Buys Into Business’s Regulation Myth: Margaret Carlson

That's funny......

President Barack Obama’s announcement that he would require federal agencies to review regulations on their books and remove those that “stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive” made me wonder.

When has Obama ever done anything to reduce regulations?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism? What's that?

Neoliberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you can see why a lot of Democrats want to move away from neoliberalism.

Many Democrats want to move away from reduced government control of the economy?

Lax regulation, for-profit healthcare, etc.

What lax regulations? We are one of the most regulated countries in the world.

Except for vast methane leaks, manure lagoons, flammable water exploding oil rigs...

It is extremely dangerous to drill 80 miles offshore. The pressures are immense as you move deeper towards the ocean floor. Then, you have 30-50000 feet of drilling, from which differential pressures in formation have to be dealt with.

 

[Rozman]

The poorer the government makes a city the more the Democrats will
say vote for Democrats and we will fix all your problems.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

The poorer the government makes a city the more the Democrats will
say vote for Democrats and we will fix all your problems.....

Flint tried the Republicans, well, more precisely, Flint was forced to.