Capitalism vs Socialism

I didn’t think of correlating taxation, good idea, but it’s hard to quantify taxation across countries with differing methods of taxing. Even so, tax revenues as a % of gdp seem to correlate to positive migration, as well as the corporate tax rate and individual tax rate.

This is odd since the argument is that the rich will flee high-tax states in favor of low-tax states, but even on a state-level in the US, the richest states (NY, CA, CT, VT) have the highest taxes. The lowest taxes are in the southeast where poverty and lack of education abounds. So, there must be something alluring that compels the rich to continue paying the high taxes. Maybe it’s the desire to not live in a shithole?

[i]This paper examines how changes in state tax policy affect the number of federal estate tax returns
filed in each state, utilizing data on federal estate tax return filings by state and wealth class for 18
years between 1965 and 1998.

Controlling for state- and wealth-class specific fixed effects, we find
that high state inheritance and estate taxes and sales taxes have statistically significant, but modest,
negative impacts on the number of federal estate tax returns filed in a state.

High personal income
tax and property tax burdens are also found to have negative effects, but these results are somewhat
sensitive to alternative specifications.

This evidence is consistent with the notion that wealthy
elderly people change their real (or reported) state of residence to avoid high state taxes, although
it could partly reflect other modes of tax avoidance as well.

We discuss the implications for the
debate over whether individual states should “decouple” their estate taxes from federal law, which
would retain the state tax even as the federal credit for such taxes is eliminated.

Our results suggest
that migration and other observationally equivalent avoidance activities in response to such a tax
would cause revenue losses and deadweight losses, but that these would not be large relative to the
revenue raised by the tax.[/i]

nber.org/papers/w10645.pdf

It appears that the bigger deal is the estate and sales taxes (a flat tax which I despise), while the income tax is of lesser relevance.

[i]Conclusion

This paper finds that the number of federal estate tax return filers reported as residing in
each state is negatively influenced by the level of taxes imposed on high-income and
high-wealth people in that state.

The most compelling results are for estate and
inheritance taxes and sales taxes, but income taxes and property taxes have statistically
significant negative effects of similar magnitudes in some reasonable specifications.

Our evidence is consistent with the idea that some rich individuals flee states that tax them
relatively heavily, although it may reflect other modes of tax avoidance as well.

The estimated amounts of deadweight loss and revenue loss from the flight are not large
relative to revenue collected by the taxes, however. [/i]

So some rich may flee, but something else is offsetting the loss of revenue (perhaps more rich moving in).

Why do people pay the high taxes and insane prices in NY city? NY should be a ghost town from the perspective of costs, but it’s one of the most populated cities, so obviously something is offsetting the costs.

breitbart.com/politics/2019 … ass-death/

Oh look, Brave Sir Robin left a flaming sack of ad hom on my porch this morning before beating a brave retreat back into the Bushes :smiley:

I guess it’s up to me to discern the argument he failed to deliver. So let’s see… how does a conservative think… Oh! Right: distort, lie, slander.

The “pompous twit” wants to “ban” fossil fuels, cars, and planes. That covers the slander and lying distortions, so that must be your argument.

She doesn’t want to ban anything, but drive antiquated technology out of business through competition with electromotive propulsion having triple the efficiency quora.com/What-is-the-energ … -airliners

Instead of millions of individual engines to regulate, she wants to centralize power generation for easier and more efficient cleaning of the exhaust.

She also wants to plant trees. I like trees. You don’t like trees? Without trees, where would you hide when you run from arguments?

All this will create lots of well-paying government jobs similar to FDR’s New Deal.

Of course the plutocrats don’t like that because it puts the gov in competition for workers, which forces them to raise wages, which cuts into their profits and control and diminishes their world domination.

She’s so brilliant, all conservatives can do is poke fun at her appearance and appeal to Red Scare propaganda tactics, taking advantage of negative connotations colloquially associated with words such as “socialism”.

Socialism is the new Boo!

The propaganda is rife. Bernie and AOC are threats to their control.

Private consumption as % of gdp:

Finland 53.7%
Norway 43.4%
Sweden 44.2%
Canada 57.4%
Netherlands 44.3%
Australia 57.2%
Luxembourg 30%
New Zealand 54.4%
Denmark 47.5%
.
.
.
Italy 62.2%
Latvia 60.6%
Croatia 61.7%
US 68%

See a pattern?

Who woulda thought less government = less freedom?

Not these guys:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

No.

#42 France has a 53.8% “private consumption as % of gdp” which is almost the same as #1 Finland (53.7%).

France has a lot of government as well as a lot of socialist and communist sympathy.

On the other hand, it has a high quality of life (at least in my opinion). I would rather live in #42 France than in #3 Sweden.

Isn’t that merely anecdotal?

Is the fact that his numbers don’t show a pattern “anecdotal”?

I brought up my personal experience for a reason. One number does not adequately represent the complex economics, politics and culture of a country. IOW, “private consumption as % of gdp” is not a measure of “capitalism”, “socialism”, “freedom” or “government”.

There are lots of reasons why you would not want to live in the #1 country in the world … no matter how the ranking is calculated.

Your personal experience of one case is perfectly valid, but Seren and I looked at actualised aggregate personal experiences worldwide in cases that span the whole world. You could argue that one number doesn’t adequately represent the complex economics, politic and culture of a country, and you’d have a point, but I think it’s a question of extents. I think a general correlation (even the weak 0.15 co-efficient that I got from my measure) says nothing to less of an extent than a personal preference of France over Finland. Hell, I’d choose France even though I admire Finland greatly, I’ve never met a French person I liked and every Finn I’ve met I liked, I speak a fair amount of French but no Finnish, I’m amazed and fascinated by the Finnish education system being top of the world - just to name a few things, but it’s just too god damn cold up there for too much of the year…

Even if you reject all the (relatively) simple empirical data that’s been brought up here, that alone allows us to reject the hypothesis that there’s a clear global trend of people generally migrating to more Capitalistic countries than Socialistic ones… - as goes the common Capitalist social narrative.

Serendipper…. =D>

Facts: suprising how facts seem to have a liberal bent…

but of course, conservatives have no use for facts because their
“Facts” come from personal biases and faith that because if
they believe in something, it must be true… regardless of the “facts”.

And the real faith of conservatives lies in their fears, bigotry, hate,
anger and lust that they mistake for “facts”.

The world is a harsh and cruel place because their biases and faith
tell them the world is a harsh and cruel place… it doesn’t really matter
what the facts are…and they react to their biases and faith rather then the
“facts” about something…blacks are slow or mexicans are “bad hombres”
and the facts don’t support these myths and biases, but their bias and faith
do support these statements and of course a conserative believes in their
bias and faith far more then “facts”. So of course, Serendipper can present all
the facts in the universe and still conseratives won’t believe it because
the important thing is the bias and faith the conservative hold, not the facts.

Kropotkin

There are some aberrations but the correlation is pretty solid. And that’s just a freedom index composed of journalistic freedom, internet freedom, and other civil liberties. freedomhouse.org/report/methodo … world-2018

France is not so socialist actually. I’ve looked into the taxation in France after the yellow vest protests and found Macron (former investment banker) is a conservative who eliminated the wealth tax and instituted a gas tax (prompting the protests). France has a high vat tax (sales tax) which places a lot of the burden of welfare on the very recipients of the assistance. France has a lot of taxes directed too much to the poor.

The US state of Ohio elected a republican governor who, after deriding his opponent for potentially raising taxes if elected, immediately proposed a gas tax to fix the roads that the corporations use to make profits on the very same people. Privatizing profits and socializing costs is the name of the conservative game. They appeal to “fairness”: you use the roads, you pay to fix them. But they overlook that the trucks are tearing up the roads, so what’s fair is making the corporations who tear the roads up pay the tax to fix them. They don’t want to do that because the idea is to transfer money from the poor to the rich and make the poor think it’s only “fair”. The same sort of game is being played in France. I don’t know much about Sweden.

Read up on the politics of France in the 19th and 20th century.

They do show a pattern and a very obvious pattern: none of the top countries break 60%, yet the bottom countries mostly break 60% except for France and possibly some others that I don’t have the data for.

There is correlation even though I can’t propose a mechanism to explain how government spending correlates to civil and political freedom, except that the same people who demand healthcare and education might also demand other rights for themselves.

But one thing I’ve demonstrated beyond a doubt is that socialism doesn’t mean breadlines and eating your dog.

And that there is no truth in categorizing Venezuela as a socialist country.

Peter, I think your assessment is correct and it reminds me of visiting a conservative friend’s house yesterday, and while showing me around, he continually referenced the warning signs, thickness of the bamboo-barrier surrounding his land, all his guns, and finally I asked him, “Do you have much trouble with thieves around here?” He said no. I thought “Yep, that figures, scared to death for no reason.” He’s a good guy though, just a product of the environment.

What numbers are you talking about this time? In terms of “freedom”, there is no correlation to “private consumption as % of gdp”. It’s all over the place.

Not that “private consumption as % of gdp” represents anything. It’s basically a meaningless number.

What would represent a meaningful measure of “freedom”, economically speaking, if not private consumption?

Demonstrate that claim please.

Phyllo, you just illustrated Peter’s point. If you reject the relevancy and significance of data, then you’ve abandoned reason and evidence in favor of preconceived notions. I don’t mind dialogue, but only when you return to reality; I can’t argue with faith.

Really?

Serendipper used it as a measure of “capitalism”.

Ireland is #5 at the top of the list. Syria is #3 on the bottom.

Saudi Arabia is #10 at the top of the list. Egypt is #10 on the bottom.

What does that mean?

Both Saudi Arabia and Ireland are socialist utopias? The House of Saud runs Saudi Arabia. That’s enough to make any socialist cringe.

Syria is a pinnacle of capitalism? So is Egypt?

That’s hard to believe.

Then it changes to a measure of “freedom”? It doesn’t make sense in that case either. It doesn’t match the list of “most free countries”.

I just showed that in terms of “freedom” #42 France has almost the same % gdp as #1 Finland.

You created a false dichotomy between capitalism and socialism.
Then you attempted to use one number to characterize the capitalism/socialism of countries.

I say bullshit. That number does not represent the level of “capitalism” of a country.

I had the same question and it would be good if you’d answer it.

Actually capitalism here has the meaning of “anti-socialism”, which is a good definition of capitalism in the context of government spending. Essentially, socialist governments are those that spend more money, presumably for the good of society (social) and “anti-socialism” is governments that do not.

Makes sense. Problem?

Why is Saudi Arabia referred to as a “Welfare State”?

Saudi Arabia simply pulls money from the ground and throws it around, hence the government spending and its rank on the list. The ranking doesn’t take into account social justice.

On the other hand, Egypt is capitalist:

Since 2000, the pace of structural reforms, including fiscal, monetary policies, taxation, privatization and new business legislations, helped Egypt move towards a more market-oriented economy and prompted increased foreign investment. The reforms and policies have strengthened macroeconomic annual growth results which averaged 8% annually between 2004 and 2009 but the government largely failed to equitably share the wealth and the benefits of growth have failed to trickle down to improve economic conditions for the broader population, especially with the growing problem of unemployment and underemployment. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Egypt

Trickle-down doesn’t work.

Ireland has some problems, but welfare is robust:

As of December 2007, Ireland’s net unemployment benefits for long-term unemployed people across four family types (single people, lone parents, single-income couples with and without children) was the third highest of the OECD countries (jointly with Iceland) after Denmark and Switzerland.[208] Jobseeker’s Allowance or Jobseeker’s Benefit for a single person in Ireland is €188 per week, as of March 2011.[209] State provided old age pensions are also relatively generous in Ireland. The maximum weekly rate for the State Pension (Contributory) is €230.30 for a single pensioner aged between 66 and 80 (€436.60 for a pensioner couple in the same age range).[210] The maximum weekly rate for the State Pension (Non-Contributory) is €219 for a single pensioner aged between 66 and 80 (€363.70 for a pensioner couple in the same age range). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_o … nd_welfare

No, Venezuela is the pinnacle, but Syria and Egypt are vying.

The freedom index was more of a sidebar. My main argument was delivered by Chomsky. IOW, in addition to the argument, there is also the freedom index.

What doesn’t match it?

That’s two data points. I provided 13.

The top countries are less than 60%, except Portugal.
The bottom countries are greater than 60%, except France and Slovakia.

(60% has the significance of being the median of the range and 62% is the mean. So countries less than 60% are socialistic and countries greater than 60% are anti-socialistic/capitalistic.)

  1. Finland 53.7%
  2. Norway 43.4%
  3. Sweden 44.2%
  4. Canada 57.4%
  5. Netherlands 44.3%
  6. Australia 57.2%
  7. Luxembourg 30%
    8 ) New Zealand 54.4%
  8. Uruguay NA
  9. Denmark 47.5%
  10. Portugal 65.2% ← outlier
  11. San Marino NA
  12. Andorra NA
  13. Barbados NA
  14. Ireland 50.6%
  15. Japan 55.4%
  16. Switzerland 53.6%
  17. Belgium 50.7%
  18. Iceland 50.6%
  19. Austria 51%
  20. Chile 61%
  21. Cyprus 73.1%
  22. Estonia 52.6%
  23. Germany 51.6%
  24. Spain 60.6%
  25. Tuvalu NA
  26. UK 64.1%
  27. Czech Republic 48.8%
  28. Dominica NA
  29. Kiribati NA
  30. Micronesia NA
  31. Slovenia 49.8%
  32. Taiwan 54.2
  33. Malta 45.9%
  34. Marshall Islands NA
  35. Palau NA
  36. Bahamas NA
  37. Costa Rica NA
  38. Lithuania 64.1%
  39. St. Lucia NA
  40. Cape Verde NA
  41. France 53.8% ← outlier
  42. Liechtenstein NA
  43. St Vincent NA
  44. Italy 62.2%
  45. Mauritas 74.1%
  46. Slovakia 53.8% <–outlier
  47. St Kitts NA
  48. Grenada NA
  49. Latvia 60.6%
  50. Belize NA
  51. Croatia 61.7%
  52. US 68%

But as I said, this was merely an interesting sidebar and not my argument. I cannot propose a mechanism to explain the correlation of freedom with government spending. It’s just interesting that freedom is ranked higher in socialists places and lower in business friendly places.

Even if you could distort this to satisfy your bias, it wouldn’t mean anything.

What’s meaningful is that government spending = nice places to live. And lack of it = crappy places to live.

And people flee places where government spending is less and flock to places where it is more.

No I didn’t. And neither did Chomsky.

Which number would you like me to use? I can slaughter capitalism in any way you’d prefer. It’s a dumb system advocated by dummies. See here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=194612

Why do you want to ally yourself with dummies?

I say that proves Peter’s point.

It represents the lack of government spending, which is an attribute of socialism.

Why should I? You’re trying to make a point. I am not. I’m just saying that your argument is flawed.

So you say. I don’t think that capitalism is “anti-socialism”. False dichotomy. Fabricated opposites.

A monarchy is socialism. If you say so.

Plot the graph and you will see that lots don’t match.

Chomsky thinks that socialism and capitalism is a dichotomy?

I don’t want you to use any number. It’s idiotic.

You used it as a measure of capitalism and socialism.