Sweden isn't Socialist

[Clark Howard]

Two definite points about Sweden: They sponsored the Swedish Mauser, an excellent rifle that never saw combat. The girls dip snuff. Regards, Clark

[Vern Humphrey]

Sweden is not a socialist country. Neither is Norway, Iceland, et al. They do not meet the definition. What they do seem to accomplish is taking care of their citizens via incredibly high taxes. They also have income equality to a greater degree than a capitalist country. I suspect at some point we will see something similiar in the US. People are getting tired of huge amounts of money being retained by a select few.

The problem in the US was caused by Congress. Do you remember the era of the great "Takeover Artists?" Huge conglomerates, top heavy and over-committed were going bankrupt. The "Takeover Artists" bought their stock cheap, broke them up, and streamlined them -- and made money in the process.

BUT part of the streamlining process involved laying off the dead wood and closing out the really unprofitable parts. So Congress passed laws to make that more difficult -- in effect, Congress gave power to the hired help, the corporate officers, to over-ride the owners, the stock holders. And what did the corporate officers do with that power? They made themselves rich!

If we had a simple law -- "For all publicly traded corporations, the compensation of the corporate officers and Board of Directors shall be set each year by thel vote of the stock holders" it would solve most of the problem.

[togor]

Two words: Private Equity.

Also: bankruptcy laws allow companies to launder away pension obligations through the courts.

Once again Vern is talking a good game but he doesn't believe a word of it.

[S.A. Boggs]

Two words: Private Equity.

Also: bankruptcy laws allow companies to launder away pension obligations through the courts.

Once again Vern is talking a good game but he doesn't believe a word of it.

Togor, do you hate yourself as much as you do other's?
Sam

[blackhawknj]

"Socialism" ? ""When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'It means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less.'"

[Vern Humphrey]

"Socialism" ? ""When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'It means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less.'"

Now which of the Three Stooges is Humpty Dumpty?

[RED]

https://sweden.se/society/10-things-...mily-friendly/

Sweden, like other Nordic cultures, has an egalitarian streak to it, a native tendency to limit the spread between the richest and poorest in society in the interest of social cohesion, and they don't have a problem doing it through the offices of government. In other words, they care about the distribution of wealth, not just the per capital numbers. The US by contrast has seen per capita wealth go up in the last few decades, but with the increases disproportionately flowing to the top. This effect is believed by some to have contributed to the rise of Trump, with his messaging that the game is rigged.

Notice how the National Socialists always use big words but they change the definition to suit their argument.

Definition of egalitarian: Egalitarianism a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs…

To the Communist/Socialists, "limit the spread" means everybody is virtually the same and there are no genders, nor economic status dependent on production, education, ability or eagerness to succeed. They think somebody that sweeps the floors at Wal-Mart should receive the same pay as the CEO. Actually it means everybody should have the right to participate equally in in the processes.

Then he blames "Private Equity" as the root of all problems... That is an Orwellian concept that extends to every facet of life. Apparently in his utopian State nobody could own anything, even your toothbrush would be passed around so everybody and anybody could use it. Just more twisting and turning.
-

[togor]

Red look at your own definition of egalitarianism and then try to argue, if you can, that the Nordic societies do not practice it to a greater degree than say the US. Remember the context of the thread is primarily economic. Then you go off on some tangent about communism and "limit the spread" and what you think that means. It has the feel of you just wanting to argue with my post because it was my post, not because you actually disagree with anything that I said. Good luck with that.

As for private equity, Vernon had a pie-in-the-sky solution for ending wealth inequality by slapping a rule on publicly-traded companies. He's smart enough (I am guessing) to not believe a word of it, but like a clever politician, he said it because it sounded fancy and he gets points for appearing to care. Well, his rule obviously won't affect companies that aren't publicly traded, so all he would do is create an incentive for more companies to go private. I see you haven't lost your flair for creating straw man arguments. But at some point you're going to have to win an argument in this world with real facts and real logic.

[dryheat]

kinda like every time I hear Montana I think Dental Floss,, -

I actually get that one.

[Vern Humphrey]

Just as an aside, I have no desire to end "wealth inequality." I would, however, like to restore control of private property to the owners of that property.

[barretcreek]

Salaries of corporate execs are set by the board of directors. Many of the boards include people who are execs of other firms or have roles at pension funds. Take care of me and I'll take care of you. If it was set by a plebiscite of the share holders, they vote for whichever pirate provided the greatest short term gain.

[RED]

It is not MY definition... it is a straight quote from the dictionary. The liberal definition is a made up lie promoted by agitators and haters. And the words “private equity,” means private ownership...

[togor]

Just as an aside, I have no desire to end "wealth inequality." I would, however, like to restore control of private property to the owners of that property.

Indeed, ending it is not possible nor desirable, and the word choice was a mistake. The discussion was about limiting it, specifically in salary ratio between top & bottom of company. But I submit that the rule you suggested is not one that you actually believe in.

If we had a simple law -- "For all publicly traded corporations, the compensation of the corporate officers and Board of Directors shall be set each year by thel vote of the stock holders" it would solve most of the problem.

For one thing, it represents a significant interference in how the owners of the company can run their business, and that is the sort of thing that you don't like. For another, it's the sort of thing that a Democratic Congress is much more likely to try than a GOP one, and that makes it DOA right there. Had you been elected, I conclude there would be a 100% certainty that you would NOT cross party lines to vote for such a measure. So yes, I think you're just saying things you don't believe to try to fit in.

[Vern Humphrey]

Salaries of corporate execs are set by the board of directors. Many of the boards include people who are execs of other firms or have roles at pension funds. Take care of me and I'll take care of you. If it was set by a plebiscite of the share holders, they vote for whichever pirate provided the greatest short term gain.

Or perhaps the greatest long term gain. After all the shareholders OWN the company and the owners have a right to set their own policy.

[blackhawknj]

The Marxist-Leninist-Socialist countries eliminated wealth inequality by eliminating wealth. They then established a system of rank and office based privileges, their iron control of the media allowed the higher ups to live comfortable if not luxurious lives carefully sheltered from "The People" they claimed to serve.