The end is in sight

TheM wrote:

If the Swedes are happy with it and obviously keep confirming this at elections
than who are we to call them loosers? They seem to be supporting themselves.
" ABB, formerly Asea Brown Boveri, is a multinational corporation headquartered in Zürich, Switzerland,
operating mainly in the power and automation technology areas. ABB is one of the largest engineering companies
as well as one of the largest conglomerate companies in the world. ABB has operations in around 100 countries,
with approximately 115,000 employees (2008).

Founded 1988 through merger of ASEA of Sweden and Brown, Boveri & Cie of Switzerland "

Not bad for a tiny country ( in both cases )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABB_Asea_Brown_Boveri

Not to mention Volvo and SAAB ( not, not their US owned and trashed car divisions ).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab

Volvo own Mack trucks in the USA btw.

" The "Volvo" brand, which has been built up over decades, is one of the world's best known and respected brand
names. The Volvo Group brands

Volvo Group's purchase of Renault Trucks and Mack Trucks in 2001 created Europe's largest and the world's second
largest producer of heavy trucks with a broad product program. Mack is one of the most well known truck brands
in North America while Renault Trucks holds a special position in Southern Europe.[citation needed] The Japanese
Nissan Diesel marketing a wide range of light, medium and heavy-duty vehicles as well as buses and bus chassis,
engines, vehicle components and special-purpose vehicles.

Prevost Car, owned by Volvo Bus Corporation, is the leading North American manufacturer of premium touring
coaches and bus shells for high-end motorhomes and specialty conversions. Nova Bus, part of Prevost, stands as a
North American leader in the design, production and marketing of urban transit buses. "

Graham
 
TheM wrote:

"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote

I'm glad that life in Sweden is agreeable to Swedes. They've got a
total population smaller than a big city here, distributed over a
land mass roughly the size of one of our largest states.

Revenue to the State is almost exactly 50% of GDP. That's a pretty
high burden on the taxpayers.

So who can tell us what burdens they manage to support with that
revenue? How many illegal (or legal) alien births do they pay
for? How many poor, elderly, and disabled live on the State?
Is it sustainable for the long term, or not? And lastly, what's
the judgement of others--how many people are flocking to Sweden,
to benefit?

I do not advocate socialistic approach, in fact I would put myself on the
right (although not as extremely as JT), but I find it ridiculous how violently
Americans react whenever a term "socialistic" is used.

Subsidizing some things can be beneficial to society and IS necessary.
The only question is how much is just right and that varries from country
to country.

If the Swedes are happy with it and obviously keep confirming this at elections
than who are we to call them loosers? They seem to be supporting themselves.
I nearly forgot .....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKF

" Today, SKF is the largest bearing manufacturer in the world and employs approximately 40,000 people in
approximately 100 manufacturing sites that span 70 countries [1]. Turnover for FY2005 was SEK49,285 million, and
total assets were SEK40,349 million. The SKF Group currently consists of approximately 150 companies including
the seal manufacturer Chicago Rawhide. "

Socialism a failure eh ?

See also ......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Swedish_companies

Asea Brown Boveri (Swedish-Swiss)
AGA AB
Alfa Laval
Akzo Nobel (Swedish-Dutch)
Arla Foods (Swedish-Danish)
Arla Plast
Autoliv
ASSA ABLOY
AstraZeneca (Swedish-British)
Atlas Copco
Avanza
Axel Johnson Group
Axel Johnson AB
Axfood
Boliden
Bonniers
BRIO
Clas Ohlson
Coop Norden (Scandinavian)
DeLaval
Digital Illusions
Draim
Elekta
ELFA
ENEA
Eniro
Ericsson
Electrolux
ESAB
Fagerhult Group
Filippa K
Forex Bank
Hagberg Media
Haglöfs
Hagström
Hasselblad
Holmen
Handelsbanken
Hennes & Mauritz (H&M)
Husaberg AB
Husqvarna
IKEA
Ingate
Intertex
Investor AB
Investment AB Kinnevik
J.Lindeberg (JL)
Koenigsegg Automotive AB
Kopparbergs Brewery
Lindex
LKAB
Nordea(Swedish-Finnish)
Metro International
Micromy
Modern Times Group (MTG)
MySQL AB
Nobel Biocare (Swedish-Swiss)
Öhlins
OMX AB
OrganoClick AB
Panos Emporio AB
Paradox Entertainment
Peltarion
Promessa Organic
Pĺgen AB
Saab
SamLogic
Sandvik
SAS Group (Swedish-Norwegian-Danish)
Securitas AB
Scania AB
SIBA AB
SJ AB
Skandia
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken (SEB)
Skanska
SKF
SSAB
Starbreeze Studios
Stora Enso (Swedish-Finnish)
Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget (SCA)
Svenska Kullagerfabriken AB (SKF)
Swedbank (FöreningsSparbanken)
Swedish Match
Tele2
Telia Sonera (Swedish-Finnish)
Tetra Pak
Tieto (Swedish-Finnish)
Trelleborg AB
TrioAB
TV4 AB
V&S Group
Vattenfall
Volvo
Wise Group
WM-data
Walk On Water Creation Ab
Ĺhléns

[edit]
Former, merged and acquired Companies
Astra (merged into AstraZeneca)
ASEA (merged into Asea Brown Boveri)
AGA (acquired by Linde AG)
Biacore (acquired by GE Healthcare)
Bofors (acquired by Saab)
Datasaab (former part of Saab)
Digital Illustions Creative Entertainment (DICE) (acquired by Electronic Arts)
Flexlink (acquired by ABN Amro)
Föreningsbanken (merged into Swedbank)
Göinge Mekaniska AB (merged into Skanska)
IKEA (now seated in The Netherlands)
Linjeflyg (acquired by SAS)
Luxor (acquired by Nokia)
Nobel Industries (merged into Akzo Nobel)
Nordbanken (merged into Nordea)
Pharmacia (merged into Amersham Pharmacia Biotech and Pharmacia & Upjohn)
Amersham Pharmacia Biotech (merged into Amersham Biosciences)
Amersham Biosciences (acquired by GE Healthcare)
Pharmacia & Upjohn (merged into Pharmacia Inc.)
Pharmacia Inc. (acquired by Pfizer)
Saab Automobile (acquired by General Motors)
Skandinaviska Banken (merged into SEB)
Stockholms Enskilda Bank (merged into SEB)
Stockholm Stock Exchange (acquired by OM AB)
Telia (merged into Telia Sonera)
Vabis (acquired by Scania)
Volvo Cars (acquired by Ford Motor Company)

And ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden

" The Sweden economy is modern and highly industrialised. It has a modern distribution system, excellent
internal and external communications, and a skilled labor force. Timber, hydropower, and iron ore constitute the
resource base of an economy heavily oriented toward foreign trade. The main industries include motor vehicles,
telecommunications, pharmaceuticals and forestry.

Aided by peace and neutrality for the whole of the 20th century, Sweden has achieved an excellent standard of
living under a mixed system of high-tech markets and extensive welfare benefits. The country is known for its
high taxes and large public sector. Sweden has the second highest total tax revenue behind Denmark, as a share
of the country's income. As of 2007, total tax revenue was 47.8% of GDP, down from 49.1% 2006. "

" Some 4.5 million residents are working, out of which around a third with tertiary education."

" In contrast with most other European countries, Sweden maintained an unemployment rate around 2% or 3% of the
work force throughout the 1980s. "

A real FAILURE !


Graham
 
flipper wrote:

I don't think anyone really cares what the Swedes do in their own
country. It only becomes an issue when one is instructed to 'copy' it.
They own quite a few US companies btw.

The biggest external investor in the US economy is Britain.

Graham
 
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Do you worry that another volunteer fireman will start a huge fire in
Australia, like the recent ones.

Oh please. Does your country never get firebugs joining the fire-brigade?

I didn't say we didn't. Still, doesn't it worry you? Lives, homes
and businesses lost from someone who did it not once, but twice. Other
Australians are pissed that there is no registry or background checks
for the volunteers.
Since when was Australia part of the discussion ?

Graham
 
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:

Oh, so your fire-brigades aren't publicly funded?

Some are, some are all voluenteer departments who raise their own
money.

Some voluenteer departments get a flat rate stipend if called for
help.
Same in the UK.

Graham
 
James Arthur wrote:

what's Russia's GDP ?
GDP (PPP) 2008 estimate
- Total $2,261 trillion
- Per capita $15,922

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia

Check the CIA factbook if you want.

Graham
 
Eeyore wrote:
TheM wrote:

"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote
I'm glad that life in Sweden is agreeable to Swedes. They've got a
total population smaller than a big city here, distributed over a
land mass roughly the size of one of our largest states.

Revenue to the State is almost exactly 50% of GDP. That's a pretty
high burden on the taxpayers.

So who can tell us what burdens they manage to support with that
revenue? How many illegal (or legal) alien births do they pay
for? How many poor, elderly, and disabled live on the State?
Is it sustainable for the long term, or not? And lastly, what's
the judgement of others--how many people are flocking to Sweden,
to benefit?
I do not advocate socialistic approach, in fact I would put myself on the
right (although not as extremely as JT), but I find it ridiculous how violently
Americans react whenever a term "socialistic" is used.

Subsidizing some things can be beneficial to society and IS necessary.
The only question is how much is just right and that varries from country
to country.

If the Swedes are happy with it and obviously keep confirming this at elections
than who are we to call them loosers? They seem to be supporting themselves.

I nearly forgot .....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKF

" Today, SKF is the largest bearing manufacturer in the world and employs approximately 40,000 people in
approximately 100 manufacturing sites that span 70 countries [1]. Turnover for FY2005 was SEK49,285 million, and
total assets were SEK40,349 million. The SKF Group currently consists of approximately 150 companies including
the seal manufacturer Chicago Rawhide. "

Socialism a failure eh ?
Since when was Sweden socialist??


Cheers

Ian
 
Ian Bell wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
TheM wrote:
"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote
I'm glad that life in Sweden is agreeable to Swedes. They've got a
total population smaller than a big city here, distributed over a
land mass roughly the size of one of our largest states.

Revenue to the State is almost exactly 50% of GDP. That's a pretty
high burden on the taxpayers.

So who can tell us what burdens they manage to support with that
revenue? How many illegal (or legal) alien births do they pay
for? How many poor, elderly, and disabled live on the State?
Is it sustainable for the long term, or not? And lastly, what's
the judgement of others--how many people are flocking to Sweden,
to benefit?
I do not advocate socialistic approach, in fact I would put myself on the
right (although not as extremely as JT), but I find it ridiculous how violently
Americans react whenever a term "socialistic" is used.

Subsidizing some things can be beneficial to society and IS necessary.
The only question is how much is just right and that varries from country
to country.

If the Swedes are happy with it and obviously keep confirming this at elections
than who are we to call them loosers? They seem to be supporting themselves.

I nearly forgot .....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKF

" Today, SKF is the largest bearing manufacturer in the world and employs approximately 40,000 > people in
approximately 100 manufacturing sites that span 70 countries [1]. Turnover for FY2005 > was SEK49,285 million, and
total assets were SEK40,349 million. The SKF Group currently > consists of approximately 150 companies
including the seal manufacturer Chicago Rawhide. "

Socialism a failure eh ?

Since when was Sweden socialist??
" The Swedish Social Democratic Party has played a leading political role since 1917 "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Modern_political_system

You must be really out of touch to think Sweden isn't socialist.

Graham
 
On Tue, 12 May 2009 21:08:14 +0100, the renowned Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

flipper wrote:

"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009 21:30:42 -0600, qrus19@mindspring.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
qrus19@mindspring.com wrote:

Try pre crusades Spain and the Moores, Islamic terrorists

No, not terrorists, they were just seeking to widen their influence. Spain has
adopted much Moorish architecture btw.

By your measure, the USA is currently a terrorist nation.

They murdered Christians in a Christian land. Not just soldiers
either. Yes and No, The US had no business going into Iraq but once
there we have to TRY and get it right. Personally I blame most of the
present problems in the middle east on the alied forces in WWI.
Destroying the central government of the region and then carving out
new borders rather like the Europeans did in Affrica and the Americas.

Western Europe has been carving and recarving middle eastern borders
for almost 500 years. But history gets lost and fades, then only hate
remains.

You're overly optimistic about Western Europe's prowess. They barely
stopped Islamic expansion at the Ottoman Empire, and that didn't fall
apart till WWI.

The Ottaman Empire is a LONG way from most of Europe.

Graham
Isn't it a furniture store chain in Southern California?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
 
On Tue, 12 May 2009 23:57:16 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 07 May 2009 03:11:13 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 09:41:15 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held
by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Graham


I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.
Oh, please.

Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

I'm interested in examples where public ownership of the means
of production supports its own weight, outperforming alternatives.
According to right wingers, a country can be socialist without "public
ownership of the means of production".
That's true.
Thank you.

"Socialism" covers a range of theories with actual "ownership" of the
means of production being the most extreme case.

And you haven't mentioned Sweden, Germany, France, or the Netherlands.

Bonus points given for examples where the rulers deign to use the
same healthcare / retirement systems they create for their subjects.
You think that any POTUS uses an HMO, or collects Social Security in
their old age?
Are you going to address any of the points I was trying to make?

You need to pay more attention to indentations.

I'll ask you again: Do you think that any POTUS uses an HMO, or collects
Social Security in their old age?
You can't "ask me again" because you didn't ask me in the first place
and I say again, you need to pay more attention to indentation.
 
On Tue, 12 May 2009 23:53:55 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 07 May 2009 03:05:21 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 01:48:37 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

flipper wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.
I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom, Otkrytoye aktsionernoye
obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of natural gas in the world and the
largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP, MICEX:GAZP, LSE: OGZD and
OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the world.


Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?
Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather difficult.
So, no nation can succeed without the U.S.
Without trade actually.
So, the US is the only one a country can trade with.
If they're the country's next door neighbour, sure. For example; New
Zealand would cope just fine if the USA refused to trade with them, but
they'd be screwed if we in Australia refused to trade with them. To
figure out why, just look at a map.

Might make it more difficult but I'm sure you've heard of ships and
airplanes and I suspect you've also heard of the difficulty U.S.
business has in competing with Chinese goods despite them being on the
other side of a bigger ocean.

That's example of of *massive* differences in the cost of production. If
Mexico could achieve the same differential, China would be screwed.
The topic was who Cuba could trade with and the relative merits of
doing so with Mexico vs Cuba is not particularly relevant.
 
On Tue, 12 May 2009 21:08:14 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

flipper wrote:

"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009 21:30:42 -0600, qrus19@mindspring.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
qrus19@mindspring.com wrote:

Try pre crusades Spain and the Moores, Islamic terrorists

No, not terrorists, they were just seeking to widen their influence. Spain has
adopted much Moorish architecture btw.

By your measure, the USA is currently a terrorist nation.

They murdered Christians in a Christian land. Not just soldiers
either. Yes and No, The US had no business going into Iraq but once
there we have to TRY and get it right. Personally I blame most of the
present problems in the middle east on the alied forces in WWI.
Destroying the central government of the region and then carving out
new borders rather like the Europeans did in Affrica and the Americas.

Western Europe has been carving and recarving middle eastern borders
for almost 500 years. But history gets lost and fades, then only hate
remains.

You're overly optimistic about Western Europe's prowess. They barely
stopped Islamic expansion at the Ottoman Empire, and that didn't fall
apart till WWI.

The Ottaman Empire is a LONG way from most of Europe.

Graham

In the first place, sitting on an island to the western most extreme,
your view of a 'long way' is a bit screwed but the 'area' being
discussed was the Middle East which, last I looked at a map, is even
further and. more to the point, was dominated by the Ottoman Empire
during the period of discussion.

Ottoman western expansion was halted at the Battle Of Vienna in 1683.
 
On Tue, 12 May 2009 21:41:40 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

flipper wrote:

I don't think anyone really cares what the Swedes do in their own
country. It only becomes an issue when one is instructed to 'copy' it.

They own quite a few US companies btw.

The biggest external investor in the US economy is Britain.

Graham
That's nice
 
Eeyore wrote:
TheM wrote:

"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote
I'm glad that life in Sweden is agreeable to Swedes. They've got a
total population smaller than a big city here, distributed over a
land mass roughly the size of one of our largest states.

Revenue to the State is almost exactly 50% of GDP. That's a pretty
high burden on the taxpayers.

So who can tell us what burdens they manage to support with that
revenue? How many illegal (or legal) alien births do they pay
for? How many poor, elderly, and disabled live on the State?
Is it sustainable for the long term, or not? And lastly, what's
the judgement of others--how many people are flocking to Sweden,
to benefit?
I do not advocate socialistic approach, in fact I would put myself on the
right (although not as extremely as JT), but I find it ridiculous how violently
Americans react whenever a term "socialistic" is used.

Subsidizing some things can be beneficial to society and IS necessary.
The only question is how much is just right and that varries from country
to country.

If the Swedes are happy with it and obviously keep confirming this at elections
than who are we to call them loosers? They seem to be supporting themselves.

I nearly forgot .....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKF

" Today, SKF is the largest bearing manufacturer in the world and employs approximately 40,000 people in
approximately 100 manufacturing sites that span 70 countries [1]. Turnover for FY2005 was SEK49,285 million, and
total assets were SEK40,349 million. The SKF Group currently consists of approximately 150 companies including
the seal manufacturer Chicago Rawhide. "

Socialism a failure eh ?

See also ......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Swedish_companies

Asea Brown Boveri (Swedish-Swiss)
AGA AB
Alfa Laval
Akzo Nobel (Swedish-Dutch)
Arla Foods (Swedish-Danish)
Arla Plast
Autoliv
ASSA ABLOY
AstraZeneca (Swedish-British)
Atlas Copco
Avanza
Axel Johnson Group
Axel Johnson AB
Axfood
Boliden
Bonniers
BRIO
Clas Ohlson
Coop Norden (Scandinavian)
DeLaval
Digital Illusions
Draim
Elekta
ELFA
ENEA
Eniro
Ericsson
Electrolux
ESAB
Fagerhult Group
Filippa K
Forex Bank
Hagberg Media
Haglöfs
Hagström
Hasselblad
Holmen
Handelsbanken
Hennes & Mauritz (H&M)
Husaberg AB
Husqvarna
IKEA
Ingate
Intertex
Investor AB
Investment AB Kinnevik
J.Lindeberg (JL)
Koenigsegg Automotive AB
Kopparbergs Brewery
Lindex
LKAB
Nordea(Swedish-Finnish)
Metro International
Micromy
Modern Times Group (MTG)
MySQL AB
Nobel Biocare (Swedish-Swiss)
Öhlins
OMX AB
OrganoClick AB
Panos Emporio AB
Paradox Entertainment
Peltarion
Promessa Organic
Pĺgen AB
Saab
SamLogic
Sandvik
SAS Group (Swedish-Norwegian-Danish)
Securitas AB
Scania AB
SIBA AB
SJ AB
Skandia
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken (SEB)
Skanska
SKF
SSAB
Starbreeze Studios
Stora Enso (Swedish-Finnish)
Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget (SCA)
Svenska Kullagerfabriken AB (SKF)
Swedbank (FöreningsSparbanken)
Swedish Match
Tele2
Telia Sonera (Swedish-Finnish)
Tetra Pak
Tieto (Swedish-Finnish)
Trelleborg AB
TrioAB
TV4 AB
V&S Group
Vattenfall
Volvo
Wise Group
WM-data
Walk On Water Creation Ab
Ĺhléns

[edit]
Former, merged and acquired Companies
Astra (merged into AstraZeneca)
ASEA (merged into Asea Brown Boveri)
AGA (acquired by Linde AG)
Biacore (acquired by GE Healthcare)
Bofors (acquired by Saab)
Datasaab (former part of Saab)
Digital Illustions Creative Entertainment (DICE) (acquired by Electronic Arts)
Flexlink (acquired by ABN Amro)
Föreningsbanken (merged into Swedbank)
Göinge Mekaniska AB (merged into Skanska)
IKEA (now seated in The Netherlands)
Linjeflyg (acquired by SAS)
Luxor (acquired by Nokia)
Nobel Industries (merged into Akzo Nobel)
Nordbanken (merged into Nordea)
Pharmacia (merged into Amersham Pharmacia Biotech and Pharmacia & Upjohn)
Amersham Pharmacia Biotech (merged into Amersham Biosciences)
Amersham Biosciences (acquired by GE Healthcare)
Pharmacia & Upjohn (merged into Pharmacia Inc.)
Pharmacia Inc. (acquired by Pfizer)
Saab Automobile (acquired by General Motors)
Skandinaviska Banken (merged into SEB)
Stockholms Enskilda Bank (merged into SEB)
Stockholm Stock Exchange (acquired by OM AB)
Telia (merged into Telia Sonera)
Vabis (acquired by Scania)
Volvo Cars (acquired by Ford Motor Company)

And ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden

" The Sweden economy is modern and highly industrialised. It has a modern distribution system, excellent
internal and external communications, and a skilled labor force. Timber, hydropower, and iron ore constitute the
resource base of an economy heavily oriented toward foreign trade. The main industries include motor vehicles,
telecommunications, pharmaceuticals and forestry.

Aided by peace and neutrality for the whole of the 20th century, Sweden has achieved an excellent standard of
living under a mixed system of high-tech markets and extensive welfare benefits. The country is known for its
high taxes and large public sector. Sweden has the second highest total tax revenue behind Denmark, as a share
of the country's income. As of 2007, total tax revenue was 47.8% of GDP, down from 49.1% 2006. "

" Some 4.5 million residents are working, out of which around a third with tertiary education."

" In contrast with most other European countries, Sweden maintained an unemployment rate around 2% or 3% of the
work force throughout the 1980s. "

A real FAILURE !


Graham
No one said "Failure." You consider them a success, so I asked
for a variety of metrics for comparison.

Your unstated assumption is "What's good for Sweden is good
for the US." But if we had twice as many in need, for example,
that might not be true, right?


Cheers,
James Arthur
 
Bob Larter wrote:
flipper wrote:
On Thu, 07 May 2009 03:11:13 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 09:41:15 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where
socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a
North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is
held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Graham


I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from
nationalizing
their oilfields.
Oh, please.

Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were
less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

I'm interested in examples where public ownership of the means
of production supports its own weight, outperforming alternatives.
According to right wingers, a country can be socialist without
"public ownership of the means of production".
That's true.
Thank you.

"Socialism" covers a range of theories with actual "ownership" of the
means of production being the most extreme case.

And you haven't mentioned Sweden, Germany, France, or the Netherlands.

Bonus points given for examples where the rulers deign to use the
same healthcare / retirement systems they create for their subjects.
You think that any POTUS uses an HMO, or collects Social Security
in their old age?
Are you going to address any of the points I was trying to make?

You need to pay more attention to indentations.

I'll ask you again: Do you think that any POTUS uses an HMO, or collects
Social Security in their old age?
You addressed those questions to me, and I answered in
full.

message ID: <QRiMl.2828$fy.2429@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
5/6/2009, 8:25 AM.

Cheers,
James Arthur
 
Eeyore wrote:
Ian Bell wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
TheM wrote:
"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote
I'm glad that life in Sweden is agreeable to Swedes. They've got a
total population smaller than a big city here, distributed over a
land mass roughly the size of one of our largest states.

Revenue to the State is almost exactly 50% of GDP. That's a pretty
high burden on the taxpayers.

So who can tell us what burdens they manage to support with that
revenue? How many illegal (or legal) alien births do they pay
for? How many poor, elderly, and disabled live on the State?
Is it sustainable for the long term, or not? And lastly, what's
the judgement of others--how many people are flocking to Sweden,
to benefit?
I do not advocate socialistic approach, in fact I would put myself on the
right (although not as extremely as JT), but I find it ridiculous how violently
Americans react whenever a term "socialistic" is used.

Subsidizing some things can be beneficial to society and IS necessary.
The only question is how much is just right and that varries from country
to country.

If the Swedes are happy with it and obviously keep confirming this at elections
than who are we to call them loosers? They seem to be supporting themselves.
I nearly forgot .....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKF

" Today, SKF is the largest bearing manufacturer in the world and employs approximately 40,000 > people in
approximately 100 manufacturing sites that span 70 countries [1]. Turnover for FY2005 > was SEK49,285 million, and
total assets were SEK40,349 million. The SKF Group currently > consists of approximately 150 companies
including the seal manufacturer Chicago Rawhide. "
Socialism a failure eh ?
Since when was Sweden socialist??

" The Swedish Social Democratic Party has played a leading political role since 1917 "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Modern_political_system

You must be really out of touch to think Sweden isn't socialist.

Graham
Jeeze--you cited Sweden, I just asked for a few facts for
comparison.

That is, how much do they support with their system, and
how much does it cost them?

How do you determine "success" without knowing those?

Best,
James Arthur
 
James Arthur wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

By your figures our government spends as much on healthcare as yours
as a percentage of GDP, so that makes us as socialist as you, or more.
Bang-up job they're doing with it too, right?

You obviously didn't read the figures right or are obfuscating. US
total spending on
healthcare is at least 16% of GDP as opposed to 8% in the UK.

Graham


I've posted this point what, four times already?
I'll make it as clear as I possibly can:


a) You've said the US spends 16% of GDP on healthcare.
b) The comprehensive reference "Health, United States" says
government pays half of all healthcare costs in the US.

c) Half of 16% = 8% of GDP that is paid by the government.
d) The rest is private.

So, what percentage is private?

e) Well, if you had 16 marbles, and Billy took away
8, how many would you have left? That's right, 8!


Let's check our math:
.----------------------.
| Government 8% |
| Private + 8% |
| ----- |
| TOTAL 16% of GDP |
'----------------------'


f) Now, you say that your system only spends 8% of GDP.
g) Our government spends 8% too.

h) That means our government and your government both pay 8% of GDP
for healthcare.

i) 8% = 8%.

Does that make it clear?

Absolutely, & believe it or not, I don't think anyone's arguing that
point.

The point that's being argued is that in other countries, that 8% pays
for *everyone*, & that nobody has to pay any private cover.


I was indeed pointing out that our gov. spends 8%, same as yours, only
ours gets a lot less for their money.
That's exactly what I've been saying. Don't you think it's be a good
thing if you guys got decent quality, 100% health cover for that same
8%, & didn't have to spend anything yourselves if you didn't want to?

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Robert Baer wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:

flipper wrote:

On Wed, 06 May 2009 01:48:37 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


flipper wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where
socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a
North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...

You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht
actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...

What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts
is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from
nationalizing
their oilfields.

I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom,
Otkrytoye aktsionernoye
obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of natural
gas in the world and the
largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP,
MICEX:GAZP, LSE: OGZD and
OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the world.


Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we
were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather
difficult.

So, no nation can succeed without the U.S.

Without trade actually.


So, the US is the only one a country can trade with.


If they're the country's next door neighbour, sure. For example; New
Zealand would cope just fine if the USA refused to trade with them,
but they'd be screwed if we in Australia refused to trade with them.
To figure out why, just look at a map.


That explains the US' trade with China (& Europe) nicely.


So?

And

Mexico's prosperity as well. Not.


What the hell does Mexico export?


OIL, for staarters...
You're kidding. I bet it isn't an amount that'd make OPEC sit up & take
notice.


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
What the hell does Mexico export?


Duh! They export Mexicans.


Very funny

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2009 23:53:55 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 07 May 2009 03:05:21 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 01:48:37 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

flipper wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.
I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom, Otkrytoye aktsionernoye
obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of natural gas in the world and the
largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP, MICEX:GAZP, LSE: OGZD and
OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the world.


Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?
Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather difficult.
So, no nation can succeed without the U.S.
Without trade actually.
So, the US is the only one a country can trade with.
If they're the country's next door neighbour, sure. For example; New
Zealand would cope just fine if the USA refused to trade with them, but
they'd be screwed if we in Australia refused to trade with them. To
figure out why, just look at a map.
Might make it more difficult but I'm sure you've heard of ships and
airplanes and I suspect you've also heard of the difficulty U.S.
business has in competing with Chinese goods despite them being on the
other side of a bigger ocean.
That's example of of *massive* differences in the cost of production. If
Mexico could achieve the same differential, China would be screwed.

Mexican costs are maybe 3-5x that of China for labor. But they'd also
have to increase their population by 10:1 or 20:1.
Yes, exactly.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top