How scandinavia view the US healthcare system

[fridjonk]

10 minutes ago, TheAvatarState said:

No, the US is dumb and doesn't learn from other countries.

That's just not true. If they were dumb they wouldn't be the wealthiest and most powerful country on earth. 

11 minutes ago, TheAvatarState said:

Moving wealth to other countries cannnot be enforced. The wealth tax fails across the board because it is expensive to enforce and because it doesn't capture enough wealth. Consider a VAT, a value added tax that is already in use in nearly every industrialized country on the planet.

Elizabeth Warren spoke about this, you can look it up if you're interested. 

[TheAvatarState]

3 hours ago, fridjonk said:

Elizabeth Warren spoke about this, you can look it up if you're interested.

I have researched it, it doesn't work. Warren is deluded on this just because it sounds "just" or "righteous." Perhaps you should get your information from real world data on countries that have already enacted a wealth tax and repealed it, not Warren's mouth. The people who own the wealth are too smart for a wealth tax. You don't go after them, you go after the value generated in the economy, which is simple and impossible to evade if you want to do business in a particular country. There's a reason why every other industrialized country has a VAT.

3 hours ago, fridjonk said:

That's just not true. If they were dumb they wouldn't be the wealthiest and most powerful country on earth.

The US is the wealthiest country on earth because they lied, stole, manipulated, enslaved, bombed, and genocided their way to the top. Really contemplate the history of the US and the unprecedented opportunity they had in a new "uncharted" world. It was a matter of circumstance, not intelligence or foresight. We don't learn from our mistakes, or from other countries' mistakes, and it's falling apart before your very eyes. It should be obvious that our lawmakers are completely corrupted by monied interests, and are inept at dealing with the problems of the 21st century.

[Dwarniel]

5 hours ago, TheAvatarState said:

It should be obvious that our lawmakers are completely corrupted by monied interests, and are inept at dealing with the problems of the 21st century.

?

I'm not completely sure how US government works - But lets say, in this example, Bernie won the presidental election: Would he even manage to get new laws through? Or would other politicians still be able to vote him down? 

[TheAvatarState]

3 minutes ago, Dwarniel said:

But lets say, in this example, Bernie won the presidental election: Would he even manage to get new laws through?

He could do a few executive orders, but that's about it. In order to get any laws passed it has to pass through the House of Representatives (400ish people) and the Senate (100 people). So he likely wouldn't get much passed at all, he's a politically divisive person and not a strong leader. 

[fridjonk]

3 hours ago, TheAvatarState said:

and not a strong leader.

Wrong! 

[TheAvatarState]

4 hours ago, fridjonk said:

Wrong!

If everything else was right, doesn't make him a weak leader? Leaders love. Leaders Unite. The type of leaders to start political revolutions and only push one direction are not strong leaders. He has a big "us vs. them" mentality. How the hell is he going to accomplish anything when he openly demonizes "the rich" (who by the way have most congresspeople bought and paid for...)? His whole campaign is built on division, and thus it breeds toxicity.

MLK was a strong leader because he was inclusive and loving. The Bernie equivalent would have been, "My brothers and sisters (only referring to blacks), we must go after the white folk! They are a disgrace on the nation!" And you know what, he wouldn't have accomplished a damn thing and we wouldn't be celebrating his birthday today.

Andrew Yang is a strong leader. He is inclusive and loving. He talks about the systems underneath, and galvanizes energy around fixing the problems. He doesn't demonize groups of people. That's leadership.

[unicity]

@Shiva

On 3/16/2020 at 0:21 PM, Shiva said:

Fully agree, that this is way too much and I'm also in favour of taxing that more.

But chances are he didn't pay cash for all that. He most likely got a loan for this because his money is better off sitting in Amazon stock than in luxury items, so it makes sense for him to pay a small interest rate instead of selling his shares.

While I believe all this luxury is excessive and extravagant, let's be real, giving away that money to all Americans is not a realistic option. Such measures must be taken on a government level, but I would consider this as unlikely under Trump.

Bezos read the market well and saw the market was heading into bubble territory and that it would likely soon correct, sold some at new all time highs. $3.5B just 3% of his shares

https://nypost.com/2020/02/07/amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-sells-3-5-billion-worth-of-shares-in-one-week/