sandinista wrote:First off, good work Ronja, it appears you care more than me about pointing out the obvious to the oblivious.
I haven't gone through all the piddly countries she listed. But, Brazil I'm very familiar with, and the idea that they have "free university" is about the most laughable allegation anyone can make. They don't, except for a tiny percentage of the very top students.
I grabbed another country, just to check -- Kenya -- another fucking bullshit allegation - they don't have "Free" college there either. For students with over a B+ average in primary school, they get guaranteed loans that they have to pay back.
So, what were you saying about pointing out the obvious?
sandinista wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Almost half the population doesn't pay any income tax. The rest is property tax (which is mostly school funding, and local roads and town/county infrastructure) and state sales tax.
I never specified what kind of taxes, what are you on about?
The taxes they do pay would not be going to pay for the education they want for "free." If it's federal, which is what they are asking for, then they will not be paying for it. If they are among the 50% of the population that does pay income taxes, thought ought pay for their own college.
sandinista wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:What's your problem? Let's assume it was only a few people, right? O.k. -- so, we are still in agreement that the movement is a bunch of fucking anticapitalists, right?
some anticapitalists, some revolutionaries, some reformists etc. What's the problem?
I didn't have the problem, sandinista. I started out saying that there were anticapitalists but that the bulk of the movement was not that, they were reformists. I'm sure there are revolutionaries too. We seem to be in agreement, except that you seem to take issue with me saying "bulk of..." Well - that's my experience. Yours may be different. So what? You claim not to know one way or the other.
What's your fucking problem?
sandinista wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:from my experience - that the bulk of the movement - the rank and file - did not see themselves as anticapitalist, but rather as protesting corruption in general. You're like "no way man! No way!" Well o.k. -- so --I'll come over to the other side of the coin -- the bulk of the movement is staunchly anticapitalist. Great.
Your experience doesn't count for much.
At least as much as yours. I notice you're not shy about expressing yours, unfortunately.
sandinista wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Or, your third option - we just don't know - some are anticapitalist - some aren't - others are this, others are that - they have no platform - the movement really doesn't believe in anything in particular.
Which is it?
I don't know, it's not a homogenous group.
No group is entirely homogenous. Homogenousness is not required for the group to have some general goals, desires and purposes. The fact that it has no platform and really doesn't, as a group, believe in anything in particular makes it the "dumb" movement.
Of what purpose is a movement that doesn't believe anything in particular? A mob of shouting people complaining about all sorts of wildly disparate things. That's dopey in the extreme.
At least the protesters in 1968 stood for something. The toolbags in Zucotti park are, as you say, a group with no particular belief, no platform, and not even really a group. Just a mass of people bitching.
sandinista wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Right, so, we don't know what they believe or advocate right? No platform -- ideas all over the map, yes? Sounds like a stupid movement.
Not stupid, young. It's a young movement, a developing movement. The important part, at the moment, is that there IS a movement, period. I'm willing to let it develop and grow into something.
You don't have the power to let or not let it develop. Neither do I. So either one of us saying we're going to "let" it do this or that is a silly statement. Of course it will develop and grow into whatever it grows into. Whatever you and I say about it makes no different.
If it morphs into something worthwhile, then I'll give it credit. Right now, it's dopey. As you said, it's a bunch of disparate individuals bitching about different stuff. Great.
sandinista wrote:
Ronja wrote:ing! Welcome to Finland, the home of the "unworkable and impractical" in that case. I have not paid one red cent for either a college or a university level course/class/module (whatever they are called in you neck of the woods).
Coito, you really should read up on stuff before you make such strong, absolute claims.
I love Finland! Coito read up on something and not just gather his info from corporate news sources? Come on, that's asking a little much.
Feel free to provide credible sources. The one you last provided me was "zcommunications.org" -- that's sandinista's idea of "reading up" on something.
If you have anything credible or worthwhile, feel free to provide it so the rest of us can have the benefit of your "inside scoop" on the truth. Hint - neither zcommunications nor your ass is a credible source. Those do appear to be your two main sources of information.
sandinista wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:With all due respect, what Finland does is not particularly relevant.
Of course it's not "relevant" it directly counters your immature, unfounded, and at times delusional opinions.
No, it's just that a small, homogenous, isolated, and insulated country, that has 5 million white people gathered in a generally socialist economy.
However, despite Bruegel, distorted academic studies and the European media’s praise, the efficiency of the major Scandinavian economies is a myth. The Swedish and Finnish welfare states have been going through a long period of decline. In the early 1990s they were virtually bankrupt. Between 1990 and 1995 unemployment increased five-fold. The Scandinavian countries have not been able to recover.
The implosion of the welfare state
In 1970, Sweden’s level of prosperity was one quarter above Belgium’s. By 2003 Sweden had fallen to 14th place from 5th in the prosperity index, two places behind Belgium. According to OECD figures, Denmark was the 3rd most prosperous economy in the world in 1970, immediately behind Switzerland and the United States. In 2003, Denmark was 7th. Finland did badly as well. From 1989 to 2003, while Ireland rose from 21st to 4th place, Finland fell from 9th to 15th place
Together with Italy, these three Scandinavian countries are the worst performing economies in the entire European Union. Rather than taking them as an example, Europe’s politicians should shun the Scandinavian recipes.
These draconian measures reduced the unemployment rate, but did not eliminate the cause of unemployment, namely the total lack of motivation on the part of employees and employers resulting from the extremely high taxation level.
Why are the Scandinavian countries doing such a bad job, despite their Protestant work ethic and devotion to duty? The main cause is the essence of the nanny state: its very high tax level. Between 1990 and 2005 the average overall tax burden was 55% in Finland, 58% in Denmark and 61% in Sweden. This is almost one and a half times the OECD average.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510
Free college for all, paid for by excessive taxation rates is part of the Finnish and Scandinavian model. We ought not emulate it.
