Well, it has to tax people so it can do those things. Usually it manages foreign policy or many parts of it. It enforces and legislates laws that much more scope than merely how individual are violent to each other. Even a bare bones government would be a huge thing in a country the size of the US.
that's because at your core you do not understand the concept of externalities and how they effect the market.
Exactly. So go do something about it. What are you doing about it? The individual is most important; what's the point of having a strong country if the individual is oppressed and enslaved? America still is the free-est country in the world; freedom is more important than numbers or whatever the hell you are referring to. And by the way, they aren't better as a society: some of their tax rates go as high as 65%! What the hell?! If I'm working, I want to work for myself and my family, not for crooked politicians to take my money and spend it on bullshit. Of course I do; but they're negligible.
if you honestly believe that you need to shut the fuck up and get your ass back into a marcoencon 1101 class asap because you do not have a clue what your talking about. aside to string,mad, hype, and james Sorry but this ignorance cannot be toleratred. the major impact of externalities are discused in one's first macroeconomics class. To say they have a negligible effect is to be almost completely ignorant of basic economics.
My point is, What does this "major impact" have anything to do with what I am talking about or what I believe? If we're referring to debts, then you can only have a debt when you receive a benefit that you ask for. If these "externalities" affect you, as they do, of course, well that's great (or maybe not great), but you aren't a member of the transaction so what the hell are you talking about? They're there, but what else is there to do?
externalities don't apply to single transactions they deal with how resources are allocated and how it effects how is produced. rather than try and explain a concept to you that for some reason is alien to you. which is fucked given how much you rant about economics. please read a book, take a course, or look at wikipedia. Your beliefs are quite frankly stupid. you cannot just ignore base information of a discipline just because it fucks up your beliefs.
Before you talk to me about my level of intelligence, I'd suggest that you learn to spell and speak with dignity. Though as I said before, what does that have to do with my beliefs? Yes, there are externalities....and...?
you'll get my respect when you earn it. and ignoring information because you don't like it isn't going to earn anyone's respect. and you don't get to bitch about me not speaking to you with dignity when you call me and those with beliefs like me amoral and evil because they don't ascribe to your well delusions. and I wasn't talking about your level of intelligence I was questioning the intelligence of your belief. everything because you pretend they don't exist.Yes, there are
We as a nation decided to create the Social Security program, which is more reliable than counting on the charity of strangers.
More to the point, it's less onerous on the workforce than having retirees rely on their (working-age, child-having) children to support them directly, which is how it worked prior to Social Security. There was never a time when the elderly were primarily dependent on the charity of strangers, nor will there be: they'd mostly die, in such a system. In macroeconomic terms, the improved labor mobility and easing of intergenerational burdens provided by SS on their own justify the (regressive) tax burden associated with it (i.e., we are a more productive economy overall for having SS).
uh oh.. I tried hard to prove that:"Social" is different from the "Socialist" or "Socialism". http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2567831&postcount=3 http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2567843&postcount=11 http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2567852&postcount=18 You know there has not been a communist country? All States so-called "communist" states ,they were Socialist State.State Socialist were "towards building communism which is the goal supreme" No state has come to communism.They went bankrupt before reaching communism. Democratic centralismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralismwas how governance of these countries. When you talk about "Socialist" or "socialism" that I cansider you talk about communism.
A first world country can't exist without some form of socialism. Name one first world country that isn't socialist. Checkmate!
Enough of you already. Can you please explain to me why socialist countries have the highest standard of living? A socialist country like Canada can never have a higher standard of living, or life expectancy than the capitalist USA right?
I do not think Canada is characterized by the following: "In a socialist economic system, production is carried out by a public association of producers to directly produce use-values (instead of exchange-values), through coordinated planning of investment decisions, distribution of surplus, and the use of the means of production. Socialism is a set of social and economic arrangements based on a post-monetary system of calculation, such as labour time or energy units.[4] Socialists advocate a method of compensation based on individual merit or the amount of labour one contributes to society.[5] They generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. They argue that this creates an unequal society that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential,[6] and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential in the interests of the public.[7] Socialists characterise full socialism as a society no longer based on coercive wage-labour. Reformists and revolutionary socialists disagree on how a socialist economy should be established."
