You are losing track of the big picture. Lots of people, including EP, got on my ass for being an ideologue instead of looking at facts. So, I discussed the facts. I then provided cites for those facts.
I said “reduces innovation” as one instance of the negative economic effects of high taxes. The article I cited discusses studies illustrating many of the other effects. EP responded only by saying that having UHC means people aren’t tied to their jobs. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that innovation wll increase, or that the economy would be better as a whole.
Much of the innovation I’m speaking of is large-scale investment that would be profitable with a lower tax rate but becomes unprofitable with a higher tax rate. EP’s post about people that can leave their jobs to be self-employed doesn’t address this capital deployment issue.
Hell, Rand, we don’t even know what “big government” is, yet. It appears to be something that you can define whenever and in whatever way fits your argument best.
Does China have “big government”? And a bursting economy, by all accounts. Is that the exception? Are there others? Who has the “small government” that you regard so favorably? Does anyone?
Rand wants to live in Somalia. Where he can prosper by the strength of his back and offer his young daughters to rape gangs so they don’t burn down his hut.
Wrong again. As the citation clearly says, the origin of the question was a couple of surveys done by academics. As a result of those surveys, ABC then sent a reporter to ask questions. Getting your facts straight would go a long ways to bolstering your cred. Just sayin’.
Wrong again, and idiotically so this time. How, in Rand Rover “theory”, is it even possible for some of the highest-taxed people in the world to be the happiest? They’d have to be among the dumbest too, right? In your “theory”, Denmark has to be one of the worst places in the world to live, right? Do you think it is?
That from someone who denies that there even is such a thing as factuality.
You still haven’t read the article I posted. Higher tax rates are associated with lower economic growth and other negative things. Therefore, the less tax the better.
This is one of the more in inane of the common reubuttals to my position. Somalia does not have a functioning government. I want the government to have a military, police, and courts, none of which Somalia has.
Correct, sorry, I missed that in the article. Now respond to my other two points in that post (which are independent of the first point).
Uh, so, you’re just going to wave your hands? This is the response we get from the guy who was all over my ass about being an ideologue and not looking at “actual reality”?
You have no proof whatsoever that Denmark’s big government is what is making them happy, yet you choose to believe it. That is the definition of ideologue.
You are also proving my point that “actual reality” doesn’t exist–everything is filted through our perceptions. You simply choose to believe that that article supports your position when it isn’t necessarily the case. It doesn’t matter what the actual facts are–when filted through your perception, it all comes up “let’s increase the size of the government.” I’m not saying I don’t do the same thing, but at least I’m willing to cop to it. You think you are some impartial observer that bases his decisions on “actual reality” instead of his own ideology.
I’m not expecting it to fix everything. A free-market system means grocery stores compete against each other for good results; some people still can’t afford to buy food. And so we then step in to help those people, to the extent we think it’s important: individuals make charitable donations, and the government provides food stamps, and volunteers at the local church run a soup kitchen – but we of course still let private corporations run the supermarkets, so long as the authorities are on hand to break up monopolies and crack down on false advertising and so on.
A free market means you buy a house or rent an apartment as you can afford – and then we step in to combat the remaining homelessness problem, to some extent. You’ll die without shelter like you’ll die without food, and you’ll die without medical attention likewise – but we let the free market do most of the heavy lifting, and then we step in to partially deal with the problems that remain.
Didn’t say it did, idiot. You really do need to read more. YOUR point, in fact your entire “philosophy” such as it is, is that the situation reported cannot happen. Yet it does.
(here’s more pointing and laughing) …
Unfortunately, reality being nonexistent, there is no way for you to prove that point, either.
Then it was a waste of time to show you any, wasn’t it?
So they’re happy *despite *the low innovation, crappy economy, and massive emigration that your “theory” says must be the case? Oddly enough, there are no facts to support a claim that any of that is happening there, but that doesn’t matter; you deny the concept of factuality itself.
So there’s nothing more to do here except to point and laugh even harder …
The concept I deny is not “factuality itself” (whatever the hell that means). What I deny is the existence of objective factst that have any relevance when discussinig matters like those we are discussing. The reason for that is that facts get filtered through our perceptions.
In any event, here are a bunch of articles on Denmark’s brain drain: Google
I read that article. It’s nothing more than a summary of various research papers that allegedly supports the conclusion the authors seek. There’s no way for me to evaluate the summary unless I feel like reading 20 different papers. The authors of the summary don’t provide any of their own analysis; all they do is reference the papers and draw a conclusion. The authors present no thesis of their own. They’re basically trying to turn research that supports their views into Iron Law.
Not to mention that I’m extremely skeptical of the arguments of think tanks when it comes to economic matters.
That’s why I posted that article. It presents lots of studies without trying to use them as part of an agenda. Apparently you think the article lied about the conclusions in every one of the cited studies. Fine. That’s some good hand-waving there, Lou.
I have a friend who is 46. he just got through with lymphoma. He may have knocked it into remission. He spend 2 days last week fighting with his insurance company. He was on the phone for endless hours trying to speak to higher ups. Just like my brother, he was lucky that his wife could manage it while he was in the hospital. What does it take to demonstrate that our system is crappy, Is it the fact that the World health Org. rates us 37th , just ahead of Nicaraugua? Is it the fact we spend twice as much and get less.? Is it that the insurance companies are your adversaries in your biggest time of need?
The rich will fly to another country if they bring health care down in America. They fly out for cosmetic and minor operations now. It wouldn’t be too much strain to get all their health care in foreign clinics. They get far better results for much, much less cost.
In your “theory”, Denmark has to be one of the worst places in the world to live, right? Do you think it is?