# LET'S GO, FREAK!!!

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-go-freak/25415>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [July 13, 2000, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-go-freak/25415 "2000-07-13T07:26:19Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\
**Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-go-freak/25415/1 "2000-07-13T07:26:19Z")

</div>

Since unfortunately the, “The Reason I Hate America,” thread is falling off the board, I would like to start the main jist of the thread over again.

Basically: Socialism vs. Capitalism

Just to get the ball rolling, let me repost my last post in that thread which was unfortunately never responded to:

"Freak, you seem to think that happiness is somehow important to a government and that a government can somehow create happiness. Well, it cannot. People are amazingly unaffected by poverty in their level of happiness. The only things really that will signifigantly change a person’s level of happiness is either a psychological disorder or something like UNEMPLOYMENT. Although the physical needs of a Swedish unemployed person may be met, the same feelings of depression and unhapiness that affect many unemployed people affect Swedes the same. The actual level of happiness that people feel is not correlated to their income, vacation days, workweek length, etc. so long as they are not EXTREMELY bad. Although these things cause little change in the level of happiness that people feel, their level of hapiness is affected negatively to a great extent when they are unemployed. Places like France, Germany, Sweden, etc. that have tried to make their citizens happier through social reforms, mandatory vacations, limited work weeks, etc. have increased unemployment rates, making their citizens actually unhappier. If you want a reflection of this, Swedes are more than 27% more likely to commit suicide. Apparently, those Swedes are not all that happy. Americans have less time between jobs are fewer people are unemployed at any given time suggesting that they are happier (refering to the suicide rates).  
(WHO, yes the same that I recently lamblasted)

I know what makes me happy; challenging myself, the way that I think, inventing, taking the path that has not been taken, and coming up with innovative and creative ideas. This is hard to do in a socialist country where you cannot build up your own company in under 20 years to be the largest company in the world (e.g. Microsoft).

If you are perfectly content with living welfare check to welfare check or, “keeping your nose to the grindstone,” to let somebody else go from check to check without doing a single interesting thing or really challenging yourself, knock yourself out; or rather do not knock yourself out.

I just find that environment awfuly stifling.

Have fun in your little “utopia”. My guess is that your enthusiasm will be somewhat curtailed within a few months."

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\
**Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-go-freak/25415/2 "2000-07-13T08:09:50Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by threemae \*  
> Since unfortunately the, “The Reason I Hate America,” thread is falling off the board, I would like to start the main jist of the thread over again.
> 
> Basically: Socialism vs. Capitalism
> 
> Just to get the ball rolling, let me repost my last post in that thread which was unfortunately never responded to:

Hold it right there. Nobody responded to it, so you post a thread of its own basically repeating your own words? Hello-o-o-o-o-o?  
Maybe nobody responded because your post contributed little value? Well, let’s not judge. Let’s wait and see.

> [@](#):
>
> "Freak, you seem to think that happiness is somehow important to a government and that a government can somehow create happiness. Well, it cannot. People are amazingly unaffected by poverty in their level of happiness.

Poor choice of words. I bet you good money the inhabitants of Eritrea beg to differ. But let’s see if you recover.

> [@](#):
>
> The only things really that will signifigantly change a person’s level of happiness is either a psychological disorder or something like UNEMPLOYMENT.

I realise we are talking about “economical happiness” (generally referred to as “wealth” [I use this term in the broadest possible sense, as can be seen below]) rather than emotional happiness. So in this case, scratch the psychological disorder as a factor, and add IMPORTANT things like education, health care, personal safety and democracy.

> [@](#):
>
> Although the physical needs of a Swedish unemployed person may be met, the same feelings of depression and unhapiness that affect many unemployed people affect Swedes the same. The actual level of happiness that people feel is not correlated to their income, vacation days, workweek length, etc. so long as they are not EXTREMELY bad.

Apart from vague qaulifications like “not extremely bad”, this makes no sense at all. As stated, you are mixing up wealth (in the broad definition above) with an emotionally stable environment.

> [@](#):
>
> Although these things cause little change in the level of happiness that people feel, their level of hapiness is affected negatively to a great extent when they are unemployed. Places like France, Germany, Sweden, etc. that have tried to make their citizens happier through social reforms, mandatory vacations, limited work weeks, etc. have increased unemployment rates, making their citizens actually unhappier.

Proof, proof and fucking proof. The fluctuations in Western European unemployment rates are mostly dependant on macro-economic factors such as export balances, (hence) trade deficits, currency fluctuations and natural resources. The fact that France and Sweden have unemployment policies that are almost completely opposite (or, at least, vary greatly in a European context) should tell you enough.  
Of course, stating that a measurable action (unemployment policies [to be measured in the number of unemployed, barring causality issues]) results in an unmeasurable result (“people being unhappier”) is never a wise thing to do in a debate. Or a flame, for that matter.

> [@](#):
>
> If you want a reflection of this, Swedes are more than 27% more likely to commit suicide. Apparently, those Swedes are not all that happy. Americans have less time between jobs are fewer people are unemployed at any given time suggesting that they are happier (refering to the suicide rates).  
> (WHO, yes the same that I recently lamblasted)

There are probably 25 valid reasons why Swedes are more likely to commit suicide. I am no psychologist, but I am sure that unemployment (which isn’t that high to begin with in Sweden - definately not higher than in the US) is not a major factor. To my knowledge, the accepted explanation for high suicide rates in countries such as (North) Sweden and Finland is the _Aurora Borealis_, or Northern Light.  
You can quote the WHO all you want, but it only makes sense when the quotes remain in context.

> [@](#):
>
> I know what makes me happy; challenging myself, the way that I think, inventing, taking the path that has not been taken, and coming up with innovative and creative ideas. This is hard to do in a socialist country where you cannot build up your own company in under 20 years to be the largest company in the world (e.g. Microsoft).

Excuse me? While it might be hard to be an entrepreneur in a _communist_ country like China, it is a generalisation to state that this goes for ALL countries with a socialist government of ANY sort. The Netherlands have had predominantly socialist governments for the last 30 years, and somehow my country has managed to become and remain a globally accepted economic power. Obviously those pinko bastards are doing something right :rolleyes:

> [@](#):
>
> If you are perfectly content with living welfare check to welfare check or, “keeping your nose to the grindstone,” to let somebody else go from check to check without doing a single interesting thing or really challenging yourself, knock yourself out; or rather do not knock yourself out.
> 
> I just find that environment awfuly stifling.

Most people would agree to that, employed or not. Probably because it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

> [@](#):
>
> Have fun in your little “utopia”. My guess is that your enthusiasm will be somewhat curtailed within a few months."

If “Utopia” means “country with a socialist government”, I can tell you that millions of Europeans are doing just fine, thank you very much.

* * *

So what have we learned?

**1) People generally only reply to something that is worthwhile replying to;  
2) Don’t piss off an economist before he’s had his coffee.**

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\
**Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-go-freak/25415/3 "2000-07-13T09:25:22Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> Poor choice of words. I bet you good money the inhabitants of Eritrea beg to differ. But let’s see if you recover.

I did mention that extremely bad income had an effect upon hapiness, my point was simply that an earnings increase from 20,000 to 25,000 did not corelate with a 25% jump in hapiness.

Perhaps you should read more thoroughly next ime, or better yet, have that coffee.

> [@](#):
>
> I realise we are talking about “economical happiness” (generally referred to as “wealth” [I use this term in the broadest possible sense, as can be seen below]) rather than emotional happiness. So in this case, scratch the psychological disorder as a factor, and add IMPORTANT things like education, health care, personal safety and democracy.

And that comes from where?

Nope, talking about hapiness in the most general sense.

Since I cannot find statistics on the actual level of hapiness reported from different countries, I instead chose to use suicide as a possible indicator of hapiness.

> [@](#):
>
> Apart from vague qaulifications like “not extremely bad”, this makes no sense at all. As stated, you are mixing up wealth (in the broad definition above) with an emotionally stable environment.

No, I am agreeing with you.  
Having a 150 hour work week will make you unhappy.  
Comparing even an 80 to 40 hour work week probably will not change your level ofhapiness as you adapt.

Again with the cup of coffee.

> [@](#):
>
> Proof, proof and fucking proof. The fluctuations in Western European unemployment rates are mostly dependant on macro-economic factors such as export balances, (hence) trade deficits, currency fluctuations and natural resources. The fact that France and Sweden have unemployment policies that are almost completely opposite (or, at least, vary greatly in a European context) should tell you enough.  
> Of course, stating that a measurable action (unemployment policies [to be measured in the number of unemployed, barring causality issues]) results in an unmeasurable result (“people being unhappier”) is never a wise thing to do in a debate. Or a flame, for that matter.

I really hope that you are not an economist who percieves European labor laws as harmless to the rate of unemployment.

Trying to tie unemployment with unhapiness is sort of a moot issue. It is pretty well accepted, and here are some cites:  
Already summed up well:  
[http://economics.miningco.com/money/economics/library/weekly/aa051498.htm](http://economics.miningco.com/money/economics/library/weekly/aa051498.htm)

> **[Ten Speed Press - The Crown Publishing GroupThe Crown Publishing Group](https://crownpublishing.com/archives/imprint/ten-speed-press)**
>
> Based on the West Coast, Ten Speed Press spent decades as an independent publisher before becoming part of the Crown Publishing Group in 2009. Known for creating beautiful illustrated books with ...

The entire point of my post within the context of the thread was that a government nor taxes could provide hapiness. Socialism could not provide hapiness. My point was that Swedes are unemployed about twice as often as Americans and the strong correlation between unhappiness and unemployment would mean that Socialism did not make people happier. Right now both Sweden and your country, Norway, have signifigantly higher (about two times) the unemployment rate of the U.S.

In general, FreakFreely’s arguments that Swedes were happier than U.S. citizens seem t me to be inaccurate, and allowing your government to evenly distribute everything no way guarentees happiness, or even promote it to any degree. If anything, it stalls the economy and increases the unhappiness that people feel.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\
**Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-go-freak/25415/4 "2000-07-13T10:00:42Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by threemae \*  
> I did mention that extremely bad income had an effect upon hapiness, my point was simply that an earnings increase from 20,000 to 25,000 did not corelate with a 25% jump in hapiness.

Or perhaps you could include ALL the relevant information when you decide to make an entirely new thread out of a post from another thread. I didn’t read the original thread, nor should I have to if you decide to make it a new topic.

> [@](#):
>
> And that comes from where?

Deduction. Obviously, I was wrong, which means you were even more vague than I thought you were.

> [@](#):
>
> Since I cannot find statistics on the actual level of hapiness reported from different countries, I instead chose to use suicide as a possible indicator of hapiness.

Which in itself is fine, but it DOES alter the entire discussion. See, “negative hapiness” (bear with me) does not automatically mean suicide. A country with a broad spread in income (e.g. a 100% capitalist country) can have both high suicide rates (in the lower classes, for example) AND extremely happy people by your definition. The comparison makes little sense.

> [@](#):
>
> No, I am agreeing with you.  
> Having a 150 hour work week will make you unhappy.  
> Comparing even an 80 to 40 hour work week probably will not change your level ofhapiness as you adapt.

Of course a 150 hour work week is undesirable: mathermatically, it leaves exactly 18 hours of sleep per week :rolleyes:  
So you’re saying that peoples lifes aren’t affected by a 100% increase in work hours? No matter how you define hapiness, that just does not make sense. OF COURSE it would have an impact.

> [@](#):
>
> I really hope that you are not an economist who percieves European labor laws as harmless to the rate of unemployment.

Harmless? I don’t really see what you mean, other than that you seem to imply that any form of labour legislation will always increase unemployment. Which would be blatantly wrong.  
First of all, there really isn’t such a thing as “European Labour Laws”. There may be, some day, but let’s look at the status quo. As said, unemployment policies vary greatly throughout European countries. Without pinpointing it down to a selection of countries, or rather one country, it is useless to discuss them in such broad terms.  
It is OK to be a capitalist, really. I, myself, am one. But you’re not making much of a point by spouting uninformed oneliners about socialism and labour laws.

> [@](#):
>
> Trying to tie unemployment with unhapiness is sort of a moot issue. It is pretty well accepted, and here are some cites:

I didn’t look at those sites, as I have no interest in reading about something as vague as “hapiness”. I will gladly discuss facts, but not arbitrary definitions. Hapiness cannot be defined objectively, and thus can never be a part of a rational discussion. Well, at least not of the one I’m trying to pursue here.

> [@](#):
>
> The entire point of my post within the context of the thread was that a government nor taxes could provide hapiness. Socialism could not provide hapiness. My point was that Swedes are unemployed about twice as often as Americans and the strong correlation between unhappiness and unemployment would mean that Socialism did not make people happier. Right now both Sweden and your country, Norway, have signifigantly higher (about two times) the unemployment rate of the U.S.

You are making the ages old mistake of mixing up correlation and causality. I’m pretty sure I can prove statistically that there is a correlation between the average level of education of American citizens and the amount of hamburgers they eat. But that says nothing about the causality between the two. What am I gonna say, that hamburgers make you dumb?  
Correlation is a start, but it is not any proof in itself. Any scientist can tell you that.

> [@](#):
>
> In general, FreakFreely’s arguments that Swedes were happier than U.S. citizens seem t me to be inaccurate, and allowing your government to evenly distribute everything no way guarentees happiness, or even promote it to any degree. If anything, it stalls the economy and increases the unhappiness that people feel.

I have no idea what nation is the happiest. But I don’t think the form of government matters that much either. Safety, education, wealth and democracy are main factors, but how that democracy is carried out is rather irrelevant. So we agree there. What I was commenting on were your remarks about “socialist governments” not providing entrepreneurial opportunities and -challenges. A subject you succesfully evaded in your reply. But hey, the day is still young. Surprise me.

[Edited by Lynn Bodoni on 07-14-2000 at 11:43 PM]

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\
**Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-go-freak/25415/5 "2000-07-13T10:25:47Z")

</div>

FUCK COFFEE, YOU NEED SOME JOLT SODA!  
Or do they not sell that in the Netherlands?

> [@](#):
>
> Or perhaps you could include ALL the relevant information when you decide to make an entirely new thread out of a post from another thread. I didn’t read the original thread, nor should I have to if you decide to make it a new topic.

Keep looking in the single post that I made. Think of it as an easter-egg hunt. You’ll find it eventually. Hell, it is even in bold, or at least a sentence with an all-caps word in it.

There, I don’t want to spoil the suprise or give it away.

> [@](#):
>
> So you’re saying that peoples lifes aren’t affected by a 100% increase in work hours? No matter how you define hapiness, that just does not make sense. OF COURSE it would have an impact.

Ahem…

Cite?

How about General Emotional Adaptation Level from psychology. An in depth study of this question might leave you with a different answer.

> [@](#):
>
> Which in itself is fine, but it DOES alter the entire discussion. See, “negative hapiness” (bear with me) does not automatically mean suicide. A country with a broad spread in income (e.g. a 100% capitalist country) can have both high suicide rates (in the lower classes, for example) AND extremely happy people by your definition. The comparison makes little sense.

Alright, fine.

You heard me, I am conceding this point. Although the correlation between unhappy people and suicide may be strong, it is certainly not approaching one.

But that does not mean that unemployed people are happy. Go ahead, check out the links that I provided, and unemployed people are the unhappiest group of people. Socialist countries have about twice the unemployment as the U.S. Why people in socialism would somehow be happier than those in capitalists countries seems totally lacking evidence.

This claim was made in the original post, and I am sorry if you did not immediately assosciate the importance of reading this thread even after I stated that the entire reason for me creating this thread was to continue the discussion from the previous thread with a somewhat clean slate, hopefully less confussion.

Since hapiness is indeed inherently subjective, yet still the subject of intense debate, I suppose that you should just drop out of this thread all-together as you refuse to debate something where hapiness is concerned.

On a seperate, more concrete note, show me an employment law that has not causd an increase of enemployment. A law prohibiting someone to work more than 10,080 minutes per-week obviously does not count.

> [@](#):
>
> I have no idea what nation is the happiest. But I don’t think the form of government matters that much either. Safety, education, wealth and democracy are main factors, but how that democracy is carried out is rather irrelevant. So we agree there. What I was commenting on were your remarks about “socialist governments” not providing entrepreneurial opportunities and -challenges. A subject you succesfully evaded in your reply. But hey, the day is still young. Surprise me.

So I suppose that you could retort to my posts by providing coutless examples in which creativity, innovation, etc. have been rewarded to a great extent in ANY socialist or communist country?

Either through money, market share, or arriving at a sense of achievemnet through bettering mankind?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\
**Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-go-freak/25415/6 "2000-07-13T10:51:04Z")

</div>

I’ll keep it at this last bit, as the rest seems utterly useless due to our apparent different views.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by threemae \*  
> \*\*So I suppose that you could retort to my posts by providing coutless examples in which creativity, innovation, etc. have been rewarded to a great extent in ANY socialist or communist country?
> 
> Either through money, market share, or arriving at a sense of achievemnet through bettering mankind?\*\*

My main point is that you worded that rather poorly, albeit on purpose or not. As you have seen in my earlier replies, my own country has had predominantly socialist governments for the last 30 years. Now, whether or not that makes it a “socialist country”, I do not know. To me, a country is a piece of land. We are basically discussing economical systems here, as you will agree. In which case I used the example of the Netherlands to say that YES, innovation and creativity are heavily rewarded here. Just as much as in Sweden, Germany, France and the United Kingdom. These are all countries that currently have socialist governments. See what I mean? You can’t just go about tossing all “socialist countries” (again, such a poor term: these governments were democratically elected!) in the same category as communist empires such as the Peoples Republic of China. Surely, you can see THAT difference?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\
**Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-go-freak/25415/7 "2000-07-13T10:55:25Z")

</div>

Yes, and I am willing to see you guys as not the socialists you guys crack yourselves up to be. Apparently your governments actual budget as a measure of GDP is actually pretty close to the U.S.'s circa 1980, aroung 22%

You learn something new everyday.

At any rate, it is around 5:00 AM here, so long for now.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\
**Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-go-freak/25415/8 "2000-07-13T11:01:40Z")

</div>

RUNNING EH???

You coward 😉

Anyway, sleep tight. I’ll tear you a new one in the morning 😃

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Talkinsquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f6c823/32.png) [@Talkinsquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Talkinsquirrel)\
**Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-go-freak/25415/9 "2000-07-13T17:23:06Z")

</div>

_cough_greatdebates_cough_

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FreakFreely](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/48db29/32.png) [@FreakFreely](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FreakFreely)\
**Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-go-freak/25415/10 "2000-07-13T20:59:46Z")

</div>

First off, I **never** stated that socialism makes you happy. And I don’t see why you would think I said that. Obviously, some people are going to be unhappy no matter what you do. My point was this: How can we be the richest country in the world and still have poverty? That’s just plain negligent.

Second, to argue the point **you** made, happiness is not affected by money. However, it **is** affected by poverty. And to say it isn’t is just dumb. The problem is you’re thinking of happiness along the lines of depression. And yes, most people who are depressed aren’t depressed because of how much money they’re making. And most people who commit suicide are _depressed_, not unhappy. And there is a difference. Depression tends to be because of your environment, or because your brain just isn’t working right. Unhappiness can be because of vitually anything. And poverty does affect your happiness. It’s as simple as this, if you don’t have any money, you get worried. And if you’re worried, you become unhappy.

Third, I don’t even know why happiness enters into the argument. Let’s say someone doesn’t eat for a week and becomes delirious. Maybe this fit of delusion makes him happy. So what? He’s still gonna die if you don’t give him something to eat.

> [@](#):
>
> Basically: Socialism vs. Capitalism

Actually, the OP of that thread was about the political parties of America. But some people decided to argue with me about the title “Why I Hate America” rather than the OP.

> [@](#):
>
> Have fun in your little “utopia”. My guess is that your enthusiasm will be somewhat curtailed within a few months."

I never claimed it was a utopia. Utopia doesn’t exist, and it never will so long as we continue being human.

I would keep going, but I think Coldfire covered the rest of it quite well.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\
**Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-go-freak/25415/11 "2000-07-13T21:53:21Z")

</div>

You never claimed that socialism could make one happy?

Maybe you should rethink that claim:

> [@](#):
>
> Actually, that’s exactly what it speaks of. To my mind at least. Perhaps your logic work differently than mine. And personally, if I had to pick I’d much rather be completely happy than completely free. But since neither is being offered by anyone, I’ll just have to do with what I can get.

In context, I think that it is pretty obvious what you are trying to communicate, you would rather restrict your freedoms, e.g. raise taxes, make regulations, i.e Sweden would make you happier.

Everything else here has at least some sort of implication as to what would make one happier.

> [@](#):
>
> Yes, I would. That’s the problem with people’s attitude towards taxes. They see it as money they lose and never see again. But it isn’t, it’s money that goes right back to you in an indirect form. True, some people benefit from it more than others. But generally, the people who benefit from it the most are the people who need it the most. And besides, wouldn’t you like to walk home without seing anyone laying in the street? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if you didn’t have to worry about your children’s welfare?

> [@](#):
>
> Do you think of everything in terms of money? Even if the economy is shrinking, the over-all quality of life is still very high. And I see that as being pretty successful.

Quality of life? What affects a quality of life? If the economic side of the quality of life is slipping, what else is there? Happiness? I am guessing so. Unless you measure quality of life in the rate of alien abductions.

> [@](#):
>
> I’m sorry, I thought I was making sense. How 'bout this: I hate America because our government is fucked, and worries more about it’s economy than it’s civilians.

Well the economy directly affects the citizens, the better the economy, the better the income, etc. of the citizens. So obviously you are talking about some other aspect to citizens.

On a few other points:

> [@](#):
>
> ## quote:
> 
> 1. We work our asses off.
> 
> * * *
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
> 
> Whew, thanks man, I needed that.

Really, I seem to recall that on average Americans work longer work weeks than any other country. Do you have some cites that Americas simply exploit everyone? I am looking for a cite.

On the claim that we made money from WW II, do you have any comprehensive studies or cites on this? Something that would actually come up with a logical conclusion based upon facts, not simply your own far flung theories?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tradesilicon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/439d5e/32.png) [@tradesilicon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tradesilicon)\
**Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-go-freak/25415/12 "2000-07-13T22:39:23Z")

</div>

threemae, Coldfire, and FreakFreely:  
Very nice debate, enjoying the reading.

Freaky: Especially nice to read your posts, and the rational thinking you are displaying!!!

let me address these:

[quote]  
First off, I never stated that socialism makes you happy. And I don’t see why you would think I said that. Obviously, some people are going to be unhappy no matter what you do.

[quote]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Freak should get the prize for today. You can’t please everyone, so why not let everyone try to please themselves, so long as no one get hurt?

> [@](#):
>
> My point was this: How can we be the richest country in the world and still have poverty? That’s just plain negligent.

No, it’s not negligent. It’s simply not perfect, nor should it be. You just made the case yourself - if you do everything in your power to please everyone, you will still fail. So why fight it? In a place where you have made people rely on their own abilities, they at least have no one to blame but themselves. In a place where you have made government responsible, those who are unhappy can only blame government. If the US is in fact the richest nation on earth, and opportunity is available to all, the poverty found here should be result only of people’s choices. (I know, I know, there are many other factors. The general theory though, does it work?)

Sorry to interrupt, please continue previously good debate.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tradesilicon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/439d5e/32.png) [@tradesilicon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tradesilicon)\
**Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-go-freak/25415/13 "2000-07-13T22:43:08Z")

</div>

Oooooopppps, sorry about that. (Learn to preview, learn to preview). It should look more like this:

threemae, Coldfire, and FreakFreely:  
Very nice debate, enjoying the reading.

Freaky: Especially nice to read your posts, and the rational thinking you are displaying!!!

let me address these:

> [@](#):
>
> First off, I never stated that socialism makes you happy. And I don’t see why you would think I said that. Obviously, some people are going to be unhappy no matter what you do.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Freak should get the prize for today. You can’t please everyone, so why not let everyone try to please themselves, so long as no one get hurt?

> [@](#):
>
> My point was this: How can we be the richest country in the world and still have poverty? That’s just plain negligent.

No, it’s not negligent. It’s simply not perfect, nor should it be. You just made the case yourself - if you do everything in your power to please everyone, you will still fail. So why fight it? In a place where you have made people rely on their own abilities, they at least have no one to blame but themselves. In a place where you have made government responsible, those who are unhappy can only blame government. If the US is in fact the richest nation on earth, and opportunity is available to all, the poverty found here should be result only of people’s choices. (I know, I know, there are many other factors. The general theory though, does it work?)

Sorry to interrupt, please continue previously good debate.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FreakFreely](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/48db29/32.png) [@FreakFreely](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FreakFreely)\
**Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-go-freak/25415/14 "2000-07-13T23:54:10Z")

</div>

Just thought I’d put this in context…

> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > > [@](#):
> > >
> > > 'Cause if you are refering to the lack of a lower class, I could argue this with you friend. The fact that a lower class does not exist does not speak for quality of life, freedoms enjoyed by all citizens, etc.
> > 
> > Actually, that’s exactly what it speaks of. To my mind at least. Perhaps your logic works differently than mine. And personally, if I had to pick I’d much rather be completely happy than completely free. But since neither is being offered by anyone, I’ll just have to do with what I can get.
> 
> In context, I think that it is pretty obvious what you are trying to communicate, you would rather restrict your freedoms, e.g. raise taxes, make regulations, i.e Sweden would make you happier.

Actually, if taken out of context, you would be right. But once you put it in context, it gets a bit different.

What I was saying is this: Not having a lower class does affect the _quality_ of life for poor people. Nuff said.

> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Do you think of everything in terms of money? Even if the economy is shrinking, the over-all quality of life is still very high. And I see that as being pretty successful.
> 
> Quality of life? What affects a quality of life? If the economic side of the quality of life is slipping, what else is there? Happiness? I am guessing so.

No, I was speaking more along the lines of people being able to eat. The things that affect quality of life are where you live, how you eat, if you have decent clothing, etc. It’s not based on if you have a job. Or whether you’re spiritually happy. In fact, quality of life has nothing to do with happiness. It speaks more of the creature-comforts available to you.

> [@](#):
>
> Well the economy directly affects the citizens, the better the economy, the better the income, etc. of the citizens. So obviously you are talking about some other aspect to citizens.

Not necessarily. I mean, it **should** be that way, but it isn’t always. If Ford starts making a million dollars a year more than it was before, that doesn’t mean they’re giving all that money to their employees. The economy is based on how much you’re making. When slavery was legal, those companies were making a lot of money, but the slaves weren’t.

> [@](#):
>
> Really, I seem to recall that on average Americans work longer work weeks than any other country. Do you have some cites that Americas simply exploit everyone? I am looking for a cite.

Yeah? Do you have a cite for the statement you just made? I mean, it’s one thing to be a hypocrite. It’s a whole nother to make the offense and condemn me for it in the same paragraph. Besides, that’s **obvious** bullshit. Ever heard of Japan? Where they have a word for working yourself to death?

Besides the besides, I wasn’t saying that Americans don’t work hard, I’m saying that’s not the reason America’s rich. Yet again, you take my words out of context because you can’t debate what I actually mean.

> [@](#):
>
> On the claim that we made money from WW II, do you have any comprehensive studies or cites on this? Something that would actually come up with a logical conclusion based upon facts, not simply your own far flung theories?

I already beat this one so far into the ground that Lucifer’s banging on his ceiling with a broom.

Besides, it’s not something that can be proved with facts. Just as you can’t **disprove** it with facts. Just as he couldn’t **prove** that America’s rich because we work hard.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\
**Post date:** [July 14, 2000, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-go-freak/25415/15 "2000-07-14T06:27:14Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> Actually, if taken out of context, you would be right. But once you put it in context, it gets a bit different.
> 
> What I was saying is this: Not having a lower class does affect the quality of life for poor people. Nuff said.

Falling back upon the misinterpretation argument? Well, not all of us can communicate effeciently. I do not hold this against you.

> [@](#):
>
> No, I was speaking more along the lines of people being able to eat. The things that affect quality of life are where you live, how you eat, if you have decent clothing, etc. It’s not based on if you have a job. Or whether you’re spiritually happy. In fact, quality of life has nothing to do with happiness. It speaks more of the creature-comforts available to you.

Perhaps you simply fail to recognize how it actually is possible for virtually anyone to provide for themselves in an increasingly labor-short market. Walk down any city street and I assure you, you will notice no shortage of “Help Wanted” signs. Although you may love to lamblast our capitalist system for its failure to protect all people, you should realize that our capitalist system does provide everyone with the opportunity to at least provide for themselves and in virtually all cases do better than to simply subsist.

> [@](#):
>
> Not necessarily. I mean, it should be that way, but it isn’t always. If Ford starts making a million dollars a year more than it was before, that doesn’t mean they’re giving all that money to their employees. The economy is based on how much you’re making. When slavery was legal, those companies were making a lot of money, but the slaves weren’t.

Well, there is no slavery, as much as I hate to burst your bubble of ignorance. Nor are Ford employees bound to work for Ford. If Ford began to make large profits through making its production process more effecient, etc., other companies would eventually adopt the same effeciency devices such as the production line. As other companies came up to speed, they offer competitive wadges that force Ford to raise its wadges to maintain its workforce. In the interim that other companies are coming up to speed, the owners of Ford by all means have the right to enjoy the benefits of their increases in effeciency. If other companies never catch up to Ford, then the owners still have the right to enjoy the benefits of their hard work and innovation.

> [@](#):
>
> Yeah? Do you have a cite for the statement you just made? I mean, it’s one thing to be a hypocrite. It’s a whole nother to make the offense and condemn me for it in the same paragraph. Besides, that’s obvious bullshit. Ever heard of Japan? Where they have a word for working yourself to death?

No, not really. I recalled hearing this statistic on the news a year or two ago, but saying that does not make for a very impressive cite. So here is a more concrete one, and in the interim, I’ll wait for your cite:  
Japanese on average work 1879 hours per year (1998),[http://www.stat.go.jp/](http://www.stat.go.jp/)  
While Americans work an average of 2028 hours  
(1993),[http://stats.bls.gov/](http://stats.bls.gov/)  
About 8% more than Japan

Maybe you should fail to be so enthusiastic about your own self-education, or at least go back to ECU (Ego-Centric University) and go for that Ph.D.

Now, I have fulfilled your requests for cites, and I have proved that Americans work more hours than the Japanese. Now you prove your little theory about our wealth arising from WW II.

Lots of countries survived WW II relatively well (what course is this, ECU-SOCS-1021), why are they not in the same economic strength as we are?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\
**Post date:** [July 14, 2000, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-go-freak/25415/16 "2000-07-14T22:15:46Z")

</div>

Economic strength?

Please. The United States are STILL the greatest debtor to the IMF and the World Bank. Also, the US may very well be in great economic shape right now, but don’t forget that loony Ronald Reagan that brought your country on the brink of an economic breakdown in the early 80’s. Which was very, very long after WWII.

The bottom line? There really aren’t countries that suffer from the consequences of WWII anymore. At least not economically. The economic state of a country is largely dependant on well-balanced government budgets and good export/import policies. Which is exactly what went wrong with the US in the 80’s: shiny rockets were more important than inflation, to put it bluntly.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\
**Post date:** [July 14, 2000, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-go-freak/25415/17 "2000-07-14T22:22:53Z")

</div>

Umm, Coldfire? I have to take serious exception to this:

> [@](#):
>
> Ronald Reagan that brought your country on the brink of an economic breakdown in the early 80’s.

I think you should look back at the years 1976-1980 and see just how bad the U.S. economy was under that loser Jimmy Carter.  
[ul]  
[li]70% top federal marginal income tax rate[/li][li]double-digit inflation in consecutive years[/li][li]typical consumer interest rates of over 20% for home and auto loans[/li][/ul]  
I can make a pretty good arguement that Ronald Reagan brought the American economy back from it’s knees. Granted, he did it with massive deficit spending, but still interest rates and inflation were brought back under control.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FreakFreely](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/48db29/32.png) [@FreakFreely](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FreakFreely)\
**Post date:** [July 14, 2000, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-go-freak/25415/18 "2000-07-14T22:52:34Z")

</div>

UncleBeer, you could also say that the reason we were doing so badly during that time was because of the Vietnam war.

And c’mon, Ronald Reagen? This is the same guy who said “What would this country be without this great land of ours?”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\
**Post date:** [July 15, 2000, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-go-freak/25415/19 "2000-07-15T00:49:35Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by UncleBeer \*  
> **[ul]  
> [li]70% top federal marginal income tax rate[/li][li]double-digit inflation in consecutive years[/li][li]typical consumer interest rates of over 20% for home and auto loans[/li][/ul]**

The first may not be a popular choice, but it says nothing about the economic strength of a country. I’ll grant you the inflation and interest rates though - of course, they’re really one issue, not separate ones.

Without going into a debate about whether Carter was a loser, I would like to hear from you, the well respected UncleBeer, if it was a WISE thing to do to lauch a multi billion dollar space warfare program, purely funded by international loans, when Reagan found the country in the sorry state it was in?  
I can see cutting tax rates from a consumer spending point of view (even though I don’t think that’s a perfect solution): more spending, more profit, more purchase power, growth. Right? Well, sometimes. Of course, with the insanely high dollar (Americans seem to think that’s ALWAYS a good thing) of the mid 80’s, American products were impossible to afford in Europe. Your average Ford Taurus Wagon would be yours in 1986 for todays dollar equivalent of USD 40,000 in the Netherlands. Good economic policy? I think not.

So no-one’s buying American products except Americans, what little tax income there is is wholly spent on shiny useless rockets, and the rest is attracted by syndicating foreign loans.

_And you’re saying this man brought the American economy back from its knees?_

C’mon Unc. You can be a Republican all you want, but that doesn’t mean you can’t admit stupidity when it is THIS obvious. Reagan was a mindless idiot.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sneevil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/41988e/32.png) [@Sneevil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sneevil)\
**Post date:** [July 15, 2000, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-go-freak/25415/20 "2000-07-15T02:29:21Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> if it was a WISE thing to do to lauch a multi billion dollar space warfare program, purely funded by international loans,

Answer: Yes. This resulted in breaking the back of the Soviet Union.

and:

> [@](#):
>
> So no-one’s buying American products except Americans

Is this fact, or opinion? Can you support this?

and:

> [@](#):
>
> what little tax income there is is wholly spent on shiny useless rockets,

This is just totally incorrect. The bulk U.S. spending is on entitlements, and **welfare** or the transferrance of wealth, which should warm your little euro-socialist heart.

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-go-freak/25415.md?page=2)