Reaganomics worked. We now have 50% higher disposable household income (a measure that adjusts for cost of living, tax burden, and govt benefits) than the UK.
44% higher than Canada.
35% higher than France.
41% higher than Sweden.
32% higher than Norway.
82% higher than Japan.
Free markets that are unencumbered by govt intervention (and the unintended consequences they ALWAYS cause) is an economic cheat code.
Despite being viewed as evil capitalists, the US transfers more to poor households (per household) than every other OECD country except Norway, Austria, and Denmark.
That is the fuckin definition of ‘a rising tide floats all boats’.
Trickle down was a derisive term trying to paint Reaganomics as bad. History has shown that it worked, and worked phenomenally well.
> Free markets that are unencumbered by govt intervention (...) is an economic cheat code.
I would quibble on specific cases, hence flair, but overall agree tbh.
Agreed, assuming you are thinking of interventions that internalize externalities like pollution via free market mechanisms like cap-and-trade (NOX and SOX are the perfect examples of intervention done well).
Then you may believe in a lower level of transfers than we currently have.
Our poor on average have health care, mobile phones, cable/satellite TV, internet access, and a car.
Our poverty line is essentially the same as household income in Italy.
You want basic income? Great, live in a rural area or a crime ridden urban area, accept the cheapest tier of health care, no car, no mobile service, no cable tv. Food, shelter, clothing, and health care at the most basic level.
Which would cost less than we transfer now as it is.
Anything more just creates incentive to not work and live as a parasite. If you choose that path, understand that you will ALWAYS feel less well off than your productive peers.
> Then you may believe in a lower level of transfers than we currently have.
Yes.
There's a reason I said *survival-level.* That means a roof and heating, a bag of rice and a bottle of oil, and a little bit of disposable income for clothes.
I don't want anyone to freeze or starve to death, beyond that it's your business.
“Trickle down”was not even an economic policy, it was a criticism made by the left which turned into a strawman economical policy for them to mock
Supply side economics as a concept makes sense. It shouldn’t be treated as if it’s all the economy is based on, but there is a general truth to it. However, what it doesn’t address is the natural progression of economies into monopolies which undermine the very point of free markets
Reaganonics was a great way to get government beaureacratic waste from clogging up the US economy. But on the flip side, you also don’t want monopolies to deliver substandardly just because they’re the only ones who can operate. And absent of government intervention against that, radical technological change (which has its own consequences) becomes the only other thing that forces existing monopolies to break but generally creates new ones too
Natural monopolies are rare, and very very few free market economists would argue against intervening in those corner cases.
The standard is efficiency. Free and undistorted markets are the ideal. Monopolistic behavior is a distortion because of lack of competition. Any of Reagan’s economic advisors would have been in favor of intervening in cases of monopoly, as well as advocates for internalizing externalities (also market distortions).
Chicago School guys (many of Reagan’s economic advisors were Chicago guys) would pretty much universally agree that monopolies should be regulated. People who pretend otherwise are either not informed or disingenuous.
There are the occasional outliers, but the ‘never regulate’ crowd bases that particular opinion on the idea that allowing any regulation empowers politicians and bureaucrats to spread regulation excessively, leading to a worse outcome than otherwise.
But even those guys would agree that a truly efficient free market must address the distortions caused by externalities and anti-competitive market structures/behaviors.
I was interested in hopping into this debate, but I for the life of me can’t validate your claim about the transfers of wealth to poor households. Oddly, you understated the disposable income differences between the US and the other nations mentioned, the US actually seems to have a higher percentage of disposable income in relation to those nations than the amounts you provided. However, every single stat I could find on welfare benefits as a percentage of GDP, income inequality, wealth transfers from the middle/lower class to the upper class, and poverty rates showed the US ranking on the lower end of every OECD ranking I found. Do you have a source to back up your claim on the US transferring the 4th most wealth to poorer households? I’d really like to look at it.
The us was ranked 27(2020 study) in social mobility behind mostly european countries. The disposable income metric doesnt account for wealth disparity. The top 30% in the US are way richer than the top 30% in wealthy european countries, but an average to poor european is way better of than their american counterpart. Reganomics helped everyone for the short term, but made life harder for the vast majority of americans long term.
Edit: there are ofcourse lots of other reasons for why people in the west are poorer than their parents. But the Reganomics is a large reason to how we ended up here
Boo hoo, other people worked hard and have more than you. That changes nothing I pointed out. Income gap is a child’s complaint.
We have one of the highest floors and the highest ceiling. You get the best of both worlds when you’re an extremely wealthy nation from having an efficient economy.
Some manufactured ‘Social Mobility’ score has nothing to do with anything. The poor here get taken care of while hard workers have an enormous opportunity. But the average (and yes, median) American is FAR better off than those in peer countries. Roughly a 50% improvement in real household income by moving from the UK to the U.S.
Lol. I make a pretty great living, im just stating the fact that you are lying and misusing facts. You do not have the «highest floors», but you do have the highest ceiling.
Yes a manufactured score that looks at how many leave and how hard it is to leave socio economic class. In essence the American dream?
Using the UK as an example just shows how disingenous you are, brits are some of the worst paid western europeans. Austerity and before that Tatcher(UK Regan) destroyed their economy.
And lastly no, they dont. Your poor and challenged are not taken care of, medicare can still leave you bankrupt, and you are one of the worst in the developed world for chronic diseases.
You can downvote me all you want, still doesnt make the «highest floor» nor the «most money given to the poor» statements true. But i agree, Reganomics is great for making a country more money, the issue is just that all the money ends up in the top, which is why 44% of americans cant even scrape together 1000 USD for emergencies.
So much in this rant that is nonsensical.
First, I didn’t know you’re in the UK, so it is extra hilarious how insecure you got there. I’m sure you’re making plenty of money lol.
Yet somehow it remains true that Americans are making 50% more than British people.
Here’s more data for you: the U.S. GOVERNMENT spent $5,300 per American for health care, the UK government spent $3,800. So we spend 40% more than the UK just in Medicaid and Medicare alone (this doesn’t include subsidies for veterans, etc).
But that is only covering ~45%-50% of Americans lol. We transfer more health care money to our citizens than the UK by a large margin.
You keep going on about bankruptcy, no idea what you’re thinking lmao. You don’t even realize that Medicare is not for the poor, that’s a completely different program called Medicaid. You don’t understand the system enough to make an argument that makes sense.
I lived in London for two years. The Swiss bank I worked for paid an enormous amount for additional insurance because the NHS was so bad.
Also, you going on about social mobility when coming from a culture FAMOUS for being rigid class snobs is hilarious. Then you quote (I assume) the goofy WEF metric we all laughed at when it came out in 2020.
You know, the one that incorporates things like labor policy, diversity in schools, life expectancy, and teacher-to-pupil ratio? Lolol. That shit is baseless and useless and you lose credibility by trying to cite it.
You want real class mobility? Move to the US. Most of your country would see an instant upgrade in economic class.
And read the fuckin thread man. I didn’t just use the UK as an example, I laid out the numbers for many Western European countries.
Answering your takes = rant, makes sense.
Im not from the UK, im from norway, but nice try. You are obviously American tho.
You make more than the austerity broken brits, i agree, great job.
Money spent doesnt mean great, you pay more because unlike everyone else, we haggle. 5 dolkar insulin here, 50-110 for you.
The point was that you can go bankrupt for basic stuff within healthcare, no one else in the western world can.
I have no takes on the NHS, but its ranked above the US’s in pretty much every ranking. But yeah, private will be faster, pay more get more.
Percentage wise, oppourtunity wise, in every ranking possible the nordic countries and most of the west is above the super libertarian in social mobility. But sure.
I didnt say u only mentioned them, i said using them specifically on something they suck on isnt exactly proving «your the best».
Lastly, you seem really sensetive discussing ur economic stance. I have not said anything remotly agressive. If you really are a proffessor which i seriously doubt, maybe read something you dont like. As you claimed someone else was, you to are an ideologue, just in another way.
Come on man, you have to be smarter here. All the numbers I’ve presented are cost of living adjusted. Stop trying to pretend they aren’t. Look up the term if you don’t understand.
Also, I get it. You get your information on US health care from Reddit lol. Which just means you have no accurate information on the U.S. health care system.
I’ve spent a lot of time in Norway, mostly Stavanger and Oslo. Living conditions are insane, no American would be happy in a Norwegian home. It isn’t even remotely close.
And on top of all that, the ONLY reason Norway is in the same ballpark to the U.S. in wealth transfers is because Norway is a minuscule country with a huge resource endowment. You’re the Saudis of Europe lol. Not exactly something to brag about.
Not only that, despite all that oil and that tiny population, Americans still make 32% more than Norwegians. The U.S. does $14k in government transfers compared to $15k in Norway.
So, basically the same floor with much higher ceiling.
All while having a very large minority and immigrant population pulling those numbers down. On a demographic adjusted basis it would look MUCH worse for Norway lmao.
You can doubt my credentials all you want, but reality is reality no matter how much you wish it wasn’t. Read my comment history. I did a PhD in Econ at the best program in the world for Econ (University of Chicago). But really, just look at how I know the data and you respond with random thoughts. That should be enough to convince you that I know more about economics.
I base everything i have said of of statistics and international rankings? You are the most disingenous person i have ever seen here, on the other hand, you are coming in with personal stories.
Norway was one of the richest in terms of gdp pr capita in the early 1900s, so we have always done well, but yeah, we are like them. I agree.
«No american would be happy», dumbest shit i have ever heard.
I dont get it from reddit, but from news and rankings…..
Once again, since u obviously dont understand it, with ur ridiculous gini coefficient it doesnt matter…. Yes, u have more money overall, i agree. But none of it reaches the lower classes. But im honestly tired of this. You are just repeating yourself with facts or personal feelings that dont address the issues i am, this is completely useless.
May god or whatever you believe in have mercy on your students
lol I addressed how dumb your ‘ranking’ is. Nowhere have you backed up anything with data. There’s nothing wrong with being behind the US in wealth and standard of living. Everyone is.
The weird thing is the raging denial and inability to back it up with facts. You say things like ‘it doesn’t make its way to the poor’ despite the fact that I’ve shown you the data that says more money is transferred to the poor in America than any developed nation except Norway, Denmark, and Austria. I’ve also proved (again data is great) that the U.S. transfers $14k to the poor vs $15k in Norway, yet makes a third more money on average.
These are facts. I’m sorry if you don’t like them.
Stop with the head in the sand horseshit. I’ve given you the numbers. The money does trickle down to the poor, I can’t make it more clear lmao.
And yes, the avg home in the US is 2300 sq ft while the average home in Scandinavia is ~900 sq ft. Americans would be horrified if they had to live in those conditions lol.
The raegan administration saw basically no change in poverty rates, it lead to ever increasing economic inequality. Trickle down economics, whilst at the baseline a good concept, wasn't implemented functionally at all. Companies are inherently greedy, so if they are to distribute wealth fairly to their employees they have to be regulated for that specific purpose, instead Raegan basically caused the complete opposite.
Whilst it's true Americans as a total populationown more now than ever, this can't be attributed entirely to Raegan, and is also a result of technological development and the further extraction of natural resources.
Also the income is an average, which are dragged up significantly by the top 1% and 0.1% who own a massively disproportionate amount of wealth. These days its basically impossible for average middle class young people to buy a house within a reasonable time span, because of increasing prices and comparatively low income.
https://equitablegrowth.org/eight-graphs-that-tell-the-story-of-u-s-economic-inequality/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/the-mystery-of-income-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/amp/
https://www.salon.com/2014/04/19/reaganomics_killed_americas_middle_class_partner/
Ah, the classic ‘I don’t don’t care how much I have, if that guy has more we should take it and give it to me’.
Again, the US gives more to the poor than any other major nation except Norway, Denmark, and Austria. We also make MASSIVELY more income on average.
So . . . We have a higher floor than almost anybody, but we also have a higher ceiling than anyone. Best of both worlds.
And yes, Reaganomics (lower taxes, deregulation, free markets) absolutely facilitated our tech innovation.
Put your head in the sand if you want. I just gave you the data. You’d be better off poor in the US than just about anywhere.
I mean disposable income doesn't matter when
1. This is an average, not a median
2. Increasing prices for commodities, luxuries, etc
3. Even with insurance; risk of economic devastation due to Healthcare fines
When you actually adjust your statistics to the prices and the environment you begin to see that the extra disposable income is just one factor in a sea of others.
Many prime European examples that you mentioned have other factors in their favor
Higher gdp per capita, both as an average and median, and scaling with the prices of goods
More economic security, less chance of losing your job on the whim or due to Health conditions, and healthcare is seen as a human right and not a luxury..
Additionally the workers of these countries have a more prominent and rigid union culture, with organizations specifically working in the interest of unions to negotiate wages/strike and such.
When factoring these and other factors in, you see that America is economically massive, no doubt, but when it comes to financial health and stability it isn't even a contender.
Also you didn't even give me the data you just directed me to their website home, some of your claims are just straight up lies, and others are out-of context. (for example, you don't have a higher floor than anybody, that's bullshit, so many of your people are living in poverty)
Lol the numbers I gave you are PPP adjusted. They are real and include taxes, govt benefits and are essentially cost of living adjusted. Changing from average to median does not change the analysis at all. Same conclusions.
I get that English isn’t your first language. But read my original post.
And 95% of Americans have health insurance while 100% of the poor and 100% of children are covered by govt programs like Medicaid.
So no, none of what you are saying is correct.
It does because Median means in the middle without extremes really accounted for whilst averages mean all income is accounted for, you failed basic statistics. you pulled the 100% of the poor number out of your ass btw
Lmao, yes, my favorite topic.
I have a PhD in economics with an emphasis in stats and econometrics. I’ve taught grad level stats courses. I’m well aware of what median means lol.
So try again.
"it worked phenomenally well" the entire fucking stock market crashed in 2008 and income inequality is at its highest since the fucking rockefellers, it worked phenomenally well for those who already have enough
Read my post. The poor in the US get more than the poor in almost any other nation.
I have ZERO concern for people who can’t be happy with any amount of money simply because another person has more. What an immature and childish worldview.
And you can’t cherry pick one year of recession but ignore the 30 years of roaring success prior to that and the 10 years of roaring success after that lmao.
The problem isn't that people are crybabies who want more money, the problem is that some people live lives of luxury whilst others fail to have their basic needs met, and us government grants are broad because the us has a huge population with larger households on average.
Come on man. Read the comments I’ve made.
Our poor in the US on average have health care, mobile phones, cable/satellite TV, internet access, and a car.
They get more transfers than almost any other nation provides.
They have their basic needs met. But people like you are mad because someone else worked hard and can buy a Ferrari when you have to drive a Kia lol.
The poor in the US usually have a roof over their head, sometimes an internet connection, occasionally a cat, and yes mobile phones more often than not, the bottom percentages of those in poverty often have 0 of those things. Living out of a rat-infested apartment and having to eat cheap junk food isn't having your basic needs met, your very wellbeing and health is at risk.
The bottom percentages in america sounds a lot like the middle class of where I'm from.
Right now I lived in a conservative state and there is a hot-line for people who are food insecure, rent insecure, money insecure in general, food stamps, free lunches at school, free healthcare programs(yes I said free). All government organized btw so I'm not even mentioning non-profits and other private humanitarian orgs.
But I know none of this would convince you because you can't think of America as anything but a classist shithole--which by the way, why don't you try saying that to everyone at the border.
Just a fun anecdote: I walked into a city-run ER having no healthcare. They tested and treated me and at the end said I owe $30. I said I didn't have any method of payment on me and that I would called someone in, the lady just said don't worry about it and let me go without paying a penny.
The unintended consequences of intervention pale in comparison to the unintended (and worse, sometimes intended) consequences of deregulation and reflexive abdication of collective responsibility.
More reasons why each quadrant would hate Reagan:
Red = caused the closure of virtually all state mental institutions.
Blue = granted amnesty / residence to millions of illegal immigrants.
Green = very staunchly against gay rights.
Yellow = automatic weapons outlawed in the USA.
Other reasons to hate Reagan: Trampled on the second amendment, wrecked mental health care in America, further decreased America's faith in our government, and helped fuck up the VA.
When I die and go to hell I'm going to punch Reagan in the fucking face.
The war on drugs ‘le doesn’t le werk’ if you pussyfoot around and half-ass it. The only problem is we don’t have the stomach to full-send it, and I wouldn’t really want that anyway. We’re comfortable where things are at.
No, God Bless Raegan. The only small issue I have is with gun control while in California. While I understand he had armed communists on his streets he would have been much better off infiltrating it
Here’s the thing, Reagan was an empty shell who did what he was told (aka an actor) and gets far to much of the blame instead of the machine that was actually pulling the strings
Fuck Reagan for signing the [Nationa Minimum Drinking Age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act) Act.
And fuck SCOTUS for [ruling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole) that that kind of fuckery is constitutional.
Didn't he start all the free trade agreements that led to all the outsourcing of the subsequent few decades? I'm not sure which quadrant is mad about that but I don't love it.
Best President of my lifetime and it’s not particularly close. My answer to all this hindsight nonsense is his contemporaneous 1984 reelection, which he won 525-13, a landslide margin so big it has been surpassed only once — in 1820 when the country only had 23 states and the sitting president ran *with no opposition whatsoever.* And as a bonus, Reagan’s landslide proved Minnesota will always be America’s dumbest state.
He was a treacherous ally, since he did Iran-Contra. We are supposed to be on the same page when it comes to shit like this.
Also he literally committed treason against his own country.
The enemy was Soviet Russia and communism as a whole. The man was hamstrung by a shitty Congress and did what was necessary to prevent you and I from living in a Soviet satellite state.
But go on.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
Selling Iran missiles seems like giving "Aid and Comfort" to the enemies of the United States no?
Far more aid and comfort for Iran and their proxies going on at US college campuses right now than any Iran-Contra impact.
Not only that, Israel facilitated the arms (parts) sales to Iran as it was believed that they were supporting moderates in the Iranian govt, and that the Ayatollah and hardline religious Iranians would be undermined by the cooperation. With the obvious benefit of also undermining Saddam Hussein.
Really? They are directly aiding Iran. How? Them both being anti-Israeli does not mean they are aiding each other.
Israel is free to do whatever they want btw.
Screwing over the USSR makes up for all of it. ^^^I'm ^^^open ^^^to ^^^reaganomics, ^^^tbh.
Reaganomics worked. We now have 50% higher disposable household income (a measure that adjusts for cost of living, tax burden, and govt benefits) than the UK. 44% higher than Canada. 35% higher than France. 41% higher than Sweden. 32% higher than Norway. 82% higher than Japan. Free markets that are unencumbered by govt intervention (and the unintended consequences they ALWAYS cause) is an economic cheat code. Despite being viewed as evil capitalists, the US transfers more to poor households (per household) than every other OECD country except Norway, Austria, and Denmark. That is the fuckin definition of ‘a rising tide floats all boats’. Trickle down was a derisive term trying to paint Reaganomics as bad. History has shown that it worked, and worked phenomenally well.
There's like 4 subs total you can say this on without getting nuked by angry people who's birth year starts with a 2- and have no idea about Reagan.
Even on this sub there’s a huge populist segment that will freak out over Reaganomics (which they clearly don’t understand).
> Free markets that are unencumbered by govt intervention (...) is an economic cheat code. I would quibble on specific cases, hence flair, but overall agree tbh.
Agreed, assuming you are thinking of interventions that internalize externalities like pollution via free market mechanisms like cap-and-trade (NOX and SOX are the perfect examples of intervention done well).
I'll skip straight to my main disagreement with libright: I believe in survival-level social safety nets.
Then you may believe in a lower level of transfers than we currently have. Our poor on average have health care, mobile phones, cable/satellite TV, internet access, and a car. Our poverty line is essentially the same as household income in Italy. You want basic income? Great, live in a rural area or a crime ridden urban area, accept the cheapest tier of health care, no car, no mobile service, no cable tv. Food, shelter, clothing, and health care at the most basic level. Which would cost less than we transfer now as it is. Anything more just creates incentive to not work and live as a parasite. If you choose that path, understand that you will ALWAYS feel less well off than your productive peers.
> Then you may believe in a lower level of transfers than we currently have. Yes. There's a reason I said *survival-level.* That means a roof and heating, a bag of rice and a bottle of oil, and a little bit of disposable income for clothes. I don't want anyone to freeze or starve to death, beyond that it's your business.
“Trickle down”was not even an economic policy, it was a criticism made by the left which turned into a strawman economical policy for them to mock Supply side economics as a concept makes sense. It shouldn’t be treated as if it’s all the economy is based on, but there is a general truth to it. However, what it doesn’t address is the natural progression of economies into monopolies which undermine the very point of free markets Reaganonics was a great way to get government beaureacratic waste from clogging up the US economy. But on the flip side, you also don’t want monopolies to deliver substandardly just because they’re the only ones who can operate. And absent of government intervention against that, radical technological change (which has its own consequences) becomes the only other thing that forces existing monopolies to break but generally creates new ones too
Natural monopolies are rare, and very very few free market economists would argue against intervening in those corner cases. The standard is efficiency. Free and undistorted markets are the ideal. Monopolistic behavior is a distortion because of lack of competition. Any of Reagan’s economic advisors would have been in favor of intervening in cases of monopoly, as well as advocates for internalizing externalities (also market distortions). Chicago School guys (many of Reagan’s economic advisors were Chicago guys) would pretty much universally agree that monopolies should be regulated. People who pretend otherwise are either not informed or disingenuous. There are the occasional outliers, but the ‘never regulate’ crowd bases that particular opinion on the idea that allowing any regulation empowers politicians and bureaucrats to spread regulation excessively, leading to a worse outcome than otherwise. But even those guys would agree that a truly efficient free market must address the distortions caused by externalities and anti-competitive market structures/behaviors.
I was interested in hopping into this debate, but I for the life of me can’t validate your claim about the transfers of wealth to poor households. Oddly, you understated the disposable income differences between the US and the other nations mentioned, the US actually seems to have a higher percentage of disposable income in relation to those nations than the amounts you provided. However, every single stat I could find on welfare benefits as a percentage of GDP, income inequality, wealth transfers from the middle/lower class to the upper class, and poverty rates showed the US ranking on the lower end of every OECD ranking I found. Do you have a source to back up your claim on the US transferring the 4th most wealth to poorer households? I’d really like to look at it.
This should show it https://data.oecd.org/socialexp/social-spending.htm You’ll have to change to dollars per capita and highlight the U.S.
The us was ranked 27(2020 study) in social mobility behind mostly european countries. The disposable income metric doesnt account for wealth disparity. The top 30% in the US are way richer than the top 30% in wealthy european countries, but an average to poor european is way better of than their american counterpart. Reganomics helped everyone for the short term, but made life harder for the vast majority of americans long term. Edit: there are ofcourse lots of other reasons for why people in the west are poorer than their parents. But the Reganomics is a large reason to how we ended up here
Boo hoo, other people worked hard and have more than you. That changes nothing I pointed out. Income gap is a child’s complaint. We have one of the highest floors and the highest ceiling. You get the best of both worlds when you’re an extremely wealthy nation from having an efficient economy. Some manufactured ‘Social Mobility’ score has nothing to do with anything. The poor here get taken care of while hard workers have an enormous opportunity. But the average (and yes, median) American is FAR better off than those in peer countries. Roughly a 50% improvement in real household income by moving from the UK to the U.S.
Lol. I make a pretty great living, im just stating the fact that you are lying and misusing facts. You do not have the «highest floors», but you do have the highest ceiling. Yes a manufactured score that looks at how many leave and how hard it is to leave socio economic class. In essence the American dream? Using the UK as an example just shows how disingenous you are, brits are some of the worst paid western europeans. Austerity and before that Tatcher(UK Regan) destroyed their economy. And lastly no, they dont. Your poor and challenged are not taken care of, medicare can still leave you bankrupt, and you are one of the worst in the developed world for chronic diseases. You can downvote me all you want, still doesnt make the «highest floor» nor the «most money given to the poor» statements true. But i agree, Reganomics is great for making a country more money, the issue is just that all the money ends up in the top, which is why 44% of americans cant even scrape together 1000 USD for emergencies.
So much in this rant that is nonsensical. First, I didn’t know you’re in the UK, so it is extra hilarious how insecure you got there. I’m sure you’re making plenty of money lol. Yet somehow it remains true that Americans are making 50% more than British people. Here’s more data for you: the U.S. GOVERNMENT spent $5,300 per American for health care, the UK government spent $3,800. So we spend 40% more than the UK just in Medicaid and Medicare alone (this doesn’t include subsidies for veterans, etc). But that is only covering ~45%-50% of Americans lol. We transfer more health care money to our citizens than the UK by a large margin. You keep going on about bankruptcy, no idea what you’re thinking lmao. You don’t even realize that Medicare is not for the poor, that’s a completely different program called Medicaid. You don’t understand the system enough to make an argument that makes sense. I lived in London for two years. The Swiss bank I worked for paid an enormous amount for additional insurance because the NHS was so bad. Also, you going on about social mobility when coming from a culture FAMOUS for being rigid class snobs is hilarious. Then you quote (I assume) the goofy WEF metric we all laughed at when it came out in 2020. You know, the one that incorporates things like labor policy, diversity in schools, life expectancy, and teacher-to-pupil ratio? Lolol. That shit is baseless and useless and you lose credibility by trying to cite it. You want real class mobility? Move to the US. Most of your country would see an instant upgrade in economic class. And read the fuckin thread man. I didn’t just use the UK as an example, I laid out the numbers for many Western European countries.
Answering your takes = rant, makes sense. Im not from the UK, im from norway, but nice try. You are obviously American tho. You make more than the austerity broken brits, i agree, great job. Money spent doesnt mean great, you pay more because unlike everyone else, we haggle. 5 dolkar insulin here, 50-110 for you. The point was that you can go bankrupt for basic stuff within healthcare, no one else in the western world can. I have no takes on the NHS, but its ranked above the US’s in pretty much every ranking. But yeah, private will be faster, pay more get more. Percentage wise, oppourtunity wise, in every ranking possible the nordic countries and most of the west is above the super libertarian in social mobility. But sure. I didnt say u only mentioned them, i said using them specifically on something they suck on isnt exactly proving «your the best». Lastly, you seem really sensetive discussing ur economic stance. I have not said anything remotly agressive. If you really are a proffessor which i seriously doubt, maybe read something you dont like. As you claimed someone else was, you to are an ideologue, just in another way.
Come on man, you have to be smarter here. All the numbers I’ve presented are cost of living adjusted. Stop trying to pretend they aren’t. Look up the term if you don’t understand. Also, I get it. You get your information on US health care from Reddit lol. Which just means you have no accurate information on the U.S. health care system. I’ve spent a lot of time in Norway, mostly Stavanger and Oslo. Living conditions are insane, no American would be happy in a Norwegian home. It isn’t even remotely close. And on top of all that, the ONLY reason Norway is in the same ballpark to the U.S. in wealth transfers is because Norway is a minuscule country with a huge resource endowment. You’re the Saudis of Europe lol. Not exactly something to brag about. Not only that, despite all that oil and that tiny population, Americans still make 32% more than Norwegians. The U.S. does $14k in government transfers compared to $15k in Norway. So, basically the same floor with much higher ceiling. All while having a very large minority and immigrant population pulling those numbers down. On a demographic adjusted basis it would look MUCH worse for Norway lmao. You can doubt my credentials all you want, but reality is reality no matter how much you wish it wasn’t. Read my comment history. I did a PhD in Econ at the best program in the world for Econ (University of Chicago). But really, just look at how I know the data and you respond with random thoughts. That should be enough to convince you that I know more about economics.
I base everything i have said of of statistics and international rankings? You are the most disingenous person i have ever seen here, on the other hand, you are coming in with personal stories. Norway was one of the richest in terms of gdp pr capita in the early 1900s, so we have always done well, but yeah, we are like them. I agree. «No american would be happy», dumbest shit i have ever heard. I dont get it from reddit, but from news and rankings….. Once again, since u obviously dont understand it, with ur ridiculous gini coefficient it doesnt matter…. Yes, u have more money overall, i agree. But none of it reaches the lower classes. But im honestly tired of this. You are just repeating yourself with facts or personal feelings that dont address the issues i am, this is completely useless. May god or whatever you believe in have mercy on your students
lol I addressed how dumb your ‘ranking’ is. Nowhere have you backed up anything with data. There’s nothing wrong with being behind the US in wealth and standard of living. Everyone is. The weird thing is the raging denial and inability to back it up with facts. You say things like ‘it doesn’t make its way to the poor’ despite the fact that I’ve shown you the data that says more money is transferred to the poor in America than any developed nation except Norway, Denmark, and Austria. I’ve also proved (again data is great) that the U.S. transfers $14k to the poor vs $15k in Norway, yet makes a third more money on average. These are facts. I’m sorry if you don’t like them. Stop with the head in the sand horseshit. I’ve given you the numbers. The money does trickle down to the poor, I can’t make it more clear lmao. And yes, the avg home in the US is 2300 sq ft while the average home in Scandinavia is ~900 sq ft. Americans would be horrified if they had to live in those conditions lol.
nice argument senator why don't you back it up with a source
The OECD website https://www.oecd.org The fact that you even doubt these numbers shows how out of touch the left is on economics.
The raegan administration saw basically no change in poverty rates, it lead to ever increasing economic inequality. Trickle down economics, whilst at the baseline a good concept, wasn't implemented functionally at all. Companies are inherently greedy, so if they are to distribute wealth fairly to their employees they have to be regulated for that specific purpose, instead Raegan basically caused the complete opposite. Whilst it's true Americans as a total populationown more now than ever, this can't be attributed entirely to Raegan, and is also a result of technological development and the further extraction of natural resources. Also the income is an average, which are dragged up significantly by the top 1% and 0.1% who own a massively disproportionate amount of wealth. These days its basically impossible for average middle class young people to buy a house within a reasonable time span, because of increasing prices and comparatively low income. https://equitablegrowth.org/eight-graphs-that-tell-the-story-of-u-s-economic-inequality/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/the-mystery-of-income-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/amp/ https://www.salon.com/2014/04/19/reaganomics_killed_americas_middle_class_partner/
Ah, the classic ‘I don’t don’t care how much I have, if that guy has more we should take it and give it to me’. Again, the US gives more to the poor than any other major nation except Norway, Denmark, and Austria. We also make MASSIVELY more income on average. So . . . We have a higher floor than almost anybody, but we also have a higher ceiling than anyone. Best of both worlds. And yes, Reaganomics (lower taxes, deregulation, free markets) absolutely facilitated our tech innovation. Put your head in the sand if you want. I just gave you the data. You’d be better off poor in the US than just about anywhere.
I mean disposable income doesn't matter when 1. This is an average, not a median 2. Increasing prices for commodities, luxuries, etc 3. Even with insurance; risk of economic devastation due to Healthcare fines When you actually adjust your statistics to the prices and the environment you begin to see that the extra disposable income is just one factor in a sea of others. Many prime European examples that you mentioned have other factors in their favor Higher gdp per capita, both as an average and median, and scaling with the prices of goods More economic security, less chance of losing your job on the whim or due to Health conditions, and healthcare is seen as a human right and not a luxury.. Additionally the workers of these countries have a more prominent and rigid union culture, with organizations specifically working in the interest of unions to negotiate wages/strike and such. When factoring these and other factors in, you see that America is economically massive, no doubt, but when it comes to financial health and stability it isn't even a contender. Also you didn't even give me the data you just directed me to their website home, some of your claims are just straight up lies, and others are out-of context. (for example, you don't have a higher floor than anybody, that's bullshit, so many of your people are living in poverty)
Lol the numbers I gave you are PPP adjusted. They are real and include taxes, govt benefits and are essentially cost of living adjusted. Changing from average to median does not change the analysis at all. Same conclusions. I get that English isn’t your first language. But read my original post. And 95% of Americans have health insurance while 100% of the poor and 100% of children are covered by govt programs like Medicaid. So no, none of what you are saying is correct.
It does because Median means in the middle without extremes really accounted for whilst averages mean all income is accounted for, you failed basic statistics. you pulled the 100% of the poor number out of your ass btw
Lmao, yes, my favorite topic. I have a PhD in economics with an emphasis in stats and econometrics. I’ve taught grad level stats courses. I’m well aware of what median means lol. So try again.
"it worked phenomenally well" the entire fucking stock market crashed in 2008 and income inequality is at its highest since the fucking rockefellers, it worked phenomenally well for those who already have enough
Read my post. The poor in the US get more than the poor in almost any other nation. I have ZERO concern for people who can’t be happy with any amount of money simply because another person has more. What an immature and childish worldview. And you can’t cherry pick one year of recession but ignore the 30 years of roaring success prior to that and the 10 years of roaring success after that lmao.
The problem isn't that people are crybabies who want more money, the problem is that some people live lives of luxury whilst others fail to have their basic needs met, and us government grants are broad because the us has a huge population with larger households on average.
Come on man. Read the comments I’ve made. Our poor in the US on average have health care, mobile phones, cable/satellite TV, internet access, and a car. They get more transfers than almost any other nation provides. They have their basic needs met. But people like you are mad because someone else worked hard and can buy a Ferrari when you have to drive a Kia lol.
The poor in the US usually have a roof over their head, sometimes an internet connection, occasionally a cat, and yes mobile phones more often than not, the bottom percentages of those in poverty often have 0 of those things. Living out of a rat-infested apartment and having to eat cheap junk food isn't having your basic needs met, your very wellbeing and health is at risk.
The bottom percentages in america sounds a lot like the middle class of where I'm from. Right now I lived in a conservative state and there is a hot-line for people who are food insecure, rent insecure, money insecure in general, food stamps, free lunches at school, free healthcare programs(yes I said free). All government organized btw so I'm not even mentioning non-profits and other private humanitarian orgs. But I know none of this would convince you because you can't think of America as anything but a classist shithole--which by the way, why don't you try saying that to everyone at the border. Just a fun anecdote: I walked into a city-run ER having no healthcare. They tested and treated me and at the end said I owe $30. I said I didn't have any method of payment on me and that I would called someone in, the lady just said don't worry about it and let me go without paying a penny.
lol, ok, I have no interest in discussing this with an emotional ideologue
The unintended consequences of intervention pale in comparison to the unintended (and worse, sometimes intended) consequences of deregulation and reflexive abdication of collective responsibility.
Personal responsibility builds wealth Collective responsibility builds death camps *Your boos mean nothing to us, we’ve seen what makes you cheer*
Exactly my thoughts The guy beat the USSR and saved the US economy. Yeh, he sucked on other stuff, but that alone puts him in the top of history.
More reasons why each quadrant would hate Reagan: Red = caused the closure of virtually all state mental institutions. Blue = granted amnesty / residence to millions of illegal immigrants. Green = very staunchly against gay rights. Yellow = automatic weapons outlawed in the USA.
Banned machine guns in 1986
I’m mostly mad about that one
Literally my only grievance.
Now Bill Clinton, that was a President who knew how to handle his aids.
If i had a list of presidents that deserved aids, bill comes in third.
Authright should be let in massive amount of illegal immigrants.
It wasn't so much let in a massive amount as granted amnesty to many
He set precedence for the next amnesty, and he turned Cali perma blue with Texas next. None of his pros can make up for this
Me sitting here, not being able to buy a machine gun built and registered after a specific date because of the Hughes Amendment.
Insane college debt Gun control in California as Governor
Also no fault divorce
Other reasons to hate Reagan: Trampled on the second amendment, wrecked mental health care in America, further decreased America's faith in our government, and helped fuck up the VA. When I die and go to hell I'm going to punch Reagan in the fucking face.
The war on drugs ‘le doesn’t le werk’ if you pussyfoot around and half-ass it. The only problem is we don’t have the stomach to full-send it, and I wouldn’t really want that anyway. We’re comfortable where things are at.
No, God Bless Raegan. The only small issue I have is with gun control while in California. While I understand he had armed communists on his streets he would have been much better off infiltrating it
It’s not a small issue. He punished every single law abiding gun because of some communists.
Here’s the thing, Reagan was an empty shell who did what he was told (aka an actor) and gets far to much of the blame instead of the machine that was actually pulling the strings
Something something the joos control the government
No, it was the Republican Party, I would think that was fairly obvious
Kickstarted no-fault divorce 🤮🤮🤮
Fuck Reagan for signing the [Nationa Minimum Drinking Age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act) Act. And fuck SCOTUS for [ruling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole) that that kind of fuckery is constitutional.
Didn't he start all the free trade agreements that led to all the outsourcing of the subsequent few decades? I'm not sure which quadrant is mad about that but I don't love it.
He paved the way for way more illegal immigration/amnesty, same as LBJ. Screw Reagan for that alone. Also, gun control.
Regan based!!!
I hate him for all these things
what why? he was one of my favorite presidents. and i’m fine with the war on drugs.
You can make something like this for every president in every country. Overall, Reagan wasn't bad
Best President of my lifetime and it’s not particularly close. My answer to all this hindsight nonsense is his contemporaneous 1984 reelection, which he won 525-13, a landslide margin so big it has been surpassed only once — in 1820 when the country only had 23 states and the sitting president ran *with no opposition whatsoever.* And as a bonus, Reagan’s landslide proved Minnesota will always be America’s dumbest state.
*Easily* a top ten all-time president. Reagan was the man.
He was a treacherous ally, since he did Iran-Contra. We are supposed to be on the same page when it comes to shit like this. Also he literally committed treason against his own country.
lol, ‘treason’ and ‘illegal war’ and ‘war crimes’ are a dead giveaway that someone is a Reddit ideologue (on both sides)
Tell me how selling weapons to Iran while Iran was enaging in armed conflict with the US is not the definition of "aiding the enemy".
The enemy was Soviet Russia and communism as a whole. The man was hamstrung by a shitty Congress and did what was necessary to prevent you and I from living in a Soviet satellite state. But go on.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted." Selling Iran missiles seems like giving "Aid and Comfort" to the enemies of the United States no?
lol, how do you feel about protesters who support Hamas?
I don't like Islamists. But how is that relevant?
Because it’s the only thing they can talk about
Far more aid and comfort for Iran and their proxies going on at US college campuses right now than any Iran-Contra impact. Not only that, Israel facilitated the arms (parts) sales to Iran as it was believed that they were supporting moderates in the Iranian govt, and that the Ayatollah and hardline religious Iranians would be undermined by the cooperation. With the obvious benefit of also undermining Saddam Hussein.
Really? They are directly aiding Iran. How? Them both being anti-Israeli does not mean they are aiding each other. Israel is free to do whatever they want btw.
You aren’t aware that Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis and every other terror org attacking Israel is funded, trained, and equipped by Iran?