These ideas are fine as long as they do not invert work incentive. In the U.S, with a minimum wage approximately half what it should be, the incentive is inverted. Some of these other countries are much smarter in the way they handle their economies, and that is why they are in general doing so much better than the U.S.
The ignorance level in the U.S. seems a little higher than in some other industrialized countries. This ultimately is not good for an economy. The U.S. would help itself by bringing down its ignorance somewhat. You can never bring it to zero of course, but it can be brought down. The other thing that would help the U.S. immensely is if there was a proper grasp of income redistribution. To some extent income gets redistributed in all modern industrialized nations. However redistribution has two possible directions. I have always been fascinated by how it is that anyone can fail to recognize that income redistribution is inherently bidirectional. Many, for unexplained reasons, seem to assume it is inherently unidirectional. In the U.S., and perhaps to a lesser extent in Great Britain, redistribution has been moving in one direction, whereas in the other industrialized nations it may be moving a bit, if it is moving at all, in the other direction. Significant redistribution of wealth, when compounded over a number of years, can wreak havoc on an economy and the well being of the population, or alternatively, it can have a very beneficial effect, all depending on the starting point.
As the Bern has said, there is no such thing as freedom without economic freedom. I think everyone on the planet should have GUARANTEED the basic needs met, particularly safety, and clean [shelter-heat-water-food]. In modern times, access to reasonably priced health care is close to being a necessity, but it is probably not a right and probably you need to work to get it. But if the world can figure out how to give people nearly free health care in addition to true economic freedom, we are on our way to something truly brilliant. Finally, access to information and very reasonably priced education would round out the basic "needs", but now we are getting fuzzy. We are already on our path down this way, whether people like it or not. The singularity that will change everything is the completion of an aware (notice I did not say conscious) machine that is essentially indistinguishable from a human being. I am not going to connect the dots on how each of the above will be a reality as a result - I leave that as an exercise. The one worry I have is that population may explode. That will put exponentially more pressure on the finite resources on Earth, so we will have to temper our progress EVEN if we want and can achieve it all tomorrow. Also, notice that I did not say people can't be rich. I am not saying you can't have billions and ten yatch an airplane a car collection and a 20,000 sq foot home. The above basic needs for all humanity does not preclude the other. I also claim that this can be achieved without taxing anyone more. If does in the short term, but it will be less true as progress is made.
I couldn't agree with you more (except the last part). For crying out loud! We are the greatest nation the earth has ever known and we can't even feed and clothe and provide shelter for the whole world, let alone just our own nation? These are just basic needs any thinking individual must agree we all need. Once everybody is taken care of, then we can resume the never ending capitalist war. I will gladly pay my socialist share, but then leave me the hell alone so I can fight my capitalist war. You'll need my war to pay for it all. take a biology course, the population will not explode, and the resources of the earth are not finite. Name me one species whose population ever exploded and even mars has resources on it.
check it yourself: http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/city_result.jsp?country=Finland&city=Helsinki
I know Numbeo but their numbers often are far from reality as it's only as good as the users who enter the numbers. I found at least 10 good living spaces below €700 in 15 minutes that were almost in the city (not even suburbia). Finland has had a downturn recently and I'm guessing it also reflects in real estate, although I don't ever remember Finland being crazy expensive.
well, unlike you I don't speak Finnish and have never even been there. So you might have more insight. though we could agree on that someone can't make a decent living on 800 EUR in Finland?
I saw this news earlier this week. Very interesting. Plays into some of the discussions we have had in P&R.
the problem with trying to get wealth to redistribute upward is the same as getting water to flow upward. Yes, it can be done, but it takes a lot of pumps and things. Water naturally flows downward, but unlike water money doesn't come from heaven. And somebody needs to go down their and collect it and pump it upstairs, and then they dump it once again on all the poor. So, it's a cycle, rather than an ideal. and just like if we had control of the weather, somebody would always be debating when it is time to let it rain.