World's happiest and most prosperous countries.

Started Jan 20, 2013 | Discussions thread
RossAndrew Veteran Member • Posts: 3,544
Re: World's happiest and most prosperous countries.

Bill Randall wrote:

RossAndrew wrote:

Bill Randall wrote:

RossAndrew wrote:

Bill Randall wrote:

RossAndrew wrote:

Bill Randall wrote:

Chato wrote:

RossAndrew wrote:

Bill Randall wrote:


carlk wrote:

The top ten list from nonpartision Legatum Institute.

1. Norway
2. Denmark
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. New Zealand
6. Canada
7. Finland
8. The Netherlands
9. Switzerland
10. Ireland

I had a hard time to find one on the list that is NOT a "socialist", "income redistribute", "tax and spending" and "godless" country according to out right wing friends. Perhaps those are not bad things after all.

I would not disagree with that listing in a general sense.

Altho, these kind of rankings seldom take into account the smaller nations...which also may be 'happy' places to reside.

For example, a place like Malta could be an example.

I would also think that Malaysia and Singapore would be pretty high up on any list like this today.


Exactly. How do you measure happiness? There are villages where people cannot read or write but they are happy. Happiness is based upon many different things within any given society. When comparing one society to another, the things that make people happy within each society changes.

I hope you don't mind if I but in here Bill. I use You and Don D, Lyle and people like you on this site as a yardstick to measure how I feel about life. You and the naysayers here just make me feel so happy. I often wonder why you guys are so unwilling to try to broaden your outlook on a range of subjects and how you got so set in your ways.


Cheap Bourbon....

Now Bill thinks that paying a Living Wage would bankrupt all companies in America. Fortunately, all the countries on his list have mandated living wages - Ain't it strange that they have higher standards of livings then we do?


Wrong. I actually said I need to think about it. It sounds good, but how would it work?

In regards to them having a higher standard of living than we do, I would challenge that. Yes, their society may have a higher standard of living, but perhaps they don't have the leeches that we have.

When all is said and done, bourbon may be the only answer. If things really get bad, cheap beer will do.

Bill wrote.

"but perhaps they don't have the leeches that we have."

Bill the tax avoiders and so called leeches as you put it even each other out.

How is it they even each other out?

True. We have a tax department that are like terriers and prosecution's are relentless with full payment with interest in full, from the largest company to the average brick layer/carpenter. This is also carried out at the other end of the spectrum by social security on your so called leeches.

You seem stuck on this in your reasoning.

You can encourage people to do better. You can also encourage people not to do better. This is why a society that rewards good workers and not non workers in the long run will do better. Now, I am not saying we don't need some changes, because we do.

We tried individual work contracts a few years ago, and didn't like them we have now reverted to collective agreements. This has server us well since 1009. please have a look at this.

This what we call a living wage and it does work. people tend to work harder and are happier if they are getting a good wage. Companies prosper as well.

We spend a lot of money on children because it could pay off in the long run. But too many have no appreciation for this and just want society to provide more.

We have lots of people havering babies, it;s part of life, yes we do pay them. As it stands now there's 3 months paid leave and 9 months unpaid if needed. Our conservative party want 12 months full pay split between gov and company, but us lefties think that's to much.

Stuck? If a person is mentally or physically impaired provide them with help. If a person is able to work they should. If a single woman has a child she cannot afford she should be penalized along with the father. The more individual responsibility is downplayed the more a society is doomed. Alright, where did I go wrong?

Bill this is the twentieth century we don't punish people for having a baby out of wedlock, you support them and get them back to work as soon as possible.

Babies, more than anything else a person may acquire, have demands that must be met. Babies come with responsibilities. Do you buy a car or anything else you cannot afford? Do you ask your neighbor to help you pay for your new car? You probably don't and if you did your neighbor would tell you the payment is your responsibility.

Babies are not cars they are humans of the future. They are part of the community and should be cared for in some part by the community as a whole, this means a few dollars per person's tax and in return their children will receive the same.

True, that is why we supply schools, books, transportation to the school, school meals and in many cases medical needs. Tell me, exactly what are the responsibilities of the parents?

The same as anywhere in the world, keep them clean and safe get them to school on time get them to the doctor when needed  AND GIVE THEM ALL THE LOVE AND SUPPORT YOU CAN, until you have got one foot in the grave, then it;s their turn to start to repay the care.

I fail to see the comparison between a car and a child.

A car must see a mechanic periodically as preventive maintenance. A child must see a doctor periodically as preventive maintenance. It is the responsibility of the owner to see this is done in either case. There are many such similarities. There are many such responsibilities.

I still fail to see the comparison between a car and a child , sorry

Yes, you have to support them and get them back to work as soon as possible. And of course you encourage other women to do the same thing. No choice. However, there should be some penalty that makes women and the father think about this more than once. With all the contraceptives on the market there is little reason for this situation.

There is no need for a penatly to be put on a person for child bearing. May I suggest that a fair wage so that these people can start to save and obtain a few of the things in life that will help give them a sense well being, House/car/food on there table and an education for there child. This will brake the cycle that you referring too.

Fair wage would certainly help. We cannot make decisions based upon some wishful change in our society. If you are going to have a baby or buy a new car, one must consider our society/economy as it is today and probably will be for the next few years.

This one you don't seem to get so I'll try again.

If the little guy gets a good wage, he does things like builds a house buys a car, he is happier at work he tends to produce more his boss is happy, the worker feels safe in his job. by spending he creates work for other people, and then if they are getting a fair wage they spend and create more jobs and so it multiples.

Like a good house has a good foundation at ground level, so a economy needs the same foundation at the grass roots. Nothing grows from the top down. The reason why rich people are rich is because they keep their money. If the average worker has no job security and earns a poor wage the bank wont lend for houses or cars. Your trickle down economics don't work, that is why you have such an uneven spread of wealth in America.

Yes, this is the twentieth century. People have responsibilities - to themselves and to others.

Bill if you tried to open a business in Australia with your way of thinking, you would be closing your doors in the first week. People work harder and faster and happier when they have a great trust and relationship with their boss and work mates in a safe environment. We and a lot of other countries have had this system now for a hundred years or so were still here and doing well.

I do not disagree with this paragraph. Let me point out, however, relationships are built on trust and trust reflects responsibility, and if responsibility is not demanded it will diminish.

Doesn't work quite like that here, No one demands here, we work together trust is achieved by boss and employee working together, the type of company you speak about would quickly fall over or at least loose out because of pore productivity bought about through the class of worker they would be able to get.

Break your line of trust with your boss, and you will see "demand".

As i said , there is no demanding in Australia, We have unfair dismissal rules any boss that can't work out any problems with their staff and starts threatening will find every one walking out the gate. We have arbitration courts if any  things get out of hand.

So no demanding . most places work very well, It's only people like Chevron and Rio Tinto that take a while to get to know how things work here but they still come around and thing are just fine. We don't have a boss verses worker situation here, people on the shop floor know what has to be done and they get it done, If the boss wants to make changers we talk and reach a good outcome for all involved.

Even your Chevron is happy to work here, they pay union wager's and all taxes and a 12.5% wealth tax and there still investing.

Your lack of regulation of banking and financial companies plus your trickle down economics don't work, the proof is in the pudding. Look at your economy now.

Government should be policing our financial institutions. However, they seem to be in bed together.

Our problems are too great to point a finger at one thing and say that is the reason our economy is the way it is. If I had to point at one thing it would be Nancy Pelosi stating Congress had to hurry up and pass the healthcare bill so they could see what was in it. The largest most expensive bill in our history and nobody read it until after it was passed. This is what we send these people to Washington to do? Doesn't this indicate a very high degree of irresponsibility? Of stupidity?

I believe that your new health system will pay you benefits in the long run, No one should make a profit out some one else sickness.

So you think doctors should work for free? You do realize that doctors are paid by profits? Advancements in healthcare are also paid for by profits. While your words may sound good, eliminate profits from healthcare and see nothing but bad.

Works like this.

when you go to the doctor you pay a percentage and the government pays a percentage so the doctor still gets payed. People that can afford it still have privet health insurance, These are non profit mostly the ones that want to want to make a profit out someones illness don't seem to last that long. If you are below a certain income then the lot is free. I had a hart attack some years ago spent three days in a government hospital had a stent put in, didn't use my privet health insurance and the whole lot cost $130.00 that's one hundred and Thirty dollars. The service was the best and the privet specialist was covered by the gov medicare.

Hopefully the huge costs of privet health will come down to a point where the two gov/privet can work together to give everyone a better service as it does in the so called socialist country's that you think we are.



Time will tell.

It's after midnight here I'm off to bed


-- hide signature --

This is not a religious comment, merely a historical fact.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow