International WEF study: USA ranks closest to "ideal state"

[Madmick]

I didn't circulate false information or make a patently silly assumption.

Nor did I.

Huh? Now you're just using terms haphazardly and arguing aimlessly in a distinctly lfd0311ian fashion. You're insisting that AOC, because she fancies herself a democratic socialist, has....advocated abolition of the private economy or in some way advocated that the foundations of the economy be upended. When I pointed that that would entail advocating some kind of Leninist takeover, rather than the mid-century social democratic liberalism that she has actually recommended, you then said I was moving the goalposts.

You're the one who introduced "Leninist", here.

 

[curryjunkie]

No surprise here. With all its faults, it is still the best country (government) in the world. That is why most people who can, want to move here.

I remember working at the U.S. Embassy in Brazil, and every morning seeing the huge line of people waiting to get their tourist/work visa to come to the U.S. Drove around all the other major embassies in Brasilia and never saw any lines there. ...and another large caravan from Honduras making its way to the U.S. border as we speak.

 

[Ruprecht]

Not surprising, it's largely based on an executive opinion survey. Where do executives get the most money?

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Not surprising, it's largely based on an executive opinion survey. Where do executives get the most money?

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

That's pretty dense, going to take a while to really grasp it. But they said we have low checks and balances and low judicial independence. I don't know how true either of those claims are. Here in the U.S. they're inter-related though.

The US didn't really rank low, but lower than other advanced countries.
Weaknesses I can see in the US judicial system:
-Politicians appoint judges and prosecutors. Many other countries have a professional core of judges and prosecutors selected by public examination that then vote among themselves to promote the best or most experienced to higher courts. Other countries, which in my opinion is the best way, have a mixed system, where professional judges appoint other judges for promotion and politicians can vote to allow or deny it.
-Politicians can give pardons to criminals, including other politicians. Most famously Ford pardoned Nixon. That looked like some banana republic thing you would expect in Latin America.

These comparisons are always somewhat hard to make. For example, US federal prosecutors (U.S. attorneys) have different competencies than in many other countries. In some countries the equivalent prosecutors are tasked in prosecuting members of the government themselves, including the president, so they obviously cannot be chosen or fired by the president.
Regardless of that, it seems a very emotive subject for Americans. I've many some Americans who think their country is the only one in the world that has checks and balances or judicial independence. Or freedom. Or that it was even an American invention, but almost all of these ideas came from Europe (Montesquieu, for example) and although it might have been somewhat true that the US led these areas until the 20th century it just isn't the case anymore.
Although the US has, by far, the most fair and democratic way of large countries (Russia, India, China, Brazil, US*), there are smaller countries which are just more democratic, the rulers more accountable and the system fairer, for example, Switzerland.

*Russia and China are dictatorships. Brazil has an European/Scandinavian style system in theory but it's manned almost entirely by criminals or incompetents who will not apply the rules against themselves. I can't understand India.

 

[brackis1]

I think if Trump had come out of the gate with his trillion dollar infrastructure campaign promise - what really amounted to his only proposal supported by the majority of the American public - and really fought for it and demanded the GOP congress figure out how to pass it before he would move on with the rest of his agenda, he would have gained immense capital with the entire electorate.

Yep. I'd be super pleased if we actually invested in infrastructure.
Of course it would still line the pockets of rich building companies, but at least we'd have something to show for it.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Not surprising, it's largely based on an executive opinion survey. Where do executives get the most money?

That being true, it shows that the libcuck soshulist states, rounding up the top ten or so, are apparently popular with execs as well, dispelling the myth that libcuck soshulizm is incompatible with prosperity and economic success.

 

[bushman505]

No surprise here. With all its faults, it is still the best country (government) in the world. That is why most people who can, want to move here.

I remember working at the U.S. Embassy in Brazil, and every morning seeing the huge line of people waiting to get their tourist/work visa to come to the U.S. Drove around all the other major embassies in Brasilia and never saw any lines there. ...and another large caravan from Honduras making its way to the U.S. border as we speak.

Yup, after living abroad for most of my 30s and traveling all over the world, there isn’t anywhere better than the USA and that’s a fact, not an opinion.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Hey, maybe the progressives in congress should use the obesity problem to market their socialist agenda..

I would prefer they used shootings to argue every American should have access to psycological health care.

 

[Ruprecht]

That being true, it shows that the libcuck soshulist states, rounding up the top ten or so, are apparently popular with execs as well, dispelling the myth that libcuck soshulizm is incompatible with prosperity and economic success.

Well, the World Economic Forum/Davos is a meeting of execs from the world's largest multinationals (and government) to decide how to make the world a better place for them to operate.
So they are fine with public education, healthcare and an independent judiciary, so long as it's not on their dime and they aren't regulated (outside of the adoption of Global standards such as for internet, wifi etc).
For that matter they are fine with crony capitalism as well, as illustrated by Singapore's consistently high ranking both on the Economist's Crony Capitalism Index and the World Economic Forum's Competitiveness Index.
I'm sure Switzerland topping the Competitiveness Index (up until this year's 4.0 revision of the metric) has nothing to do with their hosting the Davos event either...

 

[Trotsky]

Well, the World Economic Forum/Davos is a meeting of execs from the world's largest multinationals (and government) to decide how to make the world a better place for them to operate.
So they are fine with public education, healthcare and an independent judiciary, so long as it's not on their dime and they aren't regulated (outside of the adoption of Global standards such as for internet, wifi etc).
For that matter they are fine with crony capitalism as well, as illustrated by Singapore's consistently high ranking both on the Economist's Crony Capitalism Index and the World Economic Forum's Competitiveness Index.
I'm sure Switzerland topping the Competitiveness Index (up until this year's 4.0 revision of the metric) has nothing to do with their hosting the Davos event either...

Can you expand more on Singapore's enabling of crony capitalism?

(I'm not challenging the claim whatsoever: I'm just interested to learn more about it)

 

[Ruprecht]

Can you expand more on Singapore's enabling of crony capitalism?

(I'm not challenging the claim whatsoever: I'm just interested to learn more about it)

Everything in Singapore is micromanaged. In terms of Government involvement in business and industry, it's mostly via Temasek holdings. Without Temasek as a large shareholder, good luck establishing a sizable business in Singapore.
Take the mobile phone industry for example.
There's essentially three players. Singtel, Starhub and M1. Singtel and Starhub are majority owned by Temasek. Control over M1 is more indirect, but two of their major shareholders (Axiata and Keppel) are controlled by Temasek.
There might be a fourth entrant this year, TPG. Temasek invested 50 million in TPG last year.
That's typical of industry and property in Singapore.

 

[Trotsky]

Everything in Singapore is micromanaged. In terms of Government involvement in business and industry, it's mostly via Temasek holdings. Without Temasek as a large shareholder, good luck establishing a sizable business in Singapore.
Take the mobile phone industry for example.
There's essentially three players. Singtel, Starhub and M1. Singtel and Starhub are majority owned by Temasek. Control over M1 is more indirect, but two of their major shareholders (Axiata and Keppel) are controlled by Temasek.
There might be a fourth entrant this year, TPG. Temasek invested 50 million in TPG last year.
That's typical of industry in Singapore.

But how does that exemplify crony capitalism? I take that term as implying some level of patronage or private excesses off of public spending, not merely private influence or involvement.

 

[Ruprecht]

But how does that exemplify crony capitalism? I take that term as implying some level of patronage or private excesses off of public spending, not merely private influence or involvement.

Because businesses thrive as a direct result of their involvement with Government. That's the definition of Crony Capitalism.
Without that political connection you won't get property, access to the market and salvation from the threat of bankruptcy.

 

[Madmick]

That being true, it shows that the libcuck soshulist states, rounding up the top ten or so, are apparently popular with execs as well, dispelling the myth that libcuck soshulizm is incompatible with prosperity and economic success.

Can't have your cake and eat it, too. The theory that the WEF is a hidden agenda designed to praise the countries that make it easiest to drink milkshakes certainly doesn't suss out in the rankings.

 

[HIMBOB]

No surprise here. With all its faults, it is still the best country (government) in the world. That is why most people who can, want to move here.

Do you really believe that?

Id choose America over Brazil in a heartbeat but would put a few countries before America.

Seems like a great place to earn money but not for raising kids, retiring or growing up.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Do you really believe that?

Id choose America over Brazil in a heartbeat but would put a few countries before America.

Seems like a great place to earn money but not for raising kids, retiring or growing up.

He probably meant large countries. Living in the US is better than Russia, China, Brazil and India.
If you take small countries into consideration Switzerland is probably the best country in the world if you're a citizen. I think one of the oil arab countries is also good. But it all depends on what culture you like, it must suck to be a non-muslim in Qatar and if your idea of a good time is to bake in the sun while drinking coconut water Switzerland isn't that great either.
I'd guess Singapore is also pretty good if you like living in a crowded asian city and paying little in the way of taxes. Eduardo Saverin, Facebook co-founder, ditched his American citizenship to live in Singapore to avoid paying taxes.

Personally, if I had fuck you money, I'd live in Switzerland. I like the cold, I like the geography and the general aesthetics of the place. It's also still a good place for business, work and education.
I'm biased but Porto is also pretty great except that Portugal is terrible for work.
These places also have no political conflict, no risk of terrorism and virtually zero violence.

Worst place to live must be São Paulo, noisy, dirty, violent, crowded, ugly.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Of course it would still line the pockets of rich building companies, but at least we'd have something to show for it.

What really would have been great is if all the funds were earmarked to go to the local city and county and state construction crews.

 

[Phr3121]

Do you really believe that? Id choose America over Brazil in a heartbeat but would put a few countries before America. Seems like a great place to earn money but not for raising kids, retiring or growing up.

Which country seems great for earning money but not retiring? The U.S. or Brazil?

Brazil was a wonderful country in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. It all went to 'shit' in the 80s and beyond.
Crime, a corrupt police force, a corrupt society, and a corrupt government.
Law and justice no longer work in Brazil. Everyone can be bribed. If that does not work, they will just put a bullet in your head. Yeah, and that is from the top on down. From the President on down to city mayors. Much the same for most of South America, Central America and Mexico.

Yeah, people talk about Switzerland, Norway, and Denmark. All small countries that do not have the same demographics or problems the U.S. has. They can maybe afford a better health system because the population is small. They don't have to worry about a large military budget. They are only now learning what it feels like to have minorities (migrants) move into their country and fuck things up. At least in the U.S., migrants from Europe helped to built this country - U.S.

 

[panamaican]

The US didn't really rank low, but lower than other advanced countries.
Weaknesses I can see in the US judicial system:
-Politicians appoint judges and prosecutors. Many other countries have a professional core of judges and prosecutors selected by public examination that then vote among themselves to promote the best or most experienced to higher courts. Other countries, which in my opinion is the best way, have a mixed system, where professional judges appoint other judges for promotion and politicians can vote to allow or deny it.
-Politicians can give pardons to criminals, including other politicians. Most famously Ford pardoned Nixon. That looked like some banana republic thing you would expect in Latin America.

These comparisons are always somewhat hard to make. For example, US federal prosecutors (U.S. attorneys) have different competencies than in many other countries. In some countries the equivalent prosecutors are tasked in prosecuting members of the government themselves, including the president, so they obviously cannot be chosen or fired by the president.
Regardless of that, it seems a very emotive subject for Americans. I've many some Americans who think their country is the only one in the world that has checks and balances or judicial independence. Or freedom. Or that it was even an American invention, but almost all of these ideas came from Europe (Montesquieu, for example) and although it might have been somewhat true that the US led these areas until the 20th century it just isn't the case anymore.
Although the US has, by far, the most fair and democratic way of large countries (Russia, India, China, Brazil, US*), there are smaller countries which are just more democratic, the rulers more accountable and the system fairer, for example, Switzerland.

*Russia and China are dictatorships. Brazil has an European/Scandinavian style system in theory but it's manned almost entirely by criminals or incompetents who will not apply the rules against themselves. I can't understand India.

The judge thing is interesting because the Supreme Court is the only mandatory federal court. All of the lower level courts were created by Congress. Congress could vote to switch the system from Presidential appointment to judicial recommendation. I agree that would be a better system.

On the pardon thing, only our President can do so. It's an interesting power and I'd never thought about it in banana republic terms but I can see the parallel. Something to think about, I guess.