AI said:
But similar policies, when instituted in the U.S., for example, seem not to work as intended, or to create additional 'unforeseen' problems. There's probably the cultural element
Definitely. As described in my previous message, redistribution (a cornerstone of socialism) can't work in a group dominated by individualism.
universal health care - countries like Canada and the Nordics are great in a lot of ways, or at least better than the U.S. system for instance (while using technology developed in the States) - but wait times and lack of specialists causes many to travel to other countries for treatment,
Public healthcare doesn't necessarily mean wait time or lack of specialist. In France until the 1990's the health care system was totally public and "free" but there was no wait time and plenty of competent specialists were available. Then economic liberalism started to prevail and politicians deliberately destroyed the universal health system through chronic underfunding and infiltration of unions. It became so bad that even citizens begged for private health institutions (which was the goal all along).
Next, there's public education, which is a good idea on the surface of things,
Same as universal health system. In France the public education system was very good. Then deliberate politicians maneuvers destroyed it through chronic underfunding, infiltration of unions and ideologically biased modification of school programs.
An example from Seattle: after minimum wage increases, employment in high-quality restaurants remained the same, but lower-quality restaurants shut down. In other words, some employees got more wages, but others lost their jobs, and fewer new restaurants opened, thus providing fewer chances for employment in that industry.
Minimum wage is an attempt to reduce the dis-balance between capital and wage. It makes sense in large corporations where there is plenty of capital and profit but it is a nonsense to enforce it in small businesses where there is no excess capital that can be redistributed. In a small business context, minimum wage measures should be accompanied with a proportional reduction in tax wages.
One of the reasons for the housing bubble crash was the US regulators forcing banks to give out loans they knew couldn't be paid back in order to meet quotas.
Do you really think that banks are forced to anything in our debt-based world? Don't you think it's rather the opposite where big banks dictate "regulations"?
In 2008 (like most other engineered crisis), large banks were instrumental in over-lending, hyping the booming real estate market, making trillions out of the growing bubble, then they pierced the bubble and repossessed the houses that were used as collateral, got a massive bail out from the taxpayers money and bought the smaller bankrupt banks for nothing. Cherry on the pie, they sold the repossessed houses for a lot of money a few years later when the real estate market had recovered.
Regarding high tax rates, again that might be country-specific - how much citizens are willing to pay and what they get in return. But even in Sweden the richest Swedes evade over 30% of their taxes through moving money offshore
The richest evade taxes because the system is designed for them to evade it. The map of Europe is covered with micro states that incidentally are also tax heavens. Why in a continent that is marked by wars and invasions, were those militarily insignificant states systematically spared?
Monaco, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Andorra, Jersey are the result of deliberate political choices. But the entry ticket is quite high, so while the richest evade tax, others (especially the dying middle class, working class, independant workers and small business owners) have to pay full blown taxation.
The single mom is better off earning gross income of $29k with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69k with net income & benefits of $57,045.
Again this is a very deliberate political move, where the state clearly choose through strong financial incentives, to favor some kind of behavior (being single, being unemployed) over other behaviors (being married, working). It illustrates the attempt to destroy two fundamental values: family and work.
Favoring unemployed people is an ideological but also a political choice, it creates a class of parasites that depends on the state and are unlikely to rebel. A case in point: most Yellow Vest protesters are poor workers, not unemployed subsidized individuals.
Most political interventions are not thought through to see if they'll actually work. They just do whatever sounds good and sounds palatable to their voters.
That's a small part of the problem. Thousands of politicians are demagogues (telling people what they want to hear) but only a few get elected. Why do some demagogues get elected and most of them don't?
It's not because they are better demagogues, but because they got the support of the media and got promoted, because they got the support of large corporations and banks to massively fund their campaign, because they got the support of the administrative establishment to rig the elections in their favor.
Once elected the candidate has to implement a policy that favors the ones who put him in place. That's the only reason why he got elected!
Coincidentally at the top of media organizations, large corporations, banks and administrative establishment you find the same clique of greedy psychopathic individuals, who are the true rulers of our great Western "democracies" for decades.