Here are a few points worth considering about European socialists:
- GDP per capita is something that doesn’t necessarily depend on the effectiveness of economic policies (which is something to consider when looking blindly at statistics and extrapolating. Finding the external conditions responsible for it is important, because they may not always be present.). Economics is there to help you make the right business decision, but as it turns out, most of the businessmen, in particular those who happen to be brainwashed by socialists continuously, ever since elementary school, happen to be illiterate, when it comes to economics and completely disregard it when making a business decision. So, in my opinion, it’s foolish for Spain and Italy to brag about their GDP per capita. It’s only a matter of time and awareness. What if people actually turn out to be smarter and well versed in economics. Their economic policies are terrible, by the way, just in case you’re still wondering.
- There are reasons why you don’t have GDP per capita as the only statistical measure to look at. That’s because it doesn’t present the whole picture, just like median or mean. Total GDP is also important. As a hypothetical example, if I kill a portion of the unemployed population that depends on social security, the GDP per capita might go up. For investments to be made in a market, it’s important that the population is large enough and growing at a suitable rate, so that businesses can post revenue growth and reinvest it.
- They do brag about GDP per capita, but are still unable to pay for healthcare, which sounds fishy. Is the problem being exaggerated? Are those politicians trying to make people anxious about it (where are the British courts, btw?)? I don’t think that paying a visit to a physician twice or thrice a year is that expensive of a commitment that I’d be willing to pay 60% in taxes instead of just spending it on things that I like or are a business investment for me, attracting more businesses. You only need to have operations when you’re old and it’s a necessity, and for that, you have private insurance. I’m not an expert, but I think that the business model depends on the fact that very few people are going to claim the money before actually paying for it in whole, and in the meantime, the insurance companies invest and grow that wealth. There’s no reason why it should be so expensive, unless the employees themselves are socialists and investing in terrible businesses run by socialists that’s costing a great amount of growth in the industry.
- When people get all of these services from the government itself, employers don’t feel the need to pay more, so it’s not as if they’re ending up being richer as a result of free services. These offerings are designed to help certain rich people at the cost of middle class. For example, if there was no social security in California, do you think that uber would have been able to employ and underpay drivers? Instead of employing them full time, they make the middle class pay for them twice, once directly for their salaries, and once indirectly, when you actually use their services. Higher taxes on rich is never going to be enough to pay for social security, so you might as well stop getting swayed by socialist politicians who claim to increase revenue by taxing businesses and the rich, not to mention that it hurts the investment and increases unemployment, making people poorer. These socialist measures like social security further increases economic inequality against the market forces, which is bad.