> the EU’s healthcare system was working well compared to North America
I think it's "working well" in the sense that "sudden illness won't bankrupt you" but not "working well" in the sense that "you might have to wait two years to get a new hip" (which I believe is the current waiting time in the UK.)
The capitalist European governments that are being elected are privatizing healthcare. The first step for doing that is defunding public healthcare to make people say that 'it doesnt work - its better in private hospitals'. Then you say you have to privatize the entire system. It also funnels people to private hospitals early - when you defund public healthcare and force people into long wait times, they have no option but to go to private hospitals.
Most affluent European nations have seen net negative economic growth for the past 15-20 years, and in some cases for a generation (France and Britain).
Now they're commonly seeing population contraction or flattening.
They already have high taxes.
They're in deep shit and it has little to do with Capitalists taking over their healthcare systems. The math was always going to take them here. Only per capita economic growth to offset the aging and population shrinkage can save them, short of epic scale high income immigration.
30 years ago Germany's GDP per capita was ~$26,500. That's $57,000 inflation adjusted. The projected GDP per capita for Germany in 2022 is $48,000.
30 years ago France's GDP per capita was ~$23,800. That's $51,300 inflation adjusted. The projected GDP per capita for France in 2022 is $42,330.
30 years ago the UK's GDP per capita was ~$20,500. That's $44,200 inflation adjusted. The projected GDP per capita for the UK in 2022 is $47,300.
30 years to end up with a net contraction or otherwise close to flat. And these are supposedly the economic giants of Europe. In some cases it's even worse than it seems per capita, as eg France has added nine million people in that time; the UK has added ten million people.
The same scenario is playing out for nearly all the affluent European nations.
As the World Bank dataset shows, Germany has in fact had GDP per capita growth - the 26500 figure you cite is in 2015 dollars, so it is already adjusted for inflation. GDP growth is never reported in nominal terms, but always in real terms, which is adjusted for inflation.
This is the best summary of what’s happening with the demographic bomb that is occurring in every developed country. It’s even starting to hit developing countries.
> Most affluent European nations have seen net negative economic growth for the past 15-20 years, and in some cases for a generation (France and Britain).
Economic growth is a meaningless term in itself. There was so much growth in the US, and what did it do for the majority? A tiny ~1% or less got extremely rich. But the majority are not able to feed themselves.
> They're in deep shit and it has little to do with Capitalists taking over their healthcare systems.
The capitalists took over the economy of entire Europe starting with Thatcher/Reagan.
> The math was always going to take them here
This sounds like religious sermon. There is a magical 'math', which makes everyone happy when there is 'growth'. Like how it obviously did in the US.
...
That has nothing to do with it. Growth, or contraction, has nothing to do with people having public healthcare since public healthcare is run over the fraction of the GDP that people generate. If there are less people, there is less GDP, but less need for healthcare. If there are more people, you need more healthcare spending but there are more people that generate GDP.
Its capitalism. Unequal distribution of wealth can never be sustained even with gigantic growth. Like the US demonstrated since Reagan.
Two things are at play, the capitalists, and the nationalists that make everything for what would be new European citzens to be shoved away, people that could be paying for those taxes instead of caged in some camps waiting years for their future.
Finite resources don’t disappear when you change economic systems, and neither does corruption. To me, what changes with different economic systems is the currency. With capitalist systems, currency is obvious. However in socialist systems, the currency tends to be political power and connections. Otherwise, you’ll have to wait in lines just like everyone else.
Neither system is perfect and they both have pros and cons
> However in socialist systems, the currency tends to be political power and connections.
That's objectively false and its a perception that is based on the Angloamerican cold war propaganda.
With all the 'power and influence', the 'elites' of Eastern Bloc did not live so much more in luxury compared to their own people.
If an ordinary person got his house at the age of ~35, a party official got it a few years earlier. If an ordinary person drived an X years old car, the official drove a 4-5 year newer car.
The catch is, all the citizens in the Eastern Bloc systems got their houses, cars, guaranteed jobs, education, healthcare, childcare, paid vacations, paid maternity leave, retirement and all that stuff.
They were very surprised when they changed to capitalism and learned that none of those were guaranteed under capitalism. Now they have so much freedom.
> With all the 'power and influence', the 'elites' of Eastern Bloc did not live so much more in luxury compared to their own people. If an ordinary person got his house at the age of ~35, a party official got it a few years earlier. If an ordinary person drived an X years old car, the official drove a 4-5 year newer car.
You’ve contradicted yourself in the same comment.
Besides what you wrote doesn’t fully reflect reality
Power is much more centralized in socialist systems. Consequently, corruption spreads much faster compared to more decentralized systems like capitalism. The end results is everyone is equally poor except for high level government officials.
> Power is much more centralized in socialist systems. Consequently, corruption spreads much faster compared to more decentralized systems like capitalism
Those are religious statements without any sound basis. In a capitalist system corruption is normalized in the form of the 'freedom of the property owner to do whatever he wants with his property' and 'election funding'.
> The end results is everyone is equally poor except for high level government officials.
Which contradicts the reality. The US is not at war. Nobody is sanctioning the US. Nobody is conducting economic warfare against the US. The US sat at the top of the world's economic system uncontested for the last 30 years. And that is the result.
> There is absolutely no practical difference in between driving a car that came out last year and driving a 5 year old car.
Newer cars weren’t the only thing socialist kleptocrats were found to be hoarding. They had all sorts of luxury goods from the West ranging from fashion, jewelry, and even food.
I don’t deny that late stage capitalism will happen or is happening as we speak, but socialism isn’t immune to corruption either. Late stage socialism also happens much sooner than late stage capitalism because power is so much more concentrated in socialist systems. We know this because we’ve had plenty of failed socialism experiments in the 20th century
> Those are religious statements without any sound basis
It’s ironic that you’d write this when you never offer solid facts yourself despite other commenters requesting that you provide data. My data is more valid than your little anecdotes
