Governments that provide more = less ambitious people?

**yesdachi** · 10-11-2005, 23:04

The talk in the “Remember Elian Gonzalez?” thread made me think of a few comments some left wing radio talk show host made the other day. I honestly don’t remember who it was.

Basically a caller dissed the US government for not taking better care of its people and that the US should be more communist or at least more like the Scandinavian countries with a higher quality of living for everyone not just the ones who can afford it.

I can see benefits to incorporating some socialist ideas (is socialist the correct term?) like our Scandinavian friends so the callers comment was not very surprising (the caller even saying “communist” was like cursing to most people thou) but what really caught me off guard was the host’s response. I was expecting a, your right our government should provide more bla bla bla.

Second hand paraphrasing alert – but he basically said that these countries are lazy global freeloaders who don’t add anything to the bettering of the world and that they sit back and live comfortable while taking advantage of other countries advancements while providing nothing in return. He went on to note that he wasn’t just talking about the Scandinavian countries but all the welfare countries out there, pointing at Canada but not saying the name. He was pretty loud about it and it turned into quite a rant. He sounded like a southern preacher talking about the devil, it was kind of amusing.

It’s certainly his opinion

, but what do you think of the idea that countries that provide more for their people are not as ambitious when it comes to participating globally? And are people that are provided with more, less ambitious?

**Sjakihata** · 10-11-2005, 23:18

That's funny. Denmark has just been ranked as #1 trade country. It means the country with the best trade to the world around it. And it's a welfare state.

A lot of danish research is prominent as well; hydrogen pill, advanced cameras to look at the polar ice and many other stuff.

So I dont agree with the host, basically, he hasnt got a clue of what he is talking.

**Tribesman** · 10-11-2005, 23:23

Well to take Scandinavia as an example and looking at the number of innovations and inventions that have come out of that region in comparison to its population size , then it would appear that the radio host was talking rubbish .

**Azi Tohak** · 10-11-2005, 23:48

Originally Posted by yesdachi

It’s certainly his opinion

, but what do you think of the idea that countries that provide more for their people are not as ambitious when it comes to participating globally? And are people that are provided with more, less ambitious?

I think it is true, but of course, as with most anything, only to a point. If you don't have anything at all, you should be foaming at the mouth to obtain more right? Well, look at those who have nothing. But at the same time, many great inventors and thinkers really haven't had to do much after they had their sweet deals, but that kept at it (the Greeks jump to mind, but I am sure there are others too).

In general, yes, I do believe that the less someone has (or what they perceive as less than another) the more ambitious they are. Look at me! And for the counter, my best friend from high school never had to worry about money a day in his life... and he still has no ambition (he is 23 now).

Azi

**Spetulhu** · 10-12-2005, 01:28

Originally Posted by Azi Tohak

In general, yes, I do believe that the less someone has (or what they perceive as less than another) the more ambitious they are.

Up to a point, perhaps. Who has time for ambition when the family needs food and the landlord wants his rent?

**Alexander the Pretty Good** · 10-12-2005, 01:32

Unless the ambition is based on a way to put food on the table and pay the rent in a really big way.

**Azi Tohak** · 10-12-2005, 05:29

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Unless the ambition is based on a way to put food on the table and pay the rent in a really big way.

Or to get enough money to get chicks to sleep with you!

(Seems like that is what most commercials are for doesn't it? Buy this and hot women will have sex with you!)

Azi

**Strike For The South** · 10-12-2005, 05:32

Originally Posted by Azi Tohak

Seems like that is what most commercials are for doesn't it? Buy this and hot women will have sex with you!

Do you have a problem with crushing dreams Azi? I dont care how many phones I have to buy Cathrine Zeta-Jones will be in my bed

**Azi Tohak** · 10-12-2005, 05:34

Originally Posted by strike for the south

Do you have a problem with crushing dreams Azi? I dont care how many phones I have to buy Cathrine Zeta-Jones will be in my bed

Sorry buddy.

Azi

P.S. Shouldn't you be more into Lohan, idiot twins or whatever-the-current-twit-is anyway? Leave the more mature women to the mature men. Like... well... okay so noone from here anyway.

**Papewaio** · 10-12-2005, 07:15

So a free loading nation would be one with a high, low or no national debt?

What is the index of sporting and scientific achievements compared with having a socially responsive government?

I think the radio annoucer is full of it.

**Adrian II** · 10-12-2005, 09:05

Originally Posted by yesdachi

(..) what do you think of the idea that countries that provide more for their people are not as ambitious when it comes to participating globally?

I remember a nation called the Soviet Union where the state provided pretty much everything, yet its global participation was rather marked. So even on the face of it, this claim is nonsense.