> Low unemployment, high gdp per capita, high household income, high human development index rating, etc.
Not true, real unemployment (ie including homeless people, people that are unable to work, etc.) is quite high and rising. Many people are just completely excluded from the 'official' unemployment statistics. Mean GDP per capita is fairly high BUT median, which is a much more important metric of wealth inequality, is quite low and decreasing relative to mean. Not sure why you listed household income and GDP per capita as different things even though they are basically the same for this purpose... and high human development index says nothing about revolt, in fact higher educated and well-read people that are economically disenfranchised tend to be more outspoken and interested in the wealth gap.
> And not because of "the rich" but because the feel good socialism they can't pay for is destroying a generation of wealth, work, and prosperity.
80% of the American public is essentially completely politically disenfranchised, for most people in the US the net income adjusted for inflation and increasing costs is decreasing.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...
> And not because of "the rich" but because the feel good socialism they can't pay for is destroying a generation of wealth, work, and prosperity.
Greece and Spain are far from 'feel good socialism' compared to countries that are much closer such as Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, where quality of life and happiness is regularly rated as higher than the US.
> Gee, maybe low regulatory environments, easy access to investment cash, entrepreneur culture, freedom of speech, honest elections, a real judiciary, capital protections, etc matter to an economy? Naww, keep ignoring the facts.
Literally none of those things conflicts with socialism, socialism actually helps many of those things. But I guess you heard the good ol 'socialism bad hurr durr' on fox news or whatever and suddenly feel that is a basis to justify your misguided beliefs.
> Gee, maybe low regulatory environments
Yeah, that worked out magnificently in 2008.
Not true, real unemployment (ie including homeless people, people that are unable to work, etc.) is quite high and rising. Many people are just completely excluded from the 'official' unemployment statistics. Mean GDP per capita is fairly high BUT median, which is a much more important metric of wealth inequality, is quite low and decreasing relative to mean. Not sure why you listed household income and GDP per capita as different things even though they are basically the same for this purpose... and high human development index says nothing about revolt, in fact higher educated and well-read people that are economically disenfranchised tend to be more outspoken and interested in the wealth gap.
> And not because of "the rich" but because the feel good socialism they can't pay for is destroying a generation of wealth, work, and prosperity.
80% of the American public is essentially completely politically disenfranchised, for most people in the US the net income adjusted for inflation and increasing costs is decreasing.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...
> And not because of "the rich" but because the feel good socialism they can't pay for is destroying a generation of wealth, work, and prosperity.
Greece and Spain are far from 'feel good socialism' compared to countries that are much closer such as Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, where quality of life and happiness is regularly rated as higher than the US.
> Gee, maybe low regulatory environments, easy access to investment cash, entrepreneur culture, freedom of speech, honest elections, a real judiciary, capital protections, etc matter to an economy? Naww, keep ignoring the facts.
Literally none of those things conflicts with socialism, socialism actually helps many of those things. But I guess you heard the good ol 'socialism bad hurr durr' on fox news or whatever and suddenly feel that is a basis to justify your misguided beliefs.
> Gee, maybe low regulatory environments
Yeah, that worked out magnificently in 2008.