The American Left’s Two Europes Problem (minimum wage, suspect, Brown)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe to have a good country you need to
1. Have a sound and limited regulatory framework
2. Limit welfare dependancy
3. Incentivise work
4. Be careful who you let in, and don't hesitate kicking out the ones who are supposed to not be there.
5. Help the poor, especially the children so they have a chance.
6. Prepare for the future, do not have a large deficit, high youth unemployment or too few children.
1. Regulations are only needed in a situation where government granted limited liability is in force and effect. Where there is no limited liability, regulations are superfluous. If you injure someone, you compensate them. If you deliberately injure someone, you are punished. Simple.
2. Zero public charity (paid for with compulsory taxation). Voluntary charity (private) is fine.
3. Stop penalizing productive people and industry while subsidizing non-producers.
4. Without public charity, and intrusive government, immigration may not be a problem.
5. No public funds to be distributed to charity. It is not the function of government to rob one for the benefit of another.
6. Encourage prosperity - the creation, trade and enjoyment of surplus usable goods and services. Shun or eradicate usury. Non-producers will have to become productive or find private charity funded by those who have generated prodigious surpluses - they can afford to share.
What the article is about is how the left cherry pick a few countries, and use them as a showcase for social democracy. We are saying that you need to include all of Europe that is social democratic. If you do, then you will find that the poverty rate is higher, and the standard of living is lower in Europe.
I have been to Europe. Not a single country in Europe (or any first world country for that matter) has the level of extreme poverty the U.S. has. Walk through Berlin, Paris and Rome and then walk through Los Angeles, New York and Chicago. It is not even close.
Not true Please read the article and you will see this diagram.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
Not true at all. For example, both Italy and Greece spend more than Germany as a percent of GDP.
I don't think you've thought through that...sometimes when you read an article on either side of the political spectrum, it can be wise to sit down and have a think. About what the article wants you to think and if it is honest in getting you there.
See, Norway has a GDP of about $ 55 000. The Greek GDP is about $ 27 000. Thats PPP, which means they are adjusted for the difference in cost of living. So if both Norway and Greece spend the same percentage of GDP on social spending, Norway is doing twice as much, welfare-wise. Bigger payouts, more rights, more coverage, twice as much across the board.
Thats what the article is actually showing. It just put up a graph thats shows equal amounts of GDP spent because it thinks you'll fall for it. Basically, it is proceeding on the assumption that anyone in its target group is too stupid to understand what "percentage of GDP" actually means.
Lets look at how social spending really compares, shall we? This graph shows actual money spent, after adjusting for cost of living.
Source: British Medical Journal. (Who really doesn't have a dog in this fight) We're not really interested in the mortality axis, but the spending...Notice the groupings there? Lowest spending in western Europe: Portugal, Greece, Spain, Ireland. Familliar names? Mid-level spending: UK, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, France, Finland. High spending: Austria, Luxembourg, Sweden and Denmark.
Now these numbers are from 2000, they are just easily graphed. For a more detailed look at the numbers, see this. Notice how America is just behind Italy on social spending? Note how the internal ranking remains roughly constant, with the PIGS on the low end of spending, and the strong economies on the high end?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
Worst argument ever. Conservatives are not using Rhode Island and comparing it to Europe.
Nor is the left in Europe comparing Rhode Island to Alabama. Why do you think that is? It is excatly the same argument as the one the article tries to make.
It is because they've learned that they get laughed at if they do.
I have been to Europe. Not a single country in Europe (or any first world country for that matter) has the level of extreme poverty the U.S. has. Walk through Berlin, Paris and Rome and then walk through Los Angeles, New York and Chicago. It is not even close.
Sounds like you just stuck to the tourist areas and the middle class neighborhoods and thought that's what the whole city looks like
I can. Singapore and Hong Kong are pretty successful. Also, America was successful, and still is doing well compared to Europe.
But I am not really in favor of pure capitalism. I prefer the Australian/New Zealand model, who beats the America in economic freedom, but do have universal health care. However, for instance Australia has lower government spending, national right to work law, incentivese rich people to get private health insurance while covering the rest, and their regulatory climate is better.
Don't you think capitalism is easier in small areas?
Singapore and Hong Kong are the size of what?
With what population?
Singapore 273 sq miles
Population 5,183,700 (of whom 3,257,000 are Singapore citizens)
Hong Kong 426 sq miles
Population 7,061,200.
HK is also part of China.
Sounds like you just stuck to the tourist areas and the middle class neighborhoods and thought that's what the whole city looks like
Truth is, "poverty" is a very, very wide concept. The family of four who lives paycheck to paycheck and sometimes have to borrow from the grandparents to make ends meet is poor. The guys who live under bridges are poor.
Mostly, poor people are better off in western Europe. Many countries, you won't find poverty like the worst in America. People living on the street involuntarily, etc. But in some countries in Europe you do.
You can't lose your healthcare in western Europe. Thats huge for some levels of poor people.
Truth is, "poverty" is a very, very wide concept. The family of four who lives paycheck to paycheck and sometimes have to borrow from the grandparents to make ends meet is poor. The guys who live under bridges are poor.
Mostly, poor people are better off in western Europe. Many countries, you won't find poverty like the worst in America. People living on the street involuntarily, etc. But in some countries in Europe you do.
You can't lose your healthcare in western Europe. Thats huge for some levels of poor people.
But to indigenously say that only the U.S. has extreme contrasts of poverty is wrong. Paris is well-known to harbor extreme poverty stricken suburbs that look like warzones, eastern Europe still looks like a typical developing nation, especially outside the capitals, and an example that everyone overlooks is nanny-state Britain. ONe of the more generous welfare states of western Europe, has the worst cities in Europe, according to the UN: Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, and Glasgow. Parts of Glasgow is known to have the lowest life expectancy of Europe, rivaled only by Iraq and the Gaza Strip
Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, and Glasgow. Parts of Glasgow is known to have the lowest life expectancy of Europe, rivaled only by Iraq and the Gaza Strip
So Iraq and the Gaza Strip are part of Europe? You just gotta love the righties on here.
Last edited by Whateverhere; 03-11-2012 at 05:05 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.