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.
The left likes to evaluate the European welfare state by cherry-picking the 3-4 most successful examples. This obscures the failure of larger welfare states in southern Europe.
Tino Sanandaji family came as asylum seekers from Iran, who moved to Sweden. He moved later to the US to do a Post-Doc in economics for University of Chicago. He wrote this article, please read it because that is what this topic is about. Also its really good.
Question is, do the left use a few countries as a showcase for social democracy, but ignoring other big government countries without successful outcomes. The left will say that only the countries in the north is social democratic, but then their policies should be different.
Do you agree with his article, and why do you think same policies lead to very different outcomes? How do you think the US will perform, like Scandinavia, like Italy or somewhere in between?
Notice the libs arne't touching this with a 10 foot pole? The Krugites and Kleinites on this forum also dismiss 3/4 of Europe while they say that the U.S. is inferior to "Europe" and that "Europe" is the so-called Promised Land for most liberals. The Europe they refer to is always the homogenous white, small population, Germanic one. Where's Romantic/Hellenic/Slavic Europe?
The left likes to evaluate the European welfare state by cherry-picking the 3-4 most successful examples. This obscures the failure of larger welfare states in southern Europe.
How about giving us by comparison some examples of where capitalist countries are successful.
The left likes to evaluate the European welfare state by cherry-picking the 3-4 most successful examples. This obscures the failure of larger welfare states in southern Europe.
As a point of information: The more expansive welfare states are in Northern Europe. The Germanics/Nordics spend up to 3 times as much per person in welfare as southern Europe. The USA is a bit south of the middle.
The southern European states run a US-inspired model of low welfare, low mnimum wages, and often loan-financed deficits in the budget. Italy spends about the same per person in welfare as the US. Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Greece spend less.
As for the aricle...meh. If the European left were to write an article about "The conservatives two-Americas problem" going into the differences between Alabama and Rhode Island, or Loisiana and Connecticut, it'd be much the same thing.
Nations that run a budget surplus do well, and can spend money on welfare if they want. Nations that run deficits covered by loans run into trouble down the road. Thats actually even more fundamental than the left/right divide.
Interesting article, some relevancy to America and ethics
This is a long quote from the article linked by the OP, but I think it captures the essence of the situation (selections bolded by me):
Quote:
It is easier to lower poverty through social insurance programs in countries where pro-societal norms limit abuse. When a generous welfare state was initially built in Scandinavia, the rates of welfare dependency remained low. In cultures with strong social control it was a stigma to exploit the public. Over time, however, ever more generous benefits and lax controls undermined the foundation of the welfare state even in Scandinavia. Thus, in 1970, an estimated 11 percent of Swedes lived off government welfare rather than working, while in the mid-2000s the figure had doubled to 22 percent. Norms for work and against exploiting public programs were taken for granted by social scientists from both Marxist and liberal traditions. They therefore did not anticipate that generous entitlements would eventually eat away at social capital accumulated over centuries. More than globalization, I suspect it was the gradual erosion of norms that eventually forced the welfare state in northern Europe to retreat. The challenge of redistributing income without disincentivizing work was even greater in southern Europe. Employment and hours worked appear to have reacted more aversely to the expansion of the welfare state and rising taxes in southern than northern Europe. Today in southern Italy, half the working age population doesn’t work. Constantly.
I'm left with a perception that the argument is not against the existence of a mere "welfare state" but a "too generous welfare state", where generous is defined by the high tide of Nordic welfare. This makes sense to me, as the author noted, it is a challenge to redistribute income without disincentivizing work, and the Nordic countries eventually scaled back their welfare systems so they are now less generous with stricter controls, but, clearly, are still fairly generous if the U.S. is used as a baseline.
So where does the U.S. fall? My guess is the U.S. population is, on the whole, more ethically similar to Southern European countries like Greece, Italy, and Spain than it is to Sweden, Denmark, or even Germany. Even with the limited scale welfare system in place in the U.S. there are many people who take advantage of it and many more who would if they could. The higher earning individuals in the U.S. would be more averse to paying full taxes if the rates were higher, just like their counterparts in Southern Europe.
The lasting impression I get is that for a country to have a semi-generous welfare system it must strike the correct balance among benefits, restrictions and the work ethic and tax compliance of the entire population. Thrift, hard work, and solidarity are not as common in America as they would need to be for us to have a workable welfare system like Sweden's - it would implode like Greece's.
The left likes to evaluate the European welfare state by cherry-picking the 3-4 most successful examples. This obscures the failure of larger welfare states in southern Europe.
Tino Sanandaji family came as asylum seekers from Iran, who moved to Sweden. He moved later to the US to do a Post-Doc in economics for University of Chicago. He wrote this article, please read it because that is what this topic is about. Also its really good.
Question is, do the left use a few countries as a showcase for social democracy, but ignoring other big government countries without successful outcomes. The left will say that only the countries in the north is social democratic, but then their policies should be different.
Do you agree with his article, and why do you think same policies lead to very different outcomes? How do you think the US will perform, like Scandinavia, like Italy or somewhere in between?
If it succeeded in even one place, it shows that it can be done. Conservatives are opposed to "big government" in principle, claiming it yields bad results always (which reality shows not to be true).
The real question is if the US is capable of managing such an enormous project. Here I am more skeptical:
1) We don't have the infrastructure and the tradition of "government" as leader.
2) From the beginning, people will fight over how it should be done, and it will start with crippling compromises from day one.
3) Expectations on both sides will be wild and irrational. Nobody will give it the time it deserves. We want results now.
4) Corruption will plague the system.
Notice the libs arne't touching this with a 10 foot pole? The Krugites and Kleinites on this forum also dismiss 3/4 of Europe while they say that the U.S. is inferior to "Europe" and that "Europe" is the so-called Promised Land for most liberals. The Europe they refer to is always the homogenous white, small population, Germanic one. Where's Romantic/Hellenic/Slavic Europe?
So true. Liberals have built a picture of Europe, that is not based on reality. What I am doing is to show that the Scandinavian model, do not always lead to scandinavian outcomes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl
The American Enterprise Institute - got anything not completely biased?
Really... I can't possibly take this seriously.
Its not the The American Enterprise Institute who wrote it, but you need to use conservative sites. Liberal sites would never accept a good conservative article. They would only allow a conservative article if it is really terrible. I know, I have been working for a major liberal party, and remembered how they found the worst conservative articles to laugh at them, and look like they were reading both sides.
Read the article. You do not have to have any trust in it. The arguments make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101
How about giving us by comparison some examples of where capitalist countries are successful.
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.
As a point of information: The more expansive welfare states are in Northern Europe. The Germanics/Nordics spend up to 3 times as much per person in welfare as southern Europe. The USA is a bit south of the middle.
Not true Please read the article and you will see this diagram.
Quote:
As for the aricle...meh. If the European left were to write an article about "The conservatives two-Americas problem" going into the differences between Alabama and Rhode Island, or Loisiana and Connecticut, it'd be much the same thing.
Worst argument ever. Conservatives are not using Rhode Island and comparing it to Europe.
If you mean that capitalism lead to different outcomes as well, then that is true. What you need to do is to compare the average, and Europe is not doing better. Europe has more poverty, and a lower standard of living.
Quote:
Nations that run a budget surplus do well, and can spend money on welfare if they want. Nations that run deficits covered by loans run into trouble down the road. Thats actually even more fundamental than the left/right divide.
Italy was running deficits like Germany and Spain had surpluses. Its not just about the deficit. 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.
The reason countries tend to fail is because they do neither.
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.
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.
Interesting article, some relevancy to America and ethics
