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.
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?
I feel cheated! I guess I would identify as a liberal, but I don't think there is some position that "liberals" must automatically take on an issue, just as many people who are popularly lumped in the "conservative" category have a variety of views on different things. There are a lot of stereotypes that serve no one well...although, often the stereotypes are true, which is why they became stereotypes in the first place.
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?
Well, to start with, Krugman is an idiot with a big government agenda. There is no problem that he thinks doesn't need a big government solution. Krugman is a big government advocate and seeks out anecdotes to support his agenda.
Then these Big Government advocates ignore the most important facts when comparing countries; demographics. If you had 4 million Swedes in a US state, they would have the same success as in Sweden. In other words, it's the people, not the social programs of their government, that determine the successful outcome of the country.
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?
Paul Krugman proves that this really isn’t hard to disprove.
Quote:
Take government spending as a percentage of GDP from the IMF Fiscal Monitor (I use 2009 for Ireland because 2010 is distorted by bank bailouts), and October 10-year interest rates from the ECB. Plot them, and here’s what you get:
There’s no relationship; some high-spending countries, notably Sweden and Denmark, have very low rates, while as Dean says, Spain was a relatively low spender.
Of course, like all the zombie concepts littering our discourse, this one will be impossible to kill.
03-10-2012, 09:18 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Not true Please read the article and you will see this diagram.
Why do right wingers get such a kick out of telling someone they're wrong, then using a different statistic to "prove" it?
Paul Krugman proves that this really isn’t hard to check.
I never said that Europe's woes were caused by a welfare state. It is mostly caused by the EU, budget deficits and a complete illusion of reality in 2009-2010.
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 never said that Europe's woes were caused by a welfare state. It is mostly caused by the EU, budget deficits and a complete illusion of reality in 2009-2010.
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.
Oh really? Read your first sentence in post #1:
Quote:
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.
Where your theory fails is that Spain (in southern Europe) has low spending and the really big social welfare countries are doing just fine. (Just look at the chart.)
Why do right wingers get such a kick out of telling someone they're wrong, then using a different statistic to "prove" it?
He talked about welfare, and then I used to best statistics to show how much each country spend on welfare. In most countries we consider welfare to include health services, benefits, housing, employment, etc.
I don't know what statistics he is using, but you can not look at benefits by itself, because in the US you are given money for health care, while in other countries it is universal, but there is no difference.
If he looked at costs not adjusted for the GDP, then he is just dumb. But the GDP of the north is not 3 times higher anyway.
Oh really? Read your first sentence in post #1:
Where your theory fails is that Spain (in southern Europe) has low spending and and the really big social welfare countries are doing just fine.
Not really. First off Spain does not have that low government spending. Nor does the US anymore.
Secondly, the regulatory climate in Spain has been absolutely terrible. I said a government with limited sensible regulation is needed. Spain was completely overegulated.
Thirdly, Spain build up a massive housing bobble, with the governments help. I said that you need to have policies that prepare you for the future.
Fourthly, Spain is not doing that badly. They are fixing up their regulatory mess, their finances are getting under control. Their debt level is lower than for instance Germany.
But you are ignoring the point of the article, to compare one country against one other country won't work, because other factors such as culture determine how well you do. The best way to compare is to compare the average. On average, European social democratic countries are not doing better than the US. Not in terms of poverty, not in terms of standard of living.
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.
