[quote]rainjack wrote:
If The Economist’s numbers are so wrong - it would not be hard to refute, right?
After your partisan titty-fit, I think your word is a little suspect right now.
But that’s just me. [/quote]
Suspect is exactly right.
Read the PDF - it is illuminating. It explains how the Economist measures its own Quality of Life Index. Then it gives its updated list.
None of Sweden’s statistics that I posted were addressed nor contradicted by the PDF.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Europe, much like the US, cycles between left and right – and for the same reasons: when people get comfortable – they have all their most basic needs met – they start getting greedy and so they vote for whoever promises them more money so they can buy their brand spanking new BMW.
The right then comes in, widens the gap between the poor and the rich, and a few years later the poor majority eventually starts getting upset and puts the left back in power. Then the left increases benefits, sends everybody towards the middle class, people get comfortable – and the cycle restarts.
[/quote]
So, as an upper middle class person (I’m not, but for the sake of argument), if I vote for a politician who promises to take less of my money (that is, after all, exactly what a tax cut is), that’s just me being greedy; however, if the “poor” vote themselves money from the public coffers–money taken out of my pocket–they’re what?–taking what’s rightfully theirs? Well, that a cycle exists, I have no doubt, but I must say, I think your discription of it is off…I prefer Sir Alex Fraser Tytler’s:
When citizens (rich or otherwise) vote for politicians promising tax cuts, they aren’t voting for “whoever promises them more money,” as you put it. They are voting to keep more of their own money–there is nothing greedy or wrong with that.
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
When citizens (rich or otherwise) vote for politicians promising tax cuts, they aren’t voting for “whoever promises them more money,” as you put it. They are voting to keep more of their own money–there is nothing greedy or wrong with that.[/quote]
Well, you could call it something else – ignorant.
As I’ve explained half a dozen times before, they might be keeping more of their money in numerical terms, but their money will also have less value – because inflation will result. So they don’t really get to keep their money, it’s just that their money is worth less hence they get to keep the exact same net worth – so you get the worst of all worlds.
Look, I’m not going to argue the morality of taxes, or of taking from the rich to give to the poor. That is a discussion that is never going to end well, and it’s not what I do for a living. I’m just arguing the mechanics of it; and the fact remains that any way you see it, lowering taxes is a bad idea in real-world cases, because it will always come back to bite us, either economically (with inflation, like what happened in the US) or socially (with public unrest).
Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, I must add that it also results that, in a low-inflation period, increasing taxes is equally a bad idea: if inflation is low, taking money away from the economy will cause a recession. But unless you can point me to a politician that actually did that, it’s a straw man to accuse Social Democrats of ever proposing it, or even doing it. If they did, I?d be the first guy to call them up and read them the riot act.
Basically, what works is:
– Raising taxes in high inflation periods (like now)
– Maintaining taxes in low inflation periods (like Clinton did)
– Reducing taxes in deflationary periods (purely theoretical at this point, since the odds of us going through deflation in the future are statistically insignificant)
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
None of Sweden’s statistics that I posted were addressed nor contradicted by the PDF.[/quote]
You’re still missing my point – while making it.
Let me be clearer. The point is: the stats you posted mean nothing outside very specific contexts. The Economist itself doesn’t attach any value to those statistics, or they would have made them part of the QOL index, something they constantly boast as being the ultimate measure of success of a country and its government.
I’m pretty sure everyone around here got that several posts ago, but the chip you have surgically attached to your shoulder clearly is clouding your analytical skills.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Look, I’m not going to argue the morality of taxes, or of taking from the rich to give to the poor. That is a discussion that is never going to end well, and it’s not what I do for a living.[/quote]
If that’s the case, so be it; however, if you don’t want to have a moral debate about taxation, don’t frame your argument in moral terms. You said, of those voting for lower taxes, “they start getting greedy.” Did you not? A selfish desire for wealth–an immoral quality, no? Sure sounds like you were making a moral argument.
p.s. You’re a Keynesian, I take it?
From the WSJ Europe:
Thatcherite Sweden
September 19, 2006
Europe’s left likes to hold up the “Swedish Model” as the perfect amalgam of capitalism and socialism. But even in its home country, paying punishing taxes to finance a generous welfare state isn’t that popular anymore, as Sunday’s elections show. The Swedish Social Democrats had their worst result since 1914, as Fredrik Reinfeldt and his four-party center-right Alliance ousted incumbent Prime Minister G?ran Persson. The Alliance garnered 47.8% of the votes while the Social Democrats and their allies gained 46.4%.
Some commentators attribute the Alliance victory to voter fatigue. But whatever the liability of being the eternal incumbent may have been, the Social Democrats’ iron grip on the state, developed over decades in power, was also a formidable asset in the campaign. The party’s ties to the media and unions gave it an edge over its rivals, which the Alliance still managed to overcome.
No, if there was voter fatigue, it had at least as much to do with the message as with the messenger. The Social Democrats advocated the further expansion of the country’s already expansive welfare state. The Alliance offered reforms. Mr. Reinfeldt didn’t suggest abolishing the Swedish Model; rather, he promised to ensure its survival by promoting jobs over government handouts. The Alliance plans to reduce income taxes for Swedes with low salaries, scrap the 1.5% wealth tax, cut unemployment aid, reduce the social charges for employers and sell the state’s remaining stakes in listed companies.
“Never before in modern Swedish history has the center-right managed to win an election when there hasn’t been an economic crisis in the country,” Dagens Nyheter, Sweden’s largest daily, editorialized yesterday. The paper doesn’t seem to realize that when you scratch the surface of Sweden’s impressive economic data, the country is courting trouble.
Particularly worrisome is the labor market. Unemployment is officially around 5% but include those on job training programs, early retirement and sick leave, and the figure soars to about 17%, according to McKinsey. Mr. Reinfeldt argued that if you add in Swedes on some form of government handout and those who want to work but can’t find a full-time job, the unemployment figure is closer to 40%. If that’s not a crisis, then the Dagens Nyheter editors need to leave their offices more often. We recommend a trip to the suburbs of Stockholm, where many unemployed immigrants live under conditions not unlike those that led to weeks of riots in France last year.
So in the end, tax cuts and jobs turned out more appealing to Swedes – albeit narrowly – than more government largesse. The Alliance scored particularly well among the young, whose unemployment rate is 25.9%. It appears that the prospect of spending one’s life on the dole, no matter how generous those welfare payments may be, is not every young Swede’s dream. If those actually living under the much-vaunted Swedish Model opt for change, there is hope for the rest of Europe.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Let me be clearer. The point is: the stats you posted mean nothing outside very specific contexts. [/quote]
Exactly right - which is why I put them in my own little context to discuss with people on this forum who aren’t rabid Social Democratic Evangelicals. I raised the stats as a discussion point within the given subject.
Ta da!
That was exactly my point - I merely grabbed the numbers from the Economist, I was not using any analysis of the statistics that the Economist did. Had I grabbed the exact same statistics from, say, the OECD website, I would have had the exact same post.
You, however, have your leg caught in a bear trap - you ridiculously went off on a shrill straw man tangent about your dislike for the Economist, when the Economist or its use of statistics or its QOL index were not at issue. Ever.
Trying to ice skate uphill and avoid saying ‘oops!’ has become your signature. So much pride. Still acting like that fussy spoiled 13 year old. who throws a tantrum when someone tells him he is in error.
What the Economist does with these statistics is its own business - and it is completely irrelevant to my use of them the statistics. I merely said that is where I got the information from.
And this has become a little embarrassing. A published professor, who dabbles in economics, can’t even get this right?
What the Economist does with the statistics has - wait for it - nothing to do with my point. I could have gotten the stats from OECD, an article in the Guardian, or from Rush Limbaugh’s site.
Only one question - are the statistics wrong? You haven’t said. That would be directly on point. You haven’t disputed the statistics - you have only tried to blow smokescreen about what the Economist does with the stats, and how the Economist is right wing garbage, blah blah blah.
If you merely reversed the political labels and argued the same way against a left wing magazine - you would be characterized right wing idiot cheerleader. You should listen to yourself - you are the mirror of that which you claim to despise.
You claim to have an appreciation for cold, hard, unemotional math - yet you have gone off the deep end trying to suggest my use of the Economist was somehow suspect. Considering the academic credentials you shove in our face, and I mean this with no tinge of personal attack or insult - I am simply amazed you made this error and continue to defend it. Seriously.
[quote]I’m pretty sure everyone around here got that several posts ago, but the chip you have surgically attached to your shoulder clearly is clouding your analytical skills.
[/quote]
It is not a chip to defend what is easily defendible when the attacker has replaced Reason with his manic Fundamentalism. If anyone has a chip, it is you - blatantly demonstrated by your refusal to admit you blew this one…and bad.
Given Hspder’s embarrassing jibberish and abuse of the straw man fallacy, I am actually embarrassed for him.
Being a charitable adversary, I’m not about to Leave No Tenured Professor Behind, and as such, I have posted a reasonably close to the Bay Area community college that offers courses in basic logic:
http://www.contracosta.cc.ca.us/departments/phil_summary.htm
This looks like a good match:
PHILO 130- Introduction to Critical Thinking
3 units: 3 hours lecture, SC, DG
This course is intended to help students develop means for evaluating the conflicting claims to truth by identifying common fallacies and characteristics of reliable thinking, by practicing analysis of arguments, and by clarifying arguments on both sides of some current issues they wish to examine.
Or, there are online classes for the busy dilettante.
Anyway, no one should have to suffer the shame of being presented with Argument A and then erroneously constructing Argument B only to attack Argument B.
Let us know how you do, aye, Hspder?
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
If that’s the case, so be it; however, if you don’t want to have a moral debate about taxation, don’t frame your argument in moral terms. You said, of those voting for lower taxes, “they start getting greedy.” Did you not? A selfish desire for wealth–an immoral quality, no? Sure sounds like you were making a moral argument.[/quote]
I wasn’t framing my argument in moral terms at all.
Only religion frames greed that way – and I’m an atheist. I don’t think greed is immoral at all. Neither is selfish desire for wealth (which is slightly different). In fact, there are very, very few things I find immoral beyond acts of physical violence.
By definition, capitalism enshrines “selfish desire for wealth”. It’s at its very core, it works DUE to it. If you accept that selfish desire for wealth is immoral you accept that capitalism is fundamentally immoral.
I do believe is in collectivism, and in that distributing wealth is what is in the best self-interest of everyone; that ENLIGHTENED self-interest should embrace socialist principles – for purely selfish reasons, since it increases quality of life for everyone.
It is not about morality – it is about enlightenment.
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
p.s. You’re a Keynesian, I take it?[/quote]
Yes, absolutely.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
It is not a chip to defend what is easily defendible when the attacker has replaced Reason with his manic Fundamentalism. If anyone has a chip, it is you - blatantly demonstrated by your refusal to admit you blew this one…and bad.[/quote]
Although I was trying to provoke some rage, I didn’t expect you to fall off the deep end… I mean, nobody is really worth a tirade that long. A part of me is flattered that you took so much time insulting me (I must be really good!), but a simple “You’re an idiot. I shall fart in your general direction.” usually suffices, you know.
Rainjack is pretty good at it, you should take lessons from him (by the way, if I ever meet rainjack, I have the sneaky feeling we’d become best friends in about 1 minute). Then again, rainjack has a sense of humor, something you clearly lack.
So, get some help. You’re making Headhunter look sane – and even he admits he’s a little crazy.
Seriously.
The whole idea of redistributing wealth for the benefit of society sounds like one of those good intentions that leads to hell.
The whole idea of a Big Brother style of government means giving up freedom so others can think for you. The nanny state also has the problem of rewarding laziness.
China tried to produce the perfect socialist dream, and gave everyone the exact same pay, regardless of what work they did, and whether or not they even worked at all. What happened? A third of the population immediately quit their jobs.
The whole idea of socialism is that people are unable to think for themselves, and therefore must have people think for them. But who has the capability to think for others?
Yes we want to help people move up the rung of society. We want the sick to be taken care of, and the hungry get fed. But we should not do it in a way that is codependent. We have to make sure we are helping people, and not rewarding bad behavior. The last I knew, the single biggest single expense of welfare was preventing fraud.
Governments are big wasters of money. Anytime the government gets involved with anything, the results are beurocrocy. They can do anything in twice the time, and only four times the cost that anyone else can.
If people have problems in their lives, they should take a hard look at themselves, instead of trying to use the government as a scapegoat to blame, and solve all their problems.
Now as far as the quality of life thing, not important. Creating a simple score for the quality of life is very hard to do. If you look at the score for America, it says that last year we were #2. But again, only based on that score. Anyone notice their quality of lived drop dramatically from 2004? I haven’t.
Although next year is looking pretty good for us. Because of the wonderful government? No, because I am finally paying off a shitload of debt. Now imagine if the Federal Government spent the next 5 years cutting it’s budget, and paying down the debt? But that takes fiscal responsibility, and I know of no politician, Democrat or Republican, who is interested in that.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
The whole idea of redistributing wealth for the benefit of society sounds like one of those good intentions that leads to hell.[/quote]
Sweden has been a welfare-state for half a century now. You don’t like the idea and thats ok, but it is a bit stretched to claim, that swedes are on their way to hell.
If you are satisfied with the bare minimum - shelter, food and second-hand clothes - yes you can live like that. The majority of people yearn for more and for that you have to work. Not that salary work makes anybody rich. You have to take risks as an entrepeneur to achieve that, welfare or no welfare.
[quote]China tried to produce the perfect socialist dream, and gave everyone the exact same pay, regardless of what work they did, and whether or not they even worked at all. What happened? A third of the population immediately quit their jobs.
[/quote]
Are you comparing Sweden to China? You may be unaware of it, but Swedens model don’t resemble that of communist China.
You don’t like welfare-states, ok, but please, find out something tangible you can critisize.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Although I was trying to provoke some rage, I didn’t expect you to fall off the deep end… I mean, nobody is really worth a tirade that long. A part of me is flattered that you took so much time insulting me (I must be really good!), but a simple “You’re an idiot. I shall fart in your general direction.” usually suffices, you know.
Rainjack is pretty good at it, you should take lessons from him (by the way, if I ever meet rainjack, I have the sneaky feeling we’d become best friends in about 1 minute). Then again, rainjack has a sense of humor, something you clearly lack.
So, get some help. You’re making Headhunter look sane – and even he admits he’s a little crazy.
Seriously.[/quote]
As usual, you overestimate yourself.
I am just having a little fun. Those posts took all of five minutes. After all, it is quite amusing when a Stanford professor is such low hanging fruit in a situation like this. It has almost taken the sport out of it, to be frank.
As is, my gift to you of a community class on logic was based in humor - but I suspect you’re just being a sourpuss because of the way this turned out for you.
And don’t worry your enormous head over it - no one is off the deep end, least of all me.
[quote]hspder wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
If that’s the case, so be it; however, if you don’t want to have a moral debate about taxation, don’t frame your argument in moral terms. You said, of those voting for lower taxes, “they start getting greedy.” Did you not? A selfish desire for wealth–an immoral quality, no? Sure sounds like you were making a moral argument.
I wasn’t framing my argument in moral terms at all.
Only religion frames greed that way – and I’m an atheist. I don’t think greed is immoral at all. Neither is selfish desire for wealth (which is slightly different). In fact, there are very, very few things I find immoral beyond acts of physical violence.
By definition, capitalism enshrines “selfish desire for wealth”. It’s at its very core, it works DUE to it. If you accept that selfish desire for wealth is immoral you accept that capitalism is fundamentally immoral.[/quote]
Hspder, come on, you’re a smart man. You and I don’t need to parse words. If you go back and read your description of the political-economic cycle, I think you will find that your language certainly doesn’t paint an amoral picture.
In any case, capitalism doesn’t exactly enshrine a “selfish desire for wealth;” it does, however, recognize selfishness–or rather, self-interest–as a primary motivator–which it is, clearly, and always will be. It makes the point that in acting according to self-interest, we end up benefiting the whole of society. It’s about utility, not morality.
I can recognize greed, especially in excess, as immoral, and at the same time, recognizing it as a condition of humanity, create an economic system that best employs that greed.
Regardless, if you don’t want to argue the morality of taxation, I won’t push the issue.
I’m shocked! 
I was being rhetorical. You state Keynesian policy as gospel truth so matter-of-fact that I assumed you must be.
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Hspder, come on, you’re a smart man. You and I don’t need to parse words.
In any case, capitalism doesn’t exactly enshrine a “selfish desire for wealth”; it does, however, recognize selfishness–or rather, self-interest–as a primary motivator–which it is, clearly, and always will be. It makes the point that in acting according to self-interest, we end up benefiting the whole of society. It’s about utility, not morality. [/quote]
… which is precisely what I’m trying to say too. Aren’t we trying to disagree on the finer points of something we completely agree on? We may be coming from different directions – and maybe because of that use different vocabulary – but in essence we are saying exactly the same, are we not?
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
I’m shocked! I was being rhetorical.[/quote]
I know – but I wanted you to qualify it:
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
You state Keynesian policy as gospel truth so matter-of-fact that I assumed you must be. [/quote]
Keynesian policy is truth. 
It’s based in science and has been proven hundreds of times. The US has been using it consistently since FDR, even during Republican rule. Most every single capitalist country adopted it too in the meantime.
Bush’s policy is completely leveraged in Keynesian policy – even though he conveniently forgets the few parts that he doesn’t like – much like the other, more famous, gospel.
Only people at the very fringes of politics reject Keynes… And I mean FRINGES. Even the Texas GOP recently removed the language from their manifesto that was anti-Keynesian…
[quote]karva wrote:
Sweden has been a welfare-state for half a century now. You don’t like the idea and thats ok, but it is a bit stretched to claim, that swedes are on their way to hell.
If you are satisfied with the bare minimum - shelter, food and second-hand clothes - yes you can live like that. The majority of people yearn for more and for that you have to work. Not that salary work makes anybody rich. You have to take risks as an entrepeneur to achieve that, welfare or no welfare.
Are you comparing Sweden to China? You may be unaware of it, but Swedens model don’t resemble that of communist China.
You don’t like welfare-states, ok, but please, find out something tangible you can critisize. [/quote]
Great post!
[quote]The Mage wrote:
If you look at the score for America, it says that last year we were #2.[/quote]
No it doesn’t. You misread it. Or, rather, you read what you wanted to read.
What it says is that we are #2 in GDP per capita, and that the delta between our rank in QoL and GDP per capita rank is -11. We never were #2 in Quality of Life, but yes, we are #2 in GDP per capita.
The reason we are not #2 also in QoL-- although we have enough money that we should be – is simple: the US has the biggest gap between rich and poor in the developed World. By far. And the high quality of life of the rich Americans doesn’t compensate for the low quality of life of the poor Americans, because of the law of diminishing returns: the moment you are over a certain income, your quality of life doesn’t increase proportionally.
Or, to put it another way, somebody making $100k extra over their $500k a year income doesn’t increase their quality of life as much as those $100k would increase the quality of life of somebody making, say, $30k.
That is way distributing wealth more evenly increases the total QoL… Very simple.
Again, don’t assume I’m making a morality play here: I am simply explaining the mechanics of it, either you like them or not.
[quote]hspder wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Hspder, come on, you’re a smart man. You and I don’t need to parse words.
In any case, capitalism doesn’t exactly enshrine a “selfish desire for wealth”; it does, however, recognize selfishness–or rather, self-interest–as a primary motivator–which it is, clearly, and always will be. It makes the point that in acting according to self-interest, we end up benefiting the whole of society. It’s about utility, not morality.
… which is precisely what I’m trying to say too. Aren’t we trying to disagree on the finer points of something we completely agree on? We may be coming from different directions – and maybe because of that use different vocabulary – but in essence we are saying exactly the same, are we not?[/quote]
Absolutely. I only wrote the above as context to what I wrote after (the part about finding greed immoral, yet still agreeing with capitalism as an economic model). I didn’t mean to imply that we disagree on the above points in any substantial way.
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
I’m shocked! I was being rhetorical.
I know – but I wanted you to qualify it:
LBRTRN wrote:
You state Keynesian policy as gospel truth so matter-of-fact that I assumed you must be.
Keynesian policy is truth.
[/quote]
Lol, nice!
[quote]
It’s based in science and has been proven hundreds of times. The US has been using it consistently since FDR, even during Republican rule. Most every single capitalist country adopted it too in the meantime.
Bush’s policy is completely leveraged in Keynesian policy – even though he conveniently forgets the few parts that he doesn’t like – much like the other, more famous, gospel.
Only people at the very fringes of politics reject Keynes… And I mean FRINGES. Even the Texas GOP recently removed the language from their manifesto that was anti-Keynesian…[/quote]
Well, I don’t want to get too into it, but I take issue with the “FRINGES” comment. Appeals to Bush and the GOP don’t mean anything to me because, well, I’m not a Republican or a Bush supporter. You would probably trounce me if we were to have a real debate on Keynesian economics (at this point, I’m not knowledgable enough), and my mind isn’t exactly made up on the issue; however, I hardly consider Milton Friedman, and the Austrians, on the “FRINGES” (aside from college text books, Friedman has had the most influence on me). I realize that the Keynesian Revolution fundementally changed economics so that today, it’s hard to even speak about economics without incorporating, at a minimum, keynesian language–especially in the case of Monetarism (for obvious reasons). However, there are still very real criticisms of Keynesian policies so that calling it gospel (or implying so) seems, to me, a bit dogmatic.
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
However, there are still very real criticisms of Keynesian policies so that calling it gospel (or implying so) seems, to me, a bit dogmatic. [/quote]
Not at all – it’s, as I said, much like the Bible (the other gospel)…
[quote]hspder wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
However, there are still very real criticisms of Keynesian policies so that calling it gospel (or implying so) seems, to me, a bit dogmatic.
Not at all – it’s, as I said, much like the Bible (the other gospel)… ;-)[/quote]
Lol, ya, I noticed that little “slip” in your previous post…[cough]…zealot…[cough]
Anyways, back to QoL index, would you agree there are determinates other than degree of wealth redistribution? Clearly, we far out ranked numerous countries–France, for instance–who redistribute wealth to a far greater degree.
Ireland, number 1, isn’t exactly a social democrat’s wet dream. In fact, compare Ireland to the US. In areas such as health and gender equality it scored lower than the US. Political freedom?–equal. Community life?–equal. The main difference between the two countries: family life, political stability, and job security. How do you explain that?
Furthermore, the UN’s quality of life index (generally deemed a better measure) for the same year, ranked the US above France, Denmark, Finland, Austria, Italy, Germany…certainly our lack of wealth redistribution doesn’t explain things…