[TommyJefferson]

Compare Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland to any other country. They are welfare states.

Exactly.

Watch as them trend into crash as cultural diversity destroys them. The nonsense that is the unsustainable Scandinavian welfare model is like watching a car wreck in slow motion. Very sad.

[Quinny]

Compare Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland to any other country. They are welfare states.

Exactly.

Watch as them trend into crash as cultural diversity destroys them. The nonsense that is the unsustainable Scandinavian welfare model is like watching a car wreck in slow motion. Very sad.

So......
You think they'll be in a worse state than the land of the free?

Interesting.

[cube]

Compare Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland to any other country.
They are welfare states.

Sweden is suppose to be the greatest example of how liberalism can work wonders if it's done right.
Basically it's the poster child of socialistic liberalism. Agreed?
Unfortunately I guess it's time for me to spoil the party.
You see Sweden still has many trappings of the horrors --> capitalism

Sweden home to 125 billionaires
125 billionaires is more than (France+Germany+Britain) combined.
Those damn socialists!

[Quinny]

Which would seem to indicate a mixed economy works best in todays capitalist system.

Compare Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland to any other country.
They are welfare states.

Sweden is suppose to be the greatest example of how liberalism can work wonders if it's done right.
Basically it's the poster child of socialistic liberalism. Agreed?
Unfortunately I guess it's time for me to spoil the party.
You see Sweden still has many trappings of the horrors --> capitalism

Sweden home to 125 billionaires
125 billionaires is more than (France+Germany+Britain) combined.
Those damn socialists!

[cube]

Which would seem to indicate a mixed economy works best in todays capitalist system.

*cough*
I don't know if there's any "proof" of such a thing.
The only "proof" which exists, is that every country on this planet seems to have one foot firmly in place of capitalism while the other is on top of socialism. The only difference is that some countries lean more to one side then the other.
Roughly speaking there seems to be 3 types of economic systems practiced on this miserable planet. ALL systems are capitalistic but have government interference but for very different reasons.
ALL countries on this planet are capitalistic but NONE is free market.

1) American system - This is the closest thing to "TRUE aka Adam Smith" free market capitalism.
Whenever the government steps in, it justifies such action based on the "multiplier theory".
The belief that if gov. spends $1 on such a program it will generate $3 in economic benefits for society.
The space program, freeway interstate system, and gov. backing of home mortgages are good examples.

2) Asian system - For whatever damn reason the government will select a few lucky industries to become "national champions" and all sorts of subsidies will be lavished on such industries to make them grow.
Ship building in Asia is a good example.
South Korea is the poster child of this economic system.

3) European system - the closest thing to socialism.
France or Sweden are good examples.
There's a lot of gov. programs that are designed to blatantly take money from the rich or middle class and give it to the poor.
France has an infamous history of gov. intervention in the low income housing market.

If it was up to me I would prefer the "traditional" American economic system back in the days when George Washington and Thomas Jefferson was around.
That is what I would call "true" free market capitalism. No other nation has gotten closer to achieving that ideal then the USA.

[venky]

I suspect for many it is a moral issue, any interference of the government in the redistribution of wealth is immoral in the least, if not outright evil. While subsidies controlled my special interest groups or corrupt governments might be very harmful to the society at large, but it can be argued (as Starvid did) that in some cases subsidies can be used to make the market work more efficiently. It can also be used to jumpstart markets for new solutions and goods, for instance renewable energy. It can be used in education to make sure society has a skilled and ready work force.

And in some cases it might be absolutely necessary to stave off riots and violence by marginalized sections of the population. Sure by perpetuating the subsidy you may be setting yourself up for an Easter Island situation sometime in the future, but between that and an French Revolution today, I would go with preventing revolution!!!

[Quinny]

Never mentioned proof, I was just pointing out that your statement seemed to indicate that at least some Swedes were doing very well from a 'mixed' economy. We seem to keep having the mantra of 'Learn Economics' pushed down our throats, by supporters of what you describe as true market capitalism, when it's obvious to most that it's that system which has lead to the sorry mess the world is in today. I take your point that a true free market (like true socialism) will never exist because those who currently holdpower will fight to retain it.

I personally think the world is fubar, but if there is one country thats worst of all its the one which has been built on the false premise of the 'free' market!

Which would seem to indicate a mixed economy works best in todays capitalist system.

*cough*
I don't know if there's any "proof" of such a thing.
The only "proof" which exists, is that every country on this planet seems to have one foot firmly in place of capitalism while the other is on top of socialism. The only difference is that some countries lean more to one side then the other.
Roughly speaking there seems to be 3 types of economic systems practiced on this miserable planet. ALL systems are capitalistic but have government interference but for very different reasons.
ALL countries on this planet are capitalistic but NONE is free market.

1) American system - This is the closest thing to "TRUE aka Adam Smith" free market capitalism.
Whenever the government steps in, it justifies such action based on the "multiplier theory".
The belief that if gov. spends $1 on such a program it will generate $3 in economic benefits for society.
The space program, freeway interstate system, and gov. backing of home mortgages are good examples.

2) Asian system - For whatever damn reason the government will select a few lucky industries to become "national champions" and all sorts of subsidies will be lavished on such industries to make them grow.
Ship building in Asia is a good example.
South Korea is the poster child of this economic system.

3) European system - the closest thing to socialism.
France or Sweden are good examples.
There's a lot of gov. programs that are designed to blatantly take money from the rich or middle class and give it to the poor.
France has an infamous history of gov. intervention in the low income housing market.

If it was up to me I would prefer the "traditional" American economic system back in the days when George Washington and Thomas Jefferson was around.
That is what I would call "true" free market capitalism. No other nation has gotten closer to achieving that ideal then the USA.

[cube]

Never mentioned proof, I was just pointing out that your statement seemed to indicate that at least some Swedes were doing very well from a 'mixed' economy.

NO.....that's not what I was trying to get at. It is true that there are some Swedes doing okay but again that's not what I'm getting at.
I'm just saying Sweden has some trappings of what we call capitalism, namely the existence of billionaires. Therefore Sweden cannot claim to be truly socialistic.

We seem to keep having the mantra of 'Learn Economics' pushed down our throats, by supporters of what you describe as true market capitalism,

It's called "true" free-market capitalism. It's important not to leave out the "free-market" part.
It is possible to have capitalism without a free-market which is why it's important to make the distinction.

when it's obvious to most that it's that system which has lead to the sorry mess the world is in today. I take your point that a true free market (like true socialism) will never exist because those who currently holdpower will fight to retain it.

Okay now you are not making any sense.
First you blame the free-market for the world's problems in the 1st sentence.
And then literally in the 2nd sentence you agree that the free-market does not exist.

How can something which does NOT exist be the cause of the world's problems???

[phaster]

Q. Are subsidies always bad?
A. NO!

IMHO subsidies ALWAYS distort markets its just that are more beneficial from a sustainability standpoint than others

For example gasoline subsidies IMHO are a bad idea no matter what, because it encourages was and inefficency. Personally althought I am an American living in the car capital of the world (Souther California), I think consumption taxes like they have in Europe would in the long run be beneficial to the economy of not only California but also of the USA because it would have sent market signals to consumers and producers to be more efficent.

As it stands, the US auto industry along with the average US consumer is in the shit hole because they were conditioned to believe that inexpensive gasoline was an entitlement.

Now that the law of supply and demand is increasing the price of gasoline, many consumers are hurting.

Althought in the past I have not been a fan of t boone pickens because I think he has been a political partizan, I think tax credit subsidies for building wind farms in the USA would be very beneficial in the long run because it is infrastructure that can build up the economy of the USA (much like germany has solar subsidies), and basically with infrastructure projects it creates domestic jobs that are not as easily outsourced as consumer products like shoes, clothing and consumer electronics.

[Quinny]

Not making sense

It's you that's twisting what I said! Firstly (literally) putting words into my post/mouth saying that ;

]It's called "true" free-market capitalism. It's important not to leave out the "free-market" part.

and then accusing me of blaming the 'free-market' a system that doesn't exist!

When I was simply blaming the capitalist system.

I do however believe that the slavish adoption of monetarism by many Western Governments has accelerated the decline of TWAWKI.

I was simply pointing out that the country which in your opinion runs a system that is closest to this 'free-market capitalism' (which you seem to think is best) - seems to be closer to the abyss than others that pursue a more mixed economy.

Never mentioned proof, I was just pointing out that your statement seemed to indicate that at least some Swedes were doing very well from a 'mixed' economy.

NO.....that's not what I was trying to get at. It is true that there are some Swedes doing okay but again that's not what I'm getting at.
I'm just saying Sweden has some trappings of what we call capitalism, namely the existence of billionaires. Therefore Sweden cannot claim to be truly socialistic.

We seem to keep having the mantra of 'Learn Economics' pushed down our throats, by supporters of what you describe as true market capitalism,

It's called "true" free-market capitalism. It's important not to leave out the "free-market" part.
It is possible to have capitalism without a free-market which is why it's important to make the distinction.

when it's obvious to most that it's that system which has lead to the sorry mess the world is in today. I take your point that a true free market (like true socialism) will never exist because those who currently holdpower will fight to retain it.

Okay now you are not making any sense.
First you blame the free-market for the world's problems in the 1st sentence.
And then literally in the 2nd sentence you agree that the free-market does not exist.

How can something which does NOT exist be the cause of the world's problems???

[cube]

I was simply pointing out that the country which in your opinion runs a system that is closest to this 'free-market capitalism' (which you seem to think is best) - seems to be closer to the abyss than others that pursue a more mixed economy.

I totally disagree with that statement.
You're saying Europe is somehow better prepared or more adaptive to PO then the USA.......Is that what you're saying?
That is NOT a universally held opinion on this board.

Let me guess it must be all that wonderful public transit they have over there right?
Do you know how Europeans pay for their subsidized electric trains?
Heavy taxes on gasoline.
So the financial system is heavily dependent on collecting taxes from a non-renewable resource and I'm suppose to believe this is somehow "sustainable"?
To quote a line from the movie 300, "This is madness."

Neither Europe or the USA is better off IMHO.
//
Actually I think in the initial stage the USA has a slight advantage.
Because we are so "inefficient" we can afford to cut off a lot of fat very easily.
Europe OTOH already exists in an "efficient" state so how much more can they cut?

[Quinny]

I totally disagree with that statement.
You're saying Europe is somehow better prepared or more adaptive to PO then the USA.......Is that what you're saying?
That is NOT a universally held opinion on this board.

Am I? Where?

Let me guess it must be all that wonderful public transit they have over there right?

Trains? Did I mention trains? must have forgotten that!

Do you know how Europeans pay for their subsidized electric trains?
Heavy taxes on gasoline.
So the financial system is heavily dependent on collecting taxes from a non-renewable resource and I'm suppose to believe this is somehow "sustainable"?
To quote a line from the movie 300, "This is madness."

Neither Europe or the USA is better off IMHO.
//
Actually I think in the initial stage the USA has a slight advantage.
Because we are so "inefficient" we can afford to cut off a lot of fat very easily.
Europe OTOH already exists in an "efficient" state so how much more can they cut?

Trains?

Europe - more efficient? Than the USA guided by the 'Invisible hand"?

You're argument seems to be shooting off tangentially. What are you trying to say?

[BlueGhostNo2]

The problem is a 'free market' is not an efficient market.

The european system works by government trying to artificially help the market make important decisions (transport, preventing homelessness & poverty & giving medical care & education).

The aim of this is to say 'some things are too important for a market to decide, markets by design have winners and losers but if people are so poor they can't eat society will lose as they turn to crime, if people cannot afford healthcare society will lose as they cannot be economically productive if people cannot afford education society will again lose.

The american system relies on the market but it also suffers horrible distortions from market participants. Should windows and microsoft be the domanant computer OS? Hell no but it is through the companies excellent use of marketing, should the US have a better railway system? Hell yes but the big car companies in the US destroyed it so as to make more profit.

The governing system I would like to see is one which actively creates and enforces efficient markets ie outlaw emotive advertising, outlaw large companies subsidizing their own entry into a new market. outlaw selling at a loss. the sad thing is that most 'enterprise' and 'innovation' in america is actually working AGAINST capitalism and towards distorting the market in the companies favor.

[Quinny]

Makes sense to me!

The problem is a 'free market' is not an efficient market.

The european system works by government trying to artificially help the market make important decisions (transport, preventing homelessness & poverty & giving medical care & education).

The aim of this is to say 'some things are too important for a market to decide, markets by design have winners and losers but if people are so poor they can't eat society will lose as they turn to crime, if people cannot afford healthcare society will lose as they cannot be economically productive if people cannot afford education society will again lose.

The american system relies on the market but it also suffers horrible distortions from market participants. Should windows and microsoft be the domanant computer OS? Hell no but it is through the companies excellent use of marketing, should the US have a better railway system? Hell yes but the big car companies in the US destroyed it so as to make more profit.

The governing system I would like to see is one which actively creates and enforces efficient markets ie outlaw emotive advertising, outlaw large companies subsidizing their own entry into a new market. outlaw selling at a loss. the sad thing is that most 'enterprise' and 'innovation' in america is actually working AGAINST capitalism and towards distorting the market in the companies favor.

[MrBill]

Q. Are subsidies always bad?

A. Bad (or good) are subjective values.

Subsidies encourage one set of behavior, while discouraging another (or an opposite behavior). What those subsidies encourage (versus discourage) can only be judged good (or bad) depending on what benefits society the most as those subsidies do not materialize out of thin air but are paid for by someone.

If subsidies encourage conservation of some limited resource (say oil) by encouraging the (early) switch to sustainable alternatives then that may well bring accelerated benefits to society. If not then it is simply a tax on consumption (or production) with the revenues spent elsewhere (say social programs of dubious economic value).

There is always a trade-off between the short-term and the long-term as well as the individual versus society. Therefore, again, good versus bad are subjective values.

[cube]

to: Quinny

I'm getting annoyed with your ridiculous antics of dropping subtle clues and crying "OMG you're misrepresenting my position."
Why don't you explain yourself.
You can start by saying, "I think Europe is better positioned to handle PO then the USA because......."

[TommyJefferson]

...it can be argued (as Starvid did) that in some cases subsidies can be used to make the market work more efficiently.

No they can't.

Subsidies do not make markets work more efficiently. The fact that you say such a thing proves you do not understand economics.

[TommyJefferson]

We seem to keep having the mantra of 'Learn Economics' pushed down our throats, by supporters of what you describe as true market capitalism, when it's obvious to most that it's that system which has lead to the sorry mess the world is in today.

You blame capitalism for "the sorry mess". Capitalism is creative employment of wealth to produce things people want like health care, food, shelter, and sanitation. Socialism is the destructive theft and forced redistrubution of wealth created by capitalism.

You don't even realize that your wonderful socialism would have NO wealth to seize and spend on war and authoritarian slavery if it were not for capitalism.

Your ignorance of reality would be cute if it didn't promote the violence of government socialism.

[TommyJefferson]

The problem is a 'free market' is not an efficient market.

Sweet Jebus on a stick.

Go learn economics.

[cube]

...
The european system works by government trying to artificially help the market make important decisions (transport, preventing homelessness & poverty & giving medical care & education).
...

Who should have the power to decide what are "important decisions" and by default the power to reallocate public capital to such issues.

That sounds like a lot of "fun", are there any job openings?
Where do I send in my resume to apply for a position?