Quote:
|
Originally Posted by clegane
To expand on his points on socialism-
While Communism has certainly failed and spectacularly, and the degree of socialism in European countries is stifling their economies (low employment and growth), it could be argued that moderate doses of socialism can have benefits (better average standards of living and better health, esp. in the Nordic countries.)Remember that the reason's we have health inspectors for meat is because a socialist wrote a book about health inspection.
|
So you have learned from history that large doses of Socialism, such as in Soviet Russia or Mao China "failed spectacularly". Then you go onto to say that intermediate doses of Socialism, such as in modern day Europe, has stifled their economies. But for some reason, you believe small doses of socialism will be helpful, such as what you claim the Nordic countries have.
Nordic countries
do not have a better standard of living then the United States. It has been demonstrated over and over again that the average poor American has more material wealth then the average European. The average American has at least double the chance of surviving Cancer, Heart Attacks, et al as their European counter-parts (including those in the Nordic countries). It would be reasonable to say they as a whole are more healthy because of the far fewer number of obese people. But this statement says more about their eating habits, then it does their economic system.
This is how much better the United States is doing, when compared to the Nordic Countries, and this is with less Socialism then the Nordic countries. The Nordic Countries are just as socialist, if not more socialist, then Western Europe.
We know that modern day Europe does better then the Soviet Union did, and that more moderate amounts of Socialism, such as in the United States does better then the modern day Europe. History has taught us something here. The more socialism you have, the less long term economic development you have. History has also taught us, that the more Capitalist, the greater the long term economic development. In the 19th Century, the United States averaged a 6.5% growth rate for the entirity of post-war years. I would also add that the average salary of the "working man" grew at a rate of 2% per year (this factors in inflation). This is for forty years, we kept this growth rate up. Then bam, when socialism starts to get introduced in the late 19th Century and early 20th, growth rates decline, never to reach this long term growth rate again.
Quote:
|
Pure, unregulated capitalism doesn't work (Case in point: the Industrial Revolution or pre 1929 U.S.), so the government steps in because the corporations don't act in the best interests of the public, the public often doesn't act in the best interests of itself, and the public doesn't act in the best interests of other people.
|
The period of the Industrial Revolution was not pure Capitalist. It was certainly more Capitalist then we are now, however. To see the effects of this, look at my post above.
And no, the Great Depression was not caused by Corporate Greed, but by Government regulation, tarrifs, and the manipulation of the money supply.
To quote the great Frederic Bastiat:
Away, then, with quacks and organizers! A way with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!
And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty...