dalem

So where will you stop, barrow?

-dale

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.
The basic premise of my ideas is that laissez-faire capitalism relies on the greed of businesses coinciding with the good of the public. While in theory this could be true, it often isn't because in order for this to happen, the businesses have think in the long term, the public has to act in its rational self-interest and the interests of others.
The first is rarely true. Executives rarely have the luxury of thinking long-term when they're pressured by the shareholders to jack up the quarterly profit reports. The pharmaceutical executive has to push out the newest drug to increase profits to increase his salary and return from stock options. What does he care about lawsuits five, ten years down the line for increased rates of cancer when he could be happily retired in the Aruba by then. Another problem with pharmaceutical companies is that the drugs that generate revenue are not the best for mankind ("Instead of developing a cure for Multiple Sclerosis, we made a better version of Viagra. So sorry that you can't get up, little Timmy, but I can!")
Lack of rational self interest is simply people shopping at Wal-mart for low prices even though doing so destroys the local economy.
Lack of interest for others is people buying sweatshop made sneakers because they're cheaper.
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.
Pure capitalism doesn't work and communism doesn't work. In all things, moderation.

__________________
"Its true, we add insult to injury, but... you add the injury"
-Jon Stewart to Bill O'Reilly

Shek

Personally, I enjoying seeing a little tit-for-tat on the board. While the board is a forum for debate, it is not a debate tournament, nor an academic setting, and there is certaintly entertainment value is seeing not only the clash of ideas, but occasionally, the clash of personalities.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Praxus

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.

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...

barrowaj

I think if you want to talk about failure, you have to put it in a relative sense. The Soviet Union failed because it was an authoritarian state that ignored the wants and needs of its people for the sake of the prestige of the nation. However, if you are talking economics, the USSR acheived one of the highest known sustained growth rates until the mid 1970s. It was highly successful at mobilizing and using resources for industrialization, but after it industrialized, it was highly unsuccessful at incorporating innovation and efficiency into the economy. The Soviets transformed their country from an agrarian kingdom into an industrialized superpower in just a short peroid of time. There were many tragedies along that path of development, but the fact that it was very successful in an economic sense cannot be ignored.

China on the other hand was nothing other than a disaster. The great leap forward was a really dumb idea and it cost millions of people their lives. However the great leap forward and the holocine of Ukraine have nothing to do with socialism, and instead are features of authoritarianism. They are what results when mankind throws away all his rights to one leader.

Can you show me where you read about heart attack and cancer survival? Everything that I've ever read is to the contrary. I mean, according to the CIA world factbook Sweeden has the lowest infant mortality rate aside from Singapore (which shouldn't count because its a city). It also has one of the highest life expectancies. I expect that it would be possible to control for obesity and smoking rates in the respective contries to come out with a better comparison of the relative healthcare systems (that goes back to my previous thesis). I can't say about the standard of living though, it really depends on how you measure it.

I'm not sure that I could come to the same conclusion that you would. When you are making these growth comparisons, you are assuming all things are equal, ie. level of industrialization, resource utilization, technology, labor pool, etc. Those things clearly changed over time. Therefore, I don't think its reasonable at all to compare America during the 19th century to a fully developed and industrialized Europe. 19th century America grew because there were large amounts of free resources to be utilized. America didn't start to become industrialized until the latter half of the 1800s.

Could you provide some evidence to back up these claims? I think that the current consensus is that the depression was triggered by the stock market crash, and that "socialist" policies helped get the US out of the depression. But, I honestly don't know that much about the Great Depression. I would be interested to hear about your views though.

an4815

I don't dispute what you say about socialism and capitalism, but I do dispute your statistics about conditions in europe.

First you can't treat the whole of europe as homogenous. There are some very well off countries and some very poor countries in europe. You can't just take an average across europe and then apply it to nordic countries, as your figure won't actually represent those nordic countries at all. It would be as inaccurate as if someone took an average of the US and brazil and then claimed that average represented the US.

For instance while it might be true that the average poor American has more material wealth than the average European (and I have no idea how you define "poor" here), I am quite certain that the average poor American is significantly less well off than the average Norwegian.

The Human Development Index puts Norway as #1 as regards to standards of living. Not that that really means anything, but if the average norwegian was poorer than the average poor american then that would not be true.

For accurate statistics about nordic countries you have to treat them individually, not lump them in with poor eastern european countries.

Anon

Good. I've no qualms calling you my sworn enemy in return.

The problem with socialists(the real ones, not the social elite, who are another whole story- though equally bad) is that they're naive idealists. Real "Kum by ah" types.

There is no place in reality for idealists.

None.

The US was founded on the idea of INDIVIDUAL first. What we have now is completely the OPPOSITE.

It sickens me.

Praxus

The ammont of economic decisions in an advancing economy is so vast that it is impossible to make timely and accurate decisions on the part of the Government agencies . When the economy reaches a certain point (in size), economic calculations become impossible without a free market price system.

I do not believe that GDP growth or industrial output is a good sign of the progress of a nation's economy. What matters, is the ammount of material wealth that the individuals posses in a society. So you have to look at the specific level of technology of those products, the number of them per household, etc...

Authoritarianism is a symptom of Socialism. Every socialist nation has been authoritarian. It's kind of nessecery to have a tyrant(s) in charge when you mean to deliver men into abject slavery.



To find the growth in wages during the Industrial Revolution:

Morgan Reynolds, Power and Priviledge: Labor Unions in Amerca (New York: Universe Books, 1984, page 62.

Gary Walton and Hugh Rockoff, History of the American Economy (New York: Dryden Press, 1998), page 242 and 408.

To find the the GDP growth from 1869-1958:

Historical Statistics of the United States, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

1879-1888 : 6.3%
1889-1898 : 4.9%
1899-1908 : 4.8%
1909-1918 : 4.4%
1919-1928 : 3.9%
1929-1938 : 3.4%
1939-1948 : 3.7%
1949-1958 : 3.6%
1959-1968 : 4.6%
1969-1978 : 3.2%
1979-1988 : 2.7%

Socialism has increased in the United States since 1879, so what should we draw from this information. It certainly isn't that socialism aided GDP growth. I'm sure that if you look at the GDP growth rates of Great Britian, you would find a similar trend.

For Cancer Rate and Cancer Death Rate Look Here:

USA: http://www.cancer.org/downloads/MED/Page4.pdf
EU: http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/514370.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4267513.stm

Total New Cases of Cancer in the United States: 1,368,030
Total Deaths Caused by Cancer per year: 563,700


Total New Cases of Cancer in Europe (EU): 1,534,700
Total Deaths Caused by Cancer per year: 962,600

For Heart Attack Rates Look Here:

USA: http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=4591
EU: http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_...ascular_en.htm
http://www.irishhealth.com/clin/chol...hol_facts.html

Total Heart Attacks in USA: 1,200,000
Total Deaths Caused by Heart Attacks: 479,305 deaths
Death Rate: 39.9% Death Rate

Total Heart Attacks in EU:
Total Deaths: 1.9 Million

Confed999

You would have to know what my ideas were, as your assumptions were pretty far off, before you could tell me why they do not work.
Government oppression, and we have history to prove it...
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. " - Sir Winston Churchill
What if eating food makes me happy? Is there truly anything that doesn't have some health determent? Anything that does not include sugar, fat, starch, cholesterol, caffene, any vitamin or mineral that one can OD on, etc., etc.? Is there any one thing a person can eat and get everything needed with no side effects?
Kinda like taking the twinkie out of an otherwise healthy person's mouth? Socialism requires an authoritarian attitude. Otherwise they wouldn't feel the need to tell people how they can live. You have facists on the right, and socialist/commies on the left, they're both the same, but have different excuses for doing it...
Amen...

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Bulgaroctonus

My thanks to Barrowaj and Praxus. These two gentleman have done exactly what I urged in my earlier post. These two have strong differences in opinion. However, their argument was fact-based and civil. I especially praise Praxus for using facts and figures, as well as plenty of links.

There were never any political insults. In all, this is some of the best debate I've seen here yet. Keep it up.

Bulgaroctonus

I like your use of facts and figures, but I do have a few problems with the info below.
Total New Cases of Cancer in Europe (EU): 1,534,700
Total Deaths Caused by Cancer per year: 962,600[/quote]
The population of the European Union (approximately 450 million people) is larger than the population of the U.S. (297,700,000 estimated for 2005). So, of course the European Union will have more cases of cancer. I used a calculator to find the proportions of new cases of cancer for both populations. This is what I found:

The total new cases of cancer in the US amount to about .46% of the total population. The total deaths caused by cancer amount to about .19% of the total population.

The total new cases of cancer in the EU amount to about .34% of the total population. The total deaths caused by cancer amount to about .21%

From this information we can draw a few conclusions. The EU has proportionall less cases of cancer. However, a cancer patient in the U.S. is more likely to survive. A U.S. cancer patient is about 1.1 times, not 1.5, more likely to survive than his European counterpart.

Again, I used simple division to find what fraction of the total population of the EU and America these two figures represented. I found the following:

The total number of heart attacks in the USA represent about .4035 of the total population. The total deaths caused by heart attacks represent about .16% of the total population.

The total number of heart attacks in the EU represent about .422% of the total population. Unfortunately, your post didn't give the amount of EU heart attack deaths. I'll look for this number and get back to you.

You'll notice that I had to drag the two heart attack percentages out to three decimal points because they were so close. Indeed, although the EU has more heart attacks numerically, it is almost tied with the U.S. for proportional heart attacks.

It seems that the health disparity between the EU and US is fairly small, since it is proportions that give us the best indications of reality in this scenario.

Confed999

And factoring in our life style issues, the USA rules this argument hands down.

Bulgaroctonus

Can you elaborate on this?

Confed999

Ummm, how about the life style issue you're trying to tax, for starters...

niigata_lin

hello, we're talking about 'global warming' here, ring a bell? we should focus on the topic people. honestly, the dangers of global warming 'is' connected to health problems today. listen to this well everyone of you ok? global warming is caused by the slow destruction of the ozone layer and the produce of many chemicals that makes the temperature of the world 'heat up'--literally, 'the roof is on fire'. the consequence of this is that the ice in the north and south poles and other parts of the world is melting gradually thereby causing cold climates according to where the wind is taking them--so obviously, you guys may have suffered from frozen feet and all but that is not the point. has anyone of you not realized that global warming will eventually 'melt all those hunks of ice and flood the earth and kill all of us'? the point is not the present increasing rates of deaths due to global warming, it's the idea that we'll all be killed if something's not done to stop it... would somebody voice up some reason out there? please...