And yet they still had to cut welfare programs back even more and privatize a lot of social services because of problems in the early 90's.
OK--I assume you mean cash flow problems. It seems to me that's not the same thing as unemployment and the cultivation of laziness and indolence among the populace, which was your earlier suggestion.
OK--I assume you mean cash flow problems. It seems to me that's not the same thing as unemployment and the cultivation of laziness and indolence among the populace, which was your earlier suggestion.
Apparently employment fell as much as 10% because of the same problems.
I don't have a problem with universal health care.....but free education, welfare, stuff like that? You should work for that.
It not complete bull at all, in fact it could possibly go back farther than that. The US going back to Clinton ignored intelligence that could of prevented 9/11 all together.
If you go back to the bombing of Philippine Airlines Flight 434 in 1994 and the 1996 raids in Manilla of Ramzi Yousef's apartment where Police found a computer with black and white plans to use planes as weapons.
This information was largely ignored by the US.
So the fact that they chose not to ignore intelligence,whether it existed or not is not really a suprise and hardly bull. They got caught with there pants down once and saw the consequences, why would they do it again? They were made to look stupid once, better safe then sorry?
What does all this have to do with the invasion of Iraq?
What exactly would it take for you to believe this Iraq invasion was a sham? A written confession from George himself?
Apparently employment fell as much as 10% because of the same problems.
I don't have a problem with universal health care.....but free education, welfare, stuff like that? You should work for that.
If it's a moral question, then sure--you're entitled to feel that way. But your claim was that having programs like this caused unemployment, and my contention is that the facts show that not to be true.
The financial crisis of the 1990s isn't what you think it is. According to wikipedia's page on Sweden, the crisis resulted from a change from anti-unemployment fiscal policy to anti-inflationary fiscal policy along with an international recession and a real estate bubble--much like the U.S.'s current fiscal woes, only they've added a war costing trillions of dollars to the mix just to make their predicament extra special. Nothing to do with an excessively generous welfare state.
It seems to me that the 10% drop in employment you refer to was really the outcome of the recession and not of the welfare state. In the end, some things were privatized but by North American standards a very generous welfare state remains in place in Sweden--and by all accounts it's working out just fine.
If it's a moral question, then sure--you're entitled to feel that way. But your claim was that having programs like this caused unemployment, and my contention is that the facts show that not to be true.
I would contend that the US became the world's superpower while avoiding any of these left-leaning programs, and that is an awfully good case for laissez-faire governance.
Edit: I concede the USA actually has adopted positions other than extreme right. I'm making a vague point.
Now they are moving left and falling off as a superpower, possibly a coincidence, but at least circumstantially the US would suggest that is true.
Also--and this may seem like semantics, but it's an important distinction--Sweden was never "socialist." They were a democracy with a leftist polity, but socialism to me implies soviet style communism.
[Jeff Foxworthy voice]
You know when you're a socialist, when you think anything less than soviet style communism isn't socialist.
I would contend that the US became the world's superpower while avoiding any of these left-leaning programs, and that is an awfully good case for laissez-faire governance.
You so sure about that? I'm pretty sure the US become a true super-power around the years leading up to WWII and the post-war period.
However, that doesn't change the fact that the US became a superpower while using the economic policies of the New Deal, which is completely opposite to your claim that "the US became the world's superpower while avoiding any of these left-leaning programs".
However, that doesn't change the fact that the US became a superpower while using the economic policies of the New Deal, which is completely opposite to your claim that "the US became the world's superpower while avoiding any of these left-leaning programs".
That's not what he was saying. What he said was that the U.S. became a superpower in the wake of the New Deal--suggesting at least circumstantially that the New Deal was one factor in their economic dominance in the middle of the last century.
I'm also puzzled by your statement that the U.S. is "moving left." I sure haven't noticed that living in the U.S. for the last 10 years. The pendulum has swung pretty far to the right since Reagan--Clinton was only elected by building a coalition of moderately conservative independents and traditional democratic voters, and since Bush things have been downright scary around here. Has the outcome of that overall been more global power and more economic prosperity? Hardly. It has however meant the return to the same distribution of wealth that existed in the Gilded Age, an alarming sign for anyone who knows their economic history.
In fact, if anything the "circumstantial evidence" suggest exactly the opposite of what you claim. As I said, you're free to believe in supply-side economics for moral reasons, but your claim that it inherently leads to prosperity and power is just bad history.
That's not what he was saying. What he said was that the U.S. became a superpower in the wake of the New Deal--suggesting at least circumstantially that the New Deal was one factor in their economic dominance in the middle of the last century.
And I was suggesting that right-weaving-left was much more powerful than left-all-the-way.
Hardly the opposite of my original point: the USA is the truest experiment of limited self-government in my lifetime and has been the preeminent world power in my lifetime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
I'm also puzzled by your statement that the U.S. is "moving left."
I listen to Ron Paul talk, and he has the same messages as Ronald Reagen, but he's totally off the current political map.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
In fact, if anything the "circumstantial evidence" suggest exactly the opposite of what you claim. As I said, you're free to believe in supply-side economics for moral reasons, but your claim that it inherently leads to prosperity and power is just bad history.
I think I'm looking at it from a little more marcro-level.
The USSR crumbled into abject failure, the USA ran the world.
Doesn't seem like that bad of history to me.
Apparently employment fell as much as 10% because of the same problems.
I don't have a problem with universal health care.....but free education, welfare, stuff like that? You should work for that.
I think there's a better way of putting it...
I do want universal access to education, healthcare and economic opportunities for everyone. Every Canadian should have the right to be healthy and successful.
However, what I want is choice. Not everything has to be provided by the State. Whether this means an effective choice-based education or healthcare system or an improved set of tax credits that rewards the private sector for providing these services in addition to the State... so be it.
It'd probably end up being more fiscally sustainable as well.
And I was suggesting that right-weaving-left was much more powerful than left-all-the-way.
Hardly the opposite of my original point: the USA is the truest experiment of limited self-government in my lifetime and has been the preeminent world power in my lifetime.
I guess that only works if you consider the U.S. and the USSR to be comparable, and if you measure success only by which one became a world power. I would suggest you do neither. The USSR was a socialist dictatorship that failed for a variety of reasons, and among them was the failure to modernize industry as quickly as the U.S., and their unnecessarily belligerent stance toward the West, which ended up costing them tons and tons of resources that they didn't have. Not really comparable to the U.S. which became dominant in the world because government spending on both the war and entitlement programs precipitated a huge economic recovery at the exact same time that the infrastructure of their main competitors had been decimated by World War II.
I'd also suggest that the U.S. system has historically been pretty far from laissez-faire. Don't fall for the Reaganomics hype; government spending increased substantially during the Reagan years. The U.S. likes to pretend to hew to this ideology of small government, but what that turns out to mean is paying lip service to limiting entitlement programs that are already impoverished while sending spending through the roof on regulatory agencies and corporate welfare. As a result, the U.S. has an unthinkably huge, unwieldy and expensive government that provides very little value to its citizens for their tax dollar.
In fact, according to the laissez-faire Heritage Foundation, the most laissez-faire country in the world today is Hong Kong, followed by Singapore. Not really world powers, or shining bastions of the rising tide lifting all boats.
Again--believe what you want on moral/ethical grounds--but historically, the evidence just isn't there to support your contention that laissez-faire economies are stronger.
Again--believe what you want on moral/ethical grounds--but historically, the evidence just isn't there to support your contention that laissez-faire economies are stronger.
You're right, in that I have reached my conclusions based on how I see things, not an objective statistical analysis. And I prefer Reagen theory to Republican practice, which I realize isn't even close.
Has the outcome of [recent American conservatism] overall been more global power and more economic prosperity? Hardly. It has however meant the return to the same distribution of wealth that existed in the Gilded Age, an alarming sign for anyone who knows their economic history.
Honestly, I don't. The way I understand the Gilded age is that a few people accrued a vast amount of wealth (robber barons), which - while leading to a great discrepancy in classes - was the proverbial tide that raised all boats.
Phenomenons like communism always need to inherit these kinds of situations, where individuals accumulate capital until the populace screams "no fair."
Circling back to my original contention, communism is not conducive to innovation or progress and cannot evolve in the same sense capitalism can. You stated the USSR fell because they did not modernize, I do not think it was option they decided against, I challenge that communism CAN'T progress - it's inherent in the system.
