Regime Change in Europe: A Bankers' Coup?

Originally posted by sh76
First of all, I agree with your point about raising taxes on the rich, at least under the US rates. I don't know if the European rates aren't already high enough.

You can rip the system as much as you like, but common people are more prosperous in the last 50 years than they ever were in history.

Were more prosperous. Around 1980 they peaked in prosperity. Since then it's been all downhill, with no bottom in sight. I think we can all put two and two together there.

Originally posted by rwingett
Were more prosperous. Around 1980 they peaked in prosperity. Since then it's been all downhill, with no bottom in sight. I think we can all put two and two together there.

The "downhill," to the extent that is does exist, has been miniscule compared to the uphill that led up to it.

I think you're mistaking wealth disparity for lack of prosperity. The income disparity has increased dramatically, yes. And that is not an optimal thing, I grant you. But the living standards of the lower and middle classes have not decreased much, if at all, since 1980.

Originally posted by sh76
The "downhill," to the extent that is does exist, has been miniscule compared to the uphill that led up to it.

I think you're mistaking wealth disparity for lack of prosperity. The income disparity has increased dramatically, yes. And that is not an optimal thing, I grant you. But the living standards of the lower and middle classes have not decreased much, if at all, since 1980.

Well except for those of us who had our houses taken away.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I guess you can still find social democrats in Northern Europe. You know, that place where the economy is doing fine and public debt is under control.

Ah ha. Ten years ago, Germany was 'the sick man of Europe'. Then Schröder implemented Agenda 2010 which included "tax cuts (such as a 25% reduction in the basic rate of income tax) as well as big cuts in the cost absorption for medical treatment and drastic cuts in pension benefits and in unemployment benefits alike."

Further "In that, the programme closely resembles similar measures taken earlier in the USA (Reaganomics) and the UK (Thatcherism)."

And now Germany is doing fine.

You've been touting this notion of a 'Scandinavian exception' where high tax rates are the key to prosperity. I think that's nonsense. Scandinavian countries have low immigrant populations, productive companies, and a wealth of natural resources that are in demand (oil; iron; wood). So these societies will be able to survive confiscatory tax rates for a long time -- much as the US did starting in the 1950's and lasting up until the 1970's. But stagnation will eventually catch up with them -- as it always does when taxes are too high.

Originally posted by rwingett
Were more prosperous. Around 1980 they peaked in prosperity. Since then it's been all downhill, with no bottom in sight. I think we can all put two and two together there.

US workers have remained flat because they now compete directly against Chinese and Indian workers.

Do you know a single software firm that doesn't have dozens of Indian software engineers? A single pharmaceutical firm that doesn't have dozens of Chinese statisticians? THAT is where your high-paying jobs went.

Originally posted by spruce112358
You've been touting this notion of a 'Scandinavian exception' where high tax rates are the key to prosperity. I think that's nonsense. Scandinavian countries have low immigrant populations, productive companies, and a wealth of natural resources that are in demand (oil; iron; wood). So these societies will be able to survive confiscatory tax rates for a tagnation will eventually catch up with them -- as it always does when taxes are too high.

I'm not sure where this myth than Scandinavian countries have low immigrant populations comes from... Relative to population size, they have quite a lot of immigrants.

And indeed, countries with oil, iron and wood always do so well, don't they? Like Nigeria and the Ukraine and the Congo are doing.

Sweden remains, as we saw just recently on another thread, one of the most competitive economies in the world. Why? Because those "confiscatory tax rates" go straight back to the people, creating a healthy and well-educated workforce.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Ah ha. Ten years ago, Germany was 'the sick man of Europe'. Then Schröder implemented Agenda 2010 which included "tax cuts (such as a 25% reduction in the basic rate of income tax) as well as big cuts in the cost absorption for medical treatment and drastic cuts in pension benefits and in unemployment benefits alike."

Further "In that, the programme ...[text shortened]... ion will eventually catch up with them -- as it always does when taxes are too high.

Germany wasn't doing bad 10 years ago. However, it was still coping with the economic impact of reuniting with East Germany. Ten years on, this impact is obviously smaller, although unemployment remains high in East Germany.

Your notion that in some unspecified point in the future the redistributive model will fail needs at least some argument to back it up.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
I'm not sure where this myth than Scandinavian countries have low immigrant populations comes from... Relative to population size, they have quite a lot of immigrants.

And indeed, countries with oil, iron and wood always do so well, don't they? Like Nigeria and the Ukraine and the Congo are doing.

Sweden remains, as we saw just recently on another th ...[text shortened]... y tax rates" go straight back to the people, creating a healthy and well-educated workforce.

Sweden has a lot of immigrants... from Finland! Former Yugoslavia is second which is still pretty European. Germany, Denmark, Poland, and Norway are also in the top 10.

So Sweden has kept tight control over who they let in. Probably the "worst" from their point or view are the handful of Somalis they accepted. And who is causing a problem now? You guessed it. Let in a few hundred thousand more people who don't share the Germanic work ethic and see what happens.

I never claimed there is "one thing" that explains Scandinavian success -- which is exactly why I don't advocating taking "one thing" from their system, e.g. high tax rates and touting it as the way forward for the rest of the world. Sweden (and Germany) also have no national minimum wage. Would I be willing to accept higher tax rates AND no minimum wage AND tighter border controls as a way forward in the US????

Hmmm. That starts to sound tempting. But just taxing the rich more so that we can hand it over to welfare mothers in West Virginia? Not so much.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Germany wasn't doing bad 10 years ago. However, it was still coping with the economic impact of reuniting with East Germany. Ten years on, this impact is obviously smaller, although unemployment remains high in East Germany.

Your notion that in some unspecified point in the future the redistributive model will fail needs at least some argument to back it up.

It always has failed. The US, UK and Germany have all tried it. Each time it was rolled back, the country prospered again.

As I pointed out above, the Scandinavians may have found a way to make it work for as long as possible (e.g. tight immigrant control, low defense spending, no minimum wage).

But in the end, rewarding existence and punishing merit means that existence will be favored over merit. There is no way around that equation. It is inevitable.

Originally posted by spruce112358
It always has failed. The US, UK and Germany have all tried it. Each time it was rolled back, the country prospered again.

As I pointed out above, the Scandinavians may have found a way to make it work for as long as possible (e.g. tight immigrant control, low defense spending, no minimum wage).

But in the end, rewarding existence and punishing me ...[text shortened]... at existence will be favored over merit. There is no way around that equation. It is inevitable.

Claiming the US and UK "prospered" after Reaganomics/Thatherism is an interesting way to view history, to say the least.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Let in a few hundred thousand more people who don't share the Germanic work ethic and see what happens.

The traditional solution is a bloodbath initiated by the Germanics 😕

Originally posted by Teinosuke
Would posters agree with the analysis of the collapse of the Greek and Italian governments presented in the following article in Time magazine? I post the first three paragraphs - the full article can be read online.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2099350,00.html?iid=sl-article-mostpop1

The voice of the people isn't something the ma ...[text shortened]... ringing in a technocratic government] is not good or bad. It's necessary."

If you want to go down that road, you just need to consider the obvious and usual question....."who benefits the most?"

In this case, it's simple. The indebted countries are going to have to sell off public assets to the private sector to pay down their debts.

The private sector company(s) that buy these assets are going to make a killing.

Oh, and guess who are the ones driving up those bond prices and putting sovereign nations into bankruptcy forcing them to sell their assets...??

The private sector.....!

Originally posted by spruce112358
It always has failed. The US, UK and Germany have all tried it. Each time it was rolled back, the country prospered again.

As I pointed out above, the Scandinavians may have found a way to make it work for as long as possible (e.g. tight immigrant control, low defense spending, no minimum wage).

But in the end, rewarding existence and punishing me ...[text shortened]... at existence will be favored over merit. There is no way around that equation. It is inevitable.

This is total nonsense. Complete stupidity and contrary to mounds of evidence. But hey - let's just carry on spouting stuff that makes us happy. It's just a drag reading through this drivel.