15 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettYeah; it's not like we've ever had a recession before that we came back from. And, of course, socialism has such a stellar record in producing economic powerhouses.
The recent financial meltdown has been a decisive repudiation of the laissez-faire crowd and their emphasis on privatization and deregulation. Milton Friedman is dead and so are his misguided ideas. May they end up on the trash bin of history along with feudalism and the 'divine right of kings.'
My prediction:
In 5 years, the western World's economies will have recovered (albeit with some much needed tighter regulation on securities trading), the Dow will be pushing 17,000 and the socialists will be marginalized once again and reduced to giving us dire warnings about how the capitalist system will crumble the next time the market dips.
I won't say that we couldn't do with a bit more regulation in certain areas or that some bad policy isn't partially at fault for the current recession, but capitalism has, on the whole, been a dramatic success in World history and, thankfully, will continue to be such for the foreseeable future.
15 May 09
Originally posted by sh76The Scandinavian economies seem to be doing perfectly well. Especially Norway, as the title post points out. That level of "socialism", as paradoxical as it may sound, makes for a more healthy and sustainable brand of capitalism. Without it the market tends toward chaos and turbulence, which lead inexorably to greater and greater inequalities in wealth. A firm, restraining socialist hand at the tiller of the capitalist ship makes for smoother sailing. The economy runs on a more even keel. With less economic turbulence inequalities in wealth will lessen over time.
Yeah; it's not like we've ever had a recession before that we came back from. And, of course, socialism has such a stellar record in producing economic powerhouses.
My prediction:
In 5 years, the western World's economies will have recovered (albeit with some much needed tighter regulation on securities trading), the Dow will be pushing 17,000 and the so ...[text shortened]... ess in World history and, thankfully, will continue to be such for the foreseeable future.
I am pretty much resigned to being stuck with capitalism in one form or another for the foreseeable future. But as every economic indicator will tell you, the Scandinavian countries clearly have a brand of capitalism that works better for everyone as opposed to just the wealthy elite. Capitalism may survive, but Friedman and his henchmen are dead and buried.
15 May 09
Originally posted by rwingettNothing about capitalism or Friedman implies living beyond your means or taking uncalculated risks. Norway seems to have avoided both -- but that's not a uniquely socialist idea -- just prudent, long-term financial planning.
The Scandinavian economies seem to be doing perfectly well. Especially Norway, as the title post points out. That level of "socialism", as paradoxical as it may sound, makes for a more healthy and sustainable brand of capitalism. Without it the market tends toward chaos and turbulence, which lead inexorably to greater and greater inequalities in wealth. A f ...[text shortened]... the wealthy elite. Capitalism may survive, but Friedman and his henchmen are dead and buried.
Naturally, the third-largest oil-producing nation in the world can afford to lavish social benefits on a population half the size of New York City. But has that wealth been created because of 1) oil, 2) good fiscal management, or 3) socialism? I think the first 2 are the causes, and the third is unrelated.
Don't discount the effect of a homogeneous society either (read: few immigrants). Disharmony is expensive. And while immigrants boost the low-cost labor pool and can bring in new ideas or needed talent -- too many of them can be a drag on the economy.
Taking about the rest of Scandanavia, Sweden has timber, iron, hydroelectic power, Saab, IKEA, and was neutral during WWII (avoiding devastation). My impression of Finland is they lagged a bit behind the others until Nokia.
So I see Scandinavian prosperity as related to embracing capitalism and being fiscally prudent -- giving them money to spend on whatever they wish -- including socialism.
15 May 09
Originally posted by spruce112358Though mostly right on, there is a major flaw with your immigration point. More participants in the economy (which as you mentioned ad talents, ideas, etc) are not a drag on the economy. Instead, they make the economic pie bigger and increase the number of transactions (some of which would not have been possible before the immigration) within the economy.
Nothing about capitalism or Friedman implies living beyond your means or taking uncalculated risks. Norway seems to have avoided both -- but that's not a uniquely socialist idea -- just prudent, long-term financial planning.
Naturally, the third-largest oil-producing nation in the world can afford to lavish social benefits on a population half the si ...[text shortened]... g fiscally prudent -- giving them money to spend on whatever they wish -- including socialism.
It is people who create wealth, create technology, and are a boon to the economy. Our minds are more important than our hands or mouths.
Don't forget that some of the poor African countries have homogeneity and poverty. What about the homogeneity in Mongolia? Although there is homogeneity in Japan, a rich country, there is no homogoneity in the richest states in the United States, California and New York.
Immigration is a net plus to economies in the long run, as most economists attest.
15 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage"As investors the world over sold in a panic, she bucked the tide, authorizing Norway’s $300 billion sovereign wealth fund to ramp up its stock buying program by $60 billion — or about 23 percent of Norway ’s economic output."
Thought this would be of some interest to our costive socialists and blue-eyed freemarketeers ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14frugal.html?em
Sorry man, but this is dull. A psuedo-socialist that believes in the real business cycle? How comical.
15 May 09
HwHY2Originally posted by sh76Why are we on opposite sides of the American political fence? We agree on many things. You do not believe that this planet is less than about 4 billion years old do you?
Yeah; it's not like we've ever had a recession before that we came back from. And, of course, socialism has such a stellar record in producing economic powerhouses.
My prediction:
In 5 years, the western World's economies will have recovered (albeit with some much needed tighter regulation on securities trading), the Dow will be pushing 17,000 and t ...[text shortened]... ess in World history and, thankfully, will continue to be such for the foreseeable future.
15 May 09
Originally posted by spruce112358Finland is not a Scandinavian country. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are.
Nothing about capitalism or Friedman implies living beyond your means or taking uncalculated risks. Norway seems to have avoided both -- but that's not a uniquely socialist idea -- just prudent, long-term financial planning.
Naturally, the third-largest oil-producing nation in the world can afford to lavish social benefits on a population half the si ...[text shortened]... g fiscally prudent -- giving them money to spend on whatever they wish -- including socialism.
If we look at the Gini coefficient (which measures income inequality), Denmark is the best in the world, at 24.7. Sweden and Norway check in at 25 and 25.8 respectively. The UK has a 36 and the US a 40.8. This low level of income inequality for the Scandinavian countries is a result of them moderating their capitalism with a heavy dose of socialism. Fiscal prudence alone can not account for this.
Likewise, if we look at the Human Development Index, we see Norway ranked 2nd in the world, Sweden at 7th and Denmark at 13th. The US ranks 15th and the UK 21st. What is it that consistently puts the Scandinavians near the top of the list? A heavy dose of socialism to make their brand of capitalism work for the benefit of the whole society. It is a direct repudiation of capitalist purists like Friedman and their ilk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
15 May 09
Originally posted by telerionSorry man, you weren't in the target readership. The sort of informed, articulate economics conversations that you seem to enjoy are incomprehensible to me and, presumably, the strongly opiniated economic illiterates I hoped would read this thread..
"As investors the world over sold in a panic, she bucked the tide, authorizing Norway’s $300 billion sovereign wealth fund to ramp up its stock buying program by $60 billion — or about 23 percent of Norway ’s economic output."
Sorry man, but this is dull. A psuedo-socialist that believes in the real business cycle? How comical.
15 May 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYes, we can see what a wonderful job the informed, articulate economists have done during the last year. It is my strong opinion that their record speaks for itself. If we had economic illiterates running the world then, who knows, we might be stuck in the midst of a huge financial crisis or something.
Sorry man, you weren't in the target readership. The sort of informed, articulate economics conversations that you seem to enjoy are incomprehensible to me and, presumably, the strongly opiniated economic illiterates I hoped would read this thread..
15 May 09
Originally posted by rwingettZING!
Yes, we can see what a wonderful job the informed, articulate economists have done during the last year. It is my strong opinion that their record speaks for itself. If we had economic illiterates running the world then, who knows, we might be stuck in the midst of a huge financial crisis or something.
15 May 09
Originally posted by rwingettI didn't know telerion ran the world's financial system.
Yes, we can see what a wonderful job the informed, articulate economists have done during the last year. It is my strong opinion that their record speaks for itself. If we had economic illiterates running the world then, who knows, we might be stuck in the midst of a huge financial crisis or something.
15 May 09
Originally posted by rwingettBeing an economist is possibly the job with the least accountability out of all technocrats, a sub-set of professionals that is renowned for obscuring its failures in obfuscatory jargon and buck-passing. How many World Bank and IMF economists lost their jobs after the 1997 Asian financial crisis that they did so much to exacerbate?
Yes, we can see what a wonderful job the informed, articulate economists have done during the last year. It is my strong opinion that their record speaks for itself. If we had economic illiterates running the world then, who knows, we might be stuck in the midst of a huge financial crisis or something.
15 May 09
Originally posted by PalynkaMy rant is directed at 'professional economists' as a whole and not just Telerion. And more specifically, it is directed at Libertarian, professional economists, a group which, in my opinion, barely loses out to fundamentalist christians as the world's worst.
I didn't know telerion ran the world's financial system.
