I thought FOX *was* satire...Follow

No. I'm just saying that looking only at part of the logic does not make for a sound bit of reasoning.

Next time you feel some sort of odd compulsion to use the word "logic" cut your balls off. Next time you feel the need to use the word 'reason' have them bronzed and attached to a broomstick with 19 gauge steel chain. The next time you decide you're going to use them both in the same sentence, beat your self into unconsciousness with your new ******** flail.

Thanks.

Joph. You could make that exact same argument to counter *any* position you don't agree with.

"You just think anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong!!!".

Think about it...

You could make that exact same argument to counter *any* position you don't agree with.

This is true. Some of the time, unlike here, he might be mistaken.

Of course. Because you've been taught your entire life that the model used in Europe is superior, and of course it must be true... ;)



Well, finally! That's a bigger one right there then I think you realize, but let's leave that off for now.



The UK changed its labor laws drastically during the Thatcher at the urging of Reagan. That's why it has done better over the last 20 years. It's "more flexible" because it has less restrictions on the supply side of the equation, whereas France is considered "labor friendly", with massive restrictions on the supply side (employers in this case), in some cases ridiculously high levels of such restrictions.

Which is why it's having problems. I just find it odd that you seem able to talk about labor market flexibility, but seem to have your blinders on in terms of what makes a labor market flexible in the first place. Let me give you a hint, strong unions do not make for a flexible market. Job protection laws do not make for a flexible market. In fact, you can go down the list of items that labor parties typically want and virtually all of them cause exactly the "less flexible market" that you admit results in reduced unemployment.

Which begs the question: If those parties are supposedly for the laborers, why are they pursuing an agenda designed to make it harder for people to get jobs in the future? You'd think they'd want the opposite, right?

I could give you the answer to this question, but you wouldn't like it and would likely conclude that it was some sort of capitalist conspiratorial fantasy or something...



First off, your data is incredibly skewed. Gee. The UN came up with a standard for poverty that just so happens to favor the style of government and accounting used in Europe? What a shocker!!!

First off. Any measurement of poverty rates that involves a percent offset from a median income is obviously flawed. Your not actually measuring a person's ability to feed and house themselves. You're just measuring how much spread there is in terms of income withing your society. And not just the total spread, but the spread between the bottom person and the middle person (that's what median means, right?).

Which means it tells you nothing about where the top half of the population is, nor what the slope of that economic line is. I could generate a zero% difference between the bottom and the median simply by making my unemployment rate 50%. What's funny is that the numbers you're seeing don't counter a single argument I've made. I've said over and over that the kind of tax structures most social liberalists advocate don't punish the wealthy. What they do is create a "gap" between the middle class and the wealthy. Everyone above that gap remains wealthy indefinately. Everyone below it drops down and gets squished into the lower income ranges (those taxes hurt the middle and working classs, not the truely rich). The result is an economic spectrum where the majority of your entire population exists in a very narrow income range near the bottom, then a gap and a small percentage of your population exists in a spread above that point.

Which, if you understand anything about math, means that you will have a very small number of people 50% or more below the median income. Not because you've got less poor people, but because you have *more*. You've made the median income relatively lower, which reduces that number.

It's a crappy way to measure poverty, but strangely (or not so) it's the preferred method in Europe. Gee. I wonder why that is?...


Your stats and factsheets don't say what you think they say.





Er? Unemployment in France was 10% last year.

It has massive debt relative to GDP.

It has a relatively high government "footprint" (size of federal revenue as a percentage of GDP).

It has low inflation, but it's GDP growth is *lower* (a sign of a shrinking economy).

I'm not sure what you think constitutes a healthy economy, but that's not it. Now, you could argue that this is afterall, France. But there are similar trends in most European countries. The UK isn't too bad, but is still hooked in to much of the same trend. Nations like Spain and Germany are all seeing similar factors start to affect their economic outlook.

Germany: GDP growth rate .9%, inflation rate 2%, unemployment rate 11.6%
Spain: GDP growth rate 3.4%, inflation rate 3.4%, unemployment rate 10.1%
France: GDP growth rate 1.6%, inflation rate 1.9%, unemmployment rate 10%

We can assess other factors, like size of government in proportion to GDP (which is often a leading cause of low GDP growth rate, except in nations in which much of the industry is state owned, in which case it's harder to equate them). I just don't think it makes too much difference. The key numbers are those three. Other indicators can tell you what you may expect down the line, but those three are end effects. The difference is staggering:

US: GDP growth rate 3.5%, inflation 3.2%, unemployment rate 5.1%

In all three cases above, inflation was higher then GDP and unemployment was double digits. In the US, inflation is lower then GDP (and has been for some time), and unemployment rate is at a market "ideal" level.




Except for the evidence that all the things I predict (actually things predicted in supply side economic theory models) that will result from a heavy demand side economic model are occuring or are well on the way towards occuring in most European nations.

And that's before going into the more philosophical issues of "freedom" and what it really means. Even just on the "sustainable economic" front, the models used don't work well. They can sometimes be maintained if you carefully control your population levels and have a strong state controlled export based economy (like sweden and norway for example). But they don't work so well anywhere else.




Heh. I don't think I'll ever prove those things to *you*. My arguments would constitute "proof" (or at least strong evidence in support) to almost any person not already convinced that the European model of social welfare is "ideal" from birth.

Also. It's not that your actual standard of living is reduced. It's the potential standard of living (excuse me if I may have mistated this when I said "standard of living over time". I was talking about how high your standard would be over time given one line using social welfare models, and one that utilizes a more free-market model). The systems you idolize ****** both economic growth and new product development. I've given numerous examples of this (at least one of which I've witness first hand) in past threads. I don't feel like repeating myself. The only reason European standard of living is as high as it is, is because nations like the US and japan *don't* adopt your style of social welfare. Thus, our economies constantly churn out new and better products which your consumers can purchase. If it weren't for us, you'd all be living in 1950s houses, with 1950s plumbing and heating systems, driving 1950s cars, listening to your music on a new invention called a "hi-fi phonograph", and watching TV on a newfangled thing called a "color" TV...

Seriously. How many of any of the advancements in consumer technology in the last 50 years came out of Europe? CDs? DVDs? Computers? Anything?

What's really funny is that the things Europe is best known for isn't products aimed at the average consumer, but the "exclusive" products catering to the wealthy. Odd for a set of nations so supposedly focused on eliminating the differences between rich and poor...




You do realize that the entire reason these are issues at all is because of the degree to which your markets are not "free" markets, right? Those are all things that private businesses can figure out for themselves. Governments should only concern themselves with making their nation business-friendly, and they'll reap the benefits that brings.

But because your nations are demand oriented, you have to create protectionist schemes at the federal level so that your labor protected markets don't suffer in a true global economy. Of course, this puts you at a disadvantage. The best solution is to convince everyone else to adopt the same market methods that you use, that way everyone's on an even footing. Of course this does mean that globally we all lose out, but that's another issue.

It's posts like this from you that are partially what convinces me that you truely don't understand the "costs" of the systems you support. You see that there are problems with globalization, but don't see that those problems are yet another issue caused by the way you do things. If you just didn't do them in the first place, you wouldn't need to have to worry so much about globalization for instance.

Part of the issue is that (as I recall pointing out earlier), the type of social welfare systems you endorse tend to grow over time, largely because once you interfere with one apsect of the economy you "break" something else. You "fix" that with another social liberalist solution, and break three more things. This process continues over time until you've got a government with a hand in virtually ever aspect of the economy from the largest business down to the individual consumer.

I'm suggesting that this is a bad idea. It's a road that once you get on, it's incredibly hard to turn back because at each step it looks like the "easiest" solution is to simply apply more controls and corrections to the existing ones. And for the US, at least, since it's not already at that point, it seems incredibly silly to embark upon that road if we don't have to. Yeah. That means we wont have socialized medical care and all that other groovy stuff. But we've managed to become the worlds strongest economy *without* any of that stuff. It's not truely necessary.


And maybe part of that is the US culture. We're (mostly) a breed of adventurers and pioneers. As a culture we tend to value our freedom and our own abilities more then comfort. We're willing to suffer hardships if we believe that the rewards down the line are worth it. We haven't yet become so totally jaded that we're ready to just toss in the towel and accept whatever life of mediocrity the government believes we're entitled to.

And what's alarming to me is that there is a growing movement in the US to change this. Obviously, people like you will see that as a good thing. But to people like me, it's painful to listen to the arguments from those who apparently don't value their freedom as much as we do insisting that it's a great idea to hand what freedoms we do have to the government in return for a "better life". It isn't about the average. It's about your potential. You can slam the US system all day long, but it's in the US that any individual can obtain any level of success. There's a reason immigrants come to this country seeking opportunity and better lives in numbers vastly higher then any other nation on Earth. If we were doing things so wrong, why is this so?

Proof? If you can't point out specific marks on the EU then how can you expect any investigator to prove or believe what you say?










Right?

People who primarily watched FOX for their news were over 3x more likely to have misperceptions regarding Iraq & 9/11 than those who relied primarily on NPR/PBS.

It'd be interesting to see an IQ correlation.

I'm getting tired with these lies, gbaji. Half of your post is pure lies, the other irrelevant bad faith.

How you can expect anyone to take you seriously, is beyond me...



So?

The point was simply to show that you could have a human welfare system and universal healthcare, while having a liberalised economy with low unemployment rate.

And there you go. We both agree it can be done.

End of discussion, then?

It should be.

Because i'm bored, I'll just correct some of the crap you spout:



These parties were designed for the "labourers" in the 30s.

Today, the Left in France stands for everyone, from the unemployed to the middle-classes, and even the upper-class with a conscience. What we call "Caviar-Left". They promote strong employment laws for the employed, and generous benefits for the unemployed. I'm not saying I agree with it completely, but there is nothing inherently strange, illogical, or conspirational about this.




Ah yes, I forgot the EU owned the UN, my bad...



Not true either. The income tax rate for the highest bracket of salary is above 50%. Then you have inheritence tax, the "Big wealth" tax, etc... Very rich people in France are heavily taxed, and are quite pissed-off about it. Hence our mega rock star Johnny Halliday moving to Switzerland.




Got anything to back that up, or is it just another fantasy-based ejaculation of random theorising?



And that's the crux of your argument right there. Economic indicators. Not just any economic indicators, of course, the ones that suit your theory.

Because I could also counter that the European Union is the largest economy in the world, (with a GDP of 13.4 trillion USD (2005) using Purchasing power parity (PPP)).

That the EU economy has grown at around 2% per annum so far this century. That in 2006, 3.5 million jobs were created in the Eurozone. That even Germany, the largest economy in the EU, grew 2.7% in 2006 and is expected to grow at around 2% in 2007. And that the EU's rate of growth is expected to increase — growth for 2007 is expected to be at 2.7% — especially as new member states are poorer than the EU average, and have the capacity to grow at a higher rate.

See? it doesn't so bad after all...

So now what? You say we're heading for a recession, or the end of our model, but had we had this discussion 20 years ago, you would've said the same thing then. Had we had this discussion in the 70s, you would've said the same. I'm ready to bet that in 15 years time, nothing much will have changed.

You keep saying we're heading for disaster. But it still hasnt happened, despite the fact that we've kept going for 60-odd years.

Economic theory is one thing, but as I've said earlier, models are by definition flawed. The people waiting for the "trickle-down" have been waiting since 1950. And they are still waiting.

So, you can either choose to obey an economic model as though it was some sort of Commandment from God, or you can use them as an *indicator*, and take them as one amongst many factors to be taken into consideration.

At the end of the day, it comes down to what kind of society you want to have. You can choose to forget the "human", and focus purely on the necessity to follow an economic model.

Or you can realise that humans are not just numbers, and focus on the human. But, I'm sure people in the gettho are glad to know that the numbers are A-ok.



Let me know when they do.



Europe could've had more rich people? So what?

That's not why we created society. It wasn't so that we could have as many rich people as possible.




Hahahahahaha...

Sometimes I fool myself into believing you're a serious person, but then you go and ruin it all by saying stupid like... this.

I'm not even sure where to begin, considering this is so stupid.

Maybe by asking how come we can afford to buy all these products? If we can't export anything decent, if our economy is screwed, then surely we shouldn't be able to afford any of this new shiny stuff?

Second. Are you seriously suggesting that had it not been for the US and Japan, the EU would not have invented anything? Or even that we didn't contribute to anything? Really? Are you that stupid? Say it ain't so...




Huh, apparently you are that stupid.

First, on a purely theoretical level, it insane to think that because you marketed something first, no one else would've ever marketed it, or even thought of it.

Second, most of what you are reffering too are improvments on things that already existed, and were for the most part invented in Europe.

Third, here we go: Hewlett-Packard, Airbus, the Concord, the car industry (BMW, Merc, Volkswagen, Chryler-Daimler, etc...), Europe is leading in Biotech and Stemcell research, the French discovered the Aids virus, the chief designer at Apple is English, and all that is just off the top of my head. I really can't believe I have to convince someone that even without the US and Japan, Europe would still have changed over the last 60 years...

Anyway, here is a chart of the most "innovative companies". Weird thing is, I seem to see some European ones in there. Crazy...




Not really, it's just a niche in the market.



And yet you still have kids that die because of a tooth ache. And yet you still have large part of the population that are extremely poor. Why don't they take up all those wonderful opportunities? Why don't they become rich? Because they're lazy? Stupid? You tell me...



No. They are also a consequence of free markets.

Listen, if every problem was solved by "freeing the markets", we would've run out of problem a long time ago. If every problem was caused by too much state interference, then we would've gotten rid of the state a long time ago too.

With most people, I couldn't belive that they would be stupid enough to see the world in such simplistic terms.

With you, I'm slowly getting used to it.

Just think: if it was that simple, some idiot would've figured out already, and we wouldn't be in this situation. The whole world would be a market, and you and MonxDOT would be its Kings.

Unfortunately, we tried the free markets with no regulations, no rights, no minimum wage. It was called the 19th Century, I suggest you look it up.

Those are all things that private businesses can figure out for themselves. Governments should only concern themselves with making their nation business-friendly, and they'll reap the benefits that brings.

Yeah, we saw how well that worked in Argentina.

Because, of course, business would never take advantage of such a system. Entities whose sole reason for existing is "profit" would never abuse such freedoms!

Seriously, you sound like every other extremist I've met: If only *everyone* would do this, then all would be sorted. As though it was that simple.

It's only in your head that it's that simple.

There's a reason immigrants come to this country seeking opportunity and better lives in numbers vastly higher then any other nation on Earth. If we were doing things so wrong, why is this so?

Cos they live in a country where it's even worse. It's really not that complicated. And it's exactly the same situation as in the EU, where we get millions of immigrants every year.

Now.

You can have this myth that markets will provide everything for everyone. You can have your myth that somehow the US is less protectionist than Europe. You can have your myth that liberals are holding everyone back because they impose limits on how much businesses can ***** up their environment.

And you can keep telling people that we can't have universal healthcare because they would lose some "freedom". If anyone is dumb enough to believe all this crap, then I guess they deserve it.

Like I've said many times, the difference between the US and the EU are tiny. Our economies are linked. They are not only 95% similar, they are also totally interdependent. All your fantasies about Europe make me chuckle when i read them, but really, I kinda feel sorry for you. Though coming from someone who thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is by definition "brainwashed" by the "liberal conspiracy", I'm not too surprised.

What I see behind all this is selfishness and greed. You don't want to pay more taxes.

That's it.

That's all your reasoning. Now, you can tell a nice story around it, with "pioneers!", and "freedoms!", and the "wild west!", and a tear-dropping narrative. You can keep preaching that you refuse to pay more taxes because providing a safety net for the poor *in fact* harms them, and that the best way to help people that have nothing is by leaving them in the shIt.

The only people that will agree with you are those that already think like that.

At the end of the day, its about the kind of society you want. The US individualistic dog-eat-dog model has some advantages, and some disadvatanges. The EU social model is the same.

Personally, I don't really care about having a brand new TV, or being able to earn £6Million/year, or paying 5% less taxes. I'd rather every citizen had a safety net. I'd rather work less. I'd rather enjoy my life a bit more.

French people work 35 hours a week, and have 5 weeks of holiday a year. By law. If you get fired, you get 80% of your previous wage for 6 months (which goes some way towards explining the high unemployment). Even if you are extremely poor, you have access to some of the best healthcare in the world. All of that seems pretty cool to me, and would constitute a fair and succesful society in my book.

The whole point of this argument was not really whether the EU is superior to the US anyway, since that is such a subjective topic. It was whether it is possible to afford the basic means of living to every single person in a country.

And it is.

Whether you choose to do it or not, is a completely different story.

Edited, Mar 12th 2007 3:55pm by RedPhoenixxx

I wonder if he think the French Republicans ever invented anything....

True.

If that's not an anti-government measure designed to ensure freedom and allow the private forces to take control, then there's just no pleasing gbaji...


It's La Révolution.

Sexist!

Has international Women's Day not taught you anything...