The Long Retreat of Liberalism

[Trader666]

Oh please. You're the one who said they're "the cream of the crop if you love your government to be solvent" and posted the link to debt in response to the graph I posted of taxes. Since when doesn't "cream of the crop" mean near the top? Your shining examples of liberalism are in fact the "cream of the crop" WRT high taxes (as I said) but not WRT low debt (as you did).

Speaking of logic, since when is it logical to call countries with oppressive taxes liberalism success stories? And if liberalism is retreating on balance, whether it is or not everywhere doesn't change that. Not to mention that the article made no claim that your "counterexamples" refute. BTW I lived in Europe for many years, spent plenty of time in Denmark and have friends there who've told me their taxes are oppressive and made much ado in particular about car taxes which you knew nothing about.

Your reasoning is impaired by your ideology. In fact, Barney Frank sounded downright conservative compared to you in a recent interview in which he acknowledged some of government's "contributions" to the financial crisis.

Quote from Martinghoul:

Firstly, you're confusing flow and stock variables. Secondly, who says they have to be at the top of the list? Finally, let's not quibble over the definition of success ('cause I know you'll disagree with me as a matter of principle). My argument (or rather my refutation of the author's assertion) is still valid, as it only requires that liberal Scandinavian societies aren't failures. Would you call them failures and, if so, on what basis?

Now you're not abiding by basic tenets of logic, mate. Aren't you just stating as given exactly the point that you're attempting to prove? Moreover, I just told you where liberalism is successful and certainly not retreating. I also told you that Ireland can't possibly be included in the same group of "liberalism sufferers" as Greece. What do you mean by "liberalism run amok"? As to Denmark, have you yourself ever lived in or visited Denmark? While I haven't ever bought a car in Denmark, I actually live nearby and I travel all over the Scandi countries, incl Denmark, extremely frequently. So what exactly is your point about cars in Denmark?

At any rate, I think it will be very difficult to argue with you, since your logical reasoning faculties seem to be somewhat impaired by your temper.

 

[Trader666]

P.S. If you want to get technical, you confused solvency with debt because with sovereigns the risks are inflation and currency losses.

Back to the taxes... don't even pretend that a nearly 50% revenue/GDP ratio is a success. And it's increased for your shining examples of liberalism over the last 45 years by roughly 60%. Which means that taxes have grown a lot faster than GDP -- unlike in the United States over the same period.

Are you so biased that you don't grasp the irony of touting countries with oppressive taxes that have risen faster than GDP as liberalism success stories?

Quote from Martinghoul:

Firstly, you're confusing flow and stock variables. Secondly, who says they have to be at the top of the list? Finally, let's not quibble over the definition of success ('cause I know you'll disagree with me as a matter of principle). My argument (or rather my refutation of the author's assertion) is still valid, as it only requires that liberal Scandinavian societies aren't failures. Would you call them failures and, if so, on what basis?

Now you're not abiding by basic tenets of logic, mate. Aren't you just stating as given exactly the point that you're attempting to prove? Moreover, I just told you where liberalism is successful and certainly not retreating. I also told you that Ireland can't possibly be included in the same group of "liberalism sufferers" as Greece. What do you mean by "liberalism run amok"? As to Denmark, have you yourself ever lived in or visited Denmark? While I haven't ever bought a car in Denmark, I actually live nearby and I travel all over the Scandi countries, incl Denmark, extremely frequently. So what exactly is your point about cars in Denmark?

At any rate, I think it will be very difficult to argue with you, since your logical reasoning faculties seem to be somewhat impaired by your temper.

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from Trader666:
Oh please. You're the one who said they're "the cream of the crop if you love your government to be solvent" and posted the link to debt in response to the graph I posted of taxes. Since when doesn't "cream of the crop" mean near the top? Your shining examples of liberalism are in fact the "cream of the crop" WRT high taxes (as I said) but not WRT low debt (as you did).

Huh? Pls name me a Western government that has a significantly better debt/GDP and deficit/GDP thanSweden/Norway/Denmark?

Speaking of logic, since when is it logical to call countries with oppressive taxes liberalism success stories? And if liberalism is retreating on balance, whether it is or not everywhere doesn't change that. Not to mention that the article made no claim that your "counterexamples" refute. BTW I lived in Europe for many years, spent plenty of time in Denmark and have friends there who've told me their taxes are oppressive and made much ado in particular about car taxes which you knew nothing about.

Listen, unless we agree on the definitions of appropriate terms (which we won't), we're never gonna get anywhere. And yes, just like I don't know many things about Denmark, because I haven't lived there my whole life, neither do you know anything about, for example, Sweden, which, in my view, is one of the nicest places to live. But so what?

At any rate, my point is a lot simpler. The article makes a claim that "the crisis of the West is a crisis of liberalism". Inasmuch as the Scandinavian countries are part of "the West", the statement is patently false, if only because the Scandinavian countries aren't experiencing a crisis, by any stretch of the imagination.

Your reasoning is impaired by your ideology. In fact, Barney Frank sounded downright conservative compared to you in a recent interview in which he acknowledged some of government's "contributions" to the financial crisis.

What ideology? I actually don't give a damn how people in a given country choose to govern themselves. If people in Scandinavian countries like to pay high taxes and feel they're getting what they paid for, so be it. If people in another country choose smth completely different, who am I to say they're wrong? As long as the citizens are held responsible for their choices, I couldn't give a rat's ass what these choices actually are. So I fail to see how I am the ideological one here. After all it wasn't me making grand statements condemning this, that or the other. I just refute them.

As to Barney Frank, I have absolutely no idea what that's all about.

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from Trader666:
P.S. If you want to get technical, you confused solvency with debt because with sovereigns the risks are inflation and currency losses.

Back to the taxes... don't even pretend that a nearly 50% revenue/GDP ratio is a success. And it's increased for your shining examples of liberalism over the last 45 years by roughly 60%. Which means that taxes have grown a lot faster than GDP -- unlike in the United States over the same period.

Are you so biased that you don't grasp the irony of touting countries with oppressive taxes that have risen faster than GDP as liberalism success stories?

Hahaha, you're the one confused... Why don't you go check where SEK, NOK and DKK-denominated debt trades (say vs USTs and others like it) and come back to me?

As to the rest of it, see my previous post.

 

[Trader666]

Irrelevant to my point which was, soverigns can't run out of their own currency, therefore you can't technically use debt to GDP as a proxy for solvency as you did. Not to mention all the other variables that ignores.

Quote from Martinghoul:

Hahaha, you're the one confused... Why don't you go check where SEK, NOK and DKK-denominated debt trades (say vs USTs and others like it) and come back to me?

Canada and they brought their ratio down significantly with reforms that reduced liberal and socialist policies and spending.

Quote from Martinghoul:

Pls name me a Western government that has a significantly better debt/GDP and deficit/GDP thanSweden/Norway/Denmark?

Which makes my point about ideology. Because without agreed upon definitions and criteria (which I agree won't happen), you'll judge success/failure by yours and I'll judge it by mine.

Quote from Martinghoul:

Listen, unless we agree on the definitions of appropriate terms (which we won't), we're never gonna get anywhere.

Taxes rising a lot faster than GDP to a nearly 50% revenue/GDP ratio is not a crisis "by any stretch of the imagination"? That's telling if you really believe it.

Quote from Martinghoul:

At any rate, my point is a lot simpler. The article makes a claim that "the crisis of the West is a crisis of liberalism". Inasmuch as the Scandinavian countries are part of "the West", the statement is patently false, if only because the Scandinavian countries aren't experiencing a crisis, by any stretch of the imagination.

They like to pay high taxes? LOL. Again, are you so biased that you don't grasp the irony of touting countries with oppressive taxes that have risen faster than GDP as liberalism success stories?

Quote from Martinghoul:

What ideology?... If people in Scandinavian countries like to pay high taxes...

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from Trader666:
Irrelevant to my point which was, soverigns can't run out of their own currency, therefore you can't technically use debt to GDP as a proxy for solvency as you did. Not to mention all the other variables that ignores.

Well, there's just no pleasing you... What's a measure of govt solvency that will meet your exacting criteria then? Let me just make sure I get this right: it's not debt/GDP, not deficit/GDP, not mkt bid for sovereign credit, not mkt bid for ccy; it can't be inflation... I would love to hear how you, in your infinite wisdom, judge the solvency of governments.

Canada and they brought their ratio down significantly with reforms that reduced liberal and socialist policies and spending.

Wait a sec, I am all confused now... You're telling me that the Scandinavian countries are in crisis (a few lines below) because their tax burdens as %age of GDP have risen. And yet they've brought down their debt/GDP significantly by reducing their "liberal & socialist policies and spending". I can only imagine that you approve and it's a good thing. But then you saying that they're still in crisis? I am having a hard time reconciling things here.

Which makes my point about ideology. Because without agreed upon definitions and criteria (which I agree won't happen), you'll judge success/failure by yours and I'll judge it by mine.

I don't see any ideology on my part. I believe I have provided you with a relatively large amount of data that suggests that the Scandinavian societies are not in crisis. I make no further claim. What's ideological about that? What other assertions that you deem "ideological" have I made?

Taxes rising a lot faster than GDP to a nearly 50% revenue/GDP ratio is not a crisis "by any stretch of the imagination"? That's telling if you really believe it.

Huh? You have a really weird definition of "crisis", I have to say... As far as I can tell, tax revenue/GDP in the US has been falling (I am using WorldBank data). Does that mean that, while Scandinavia is in "crisis", the US isn't?

They like to pay high taxes? LOL. Again, are you so biased that you don't grasp the irony of touting countries with oppressive taxes that have risen faster than GDP as liberalism success stories?

I am not touting anything as a "success story". I tout it as a viable way (one of many) of organizing society, seeing as how it appears relatively, well, viable. I certainly wouldn't have the arrogance and the gall to pronounce judgement on a particular society's way of life, assuming its citizens take full responsibility for their choices. That's why I perceive my position as non-ideological.

 

[Trader666]

That doesn't negate my point; you're being disingenuous.

I was talking about Canada reducing THEIR debt/GDP ratio.

Of course you don't if you can't see a problem with oppressive taxes increasing faster than GDP.

It's not my "definition." Maybe you should try responding to what I write instead of the demons in your head. At what point would you agree it's a problem? 100%?

Sure you did. With context and words: "I just told you where liberalism is successful." You're being disingenuous again. As you are with your strawman about pronouncing judgment and pretending you have no ideology. We ALL do, you're just too biased and disingenuous to admit yours.

Quote from Martinghoul:

Well, there's just no pleasing you... What's a measure of govt solvency that will meet your exacting criteria then? Let me just make sure I get this right: it's not debt/GDP, not deficit/GDP, not mkt bid for sovereign credit, not mkt bid for ccy; it can't be inflation... I would love to hear how you, in your infinite wisdom, judge the solvency of governments.

Wait a sec, I am all confused now... You're telling me that the Scandinavian countries are in crisis (a few lines below) because their tax burdens as %age of GDP have risen. And yet they've brought down their debt/GDP significantly by reducing their "liberal & socialist policies and spending". I can only imagine that you approve and it's a good thing. But then you saying that they're still in crisis? I am having a hard time reconciling things here.

I don't see any ideology on my part. I believe I have provided you with a relatively large amount of data that suggests that the Scandinavian societies are not in crisis. I make no further claim. What's ideological about that? What other assertions that you deem "ideological" have I made?

Huh? You have a really weird definition of "crisis", I have to say... As far as I can tell, tax revenue/GDP in the US has been falling (I am using WorldBank data). Does that mean that, while Scandinavia is in "crisis", the US isn't?

I am not touting anything as a "success story". I tout it as a viable way (one of many) of organizing society, seeing as how it appears relatively, well, viable. I certainly wouldn't have the arrogance and the gall to pronounce judgement on a particular society's way of life, assuming its citizens take full responsibility for their choices. That's why I perceive my position as non-ideological.

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from Trader666:
That doesn't negate my point; you're being disingenuous.

I was talking about Canada reducing THEIR debt/GDP ratio.

Of course you don't if you can't see a problem with oppressive taxes increasing faster than GDP.

It's not my "definition." Maybe you should try responding to what I write instead of the demons in your head. At what point would you agree it's a problem? 100%?

Sure you did. With context and words: "I just told you where liberalism is successful." You're being disingenuous again. As you are with your strawman about pronouncing judgment and pretending you have no ideology. We ALL do, you're just too biased and disingenuous to admit yours.

1. Don't understand, sorry. What doesn't negate which point of yours? What am I being disingenuous about? I have offered you a number of measures of govt solvency. According to pretty much every single one of them, the Scandinavian countries are up there. You seem to disagree with both my statement and my reasoning, correct? Yet you're not willing to offer an alternative for either. Or do I misunderstand?

2. I misunderstood you about Canada. I know nothing about Canada and can't comment.

3. Well, whose definition is it? And why do you say I am not responding to you? Let me summarize how I see it: you point to a single metric that you believe is all-encompassing and indicates a massive problem. I disagree and I offer you a whole variety of metrics, according to which there is no problem. Moreover, I suggest that your metric is flawed, because it produces false negatives (e.g. US of A). What's more, even using your metric, you're exaggerating somewhat. According the data I have from the OECD (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=REV), tax revenue as %age of GDP grew in the last 45 years by: 36.1% in Sweden, 33.2% in Norway and 56.4% in Denmark. As to your question, I don't know when it becomes a problem, as I have no data upon which I can base such an estimation. One thing for sure, I see no good reason to extrapolate.

4. Of course, I have a view and a preference, 'cause otherwise we wouldn't be arguing. So I am happy to agree with you in that we ALL have our biases. To make you happy, how about I rephrase then: my statement that some liberal societies are viable is a lot less biased than a statement that "all liberal societies are in crisis".

 

[tradinglucy]

You're measuring life in terms of money. What good is money if you don't have friends and family? A $100 only comforts you once, and that happens when you spend it and never see it again.

Quote from jem:


"The old Sweden, in contrast, has not done as well in economic terms. In 1960 taxation stood at 30 percent of GDP, roughly where the US is today. As taxes rose, economic growth decreased, with Sweden dropping from being the 4th richest country in 1970 to being the 12th richest in 2008. Swedish GDP per capita is now $36,600, far below the $45,500 of the US, and even further behind the $56,900 of Swedes in America.

 

[plyka]

Quote from Martinghoul:

How bizarre that the author forgets to mention that probably the most "liberal", "socialist", etc societies in the West, e.g. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, are all doing just fine. More than fine, they seem to be kickin' ass and taking names, last I checked (and no, it's not the oil). Furthermore, I would have to guess that the author chooses to omit Germany and Switzerland for a similar reason. Finally, to suggest that the crisis in Ireland has the same root cause as the one in Greece is rather, shall we say, unenlightened. In fact, I expected that the author would hold Ireland up as a paragon of capitalist virtue, what with one of the lowest corporate tax rates and government expenditure/GDP ratios in the world.

I can't imagine why the author of such a well thought out and researched article would make such glaring omissions. Bizarre, indeed.

We are talking about mixed economies when we are talking about the USA, Sweden, Denmark, etc. We are talking about differences in degrees. The USA is a mixed socialist society, as are most of the European countries.

First off, oil has a lot do do with the Norway's of the world. The North Sea oil was discovered not too long ago, and this has gone a long way towards their situations.

That said, a country like Switzerland is not a "socialist" country, any more than the USA is. Here is a list of the countries with the most economic freedom:

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Hong Kong is #1, the most capitalist state by far (although it is now back to being owned by "communist" china. still they are run differently, and "communist" china is moving towards Hong Kong, instead of "re-communizing" Hong Kong.)

Singapore is #2

Australia and New Zealand are #3 and #4

Switz is #5 then come Canada, Ireland and Denmark

Then the USA at #9

Just look at the list. Just research a little bit of history. No rational individual who is being honest can ever claim that socialist is good for the wealth of the normal person. Real, free market, laissez-faire capitalism, or in the typical "mixed economies" the states which are more capitalist will always do better for the NORMAL individual, and there can be zero doubt.

The more you move towards socialism, the more you move towards "fair" and poor societies. Just compare North Korea with South Korea, these two used to be the EXACT SAME COUNTRY with the EXACT SAME PEOPLE, it was split during the Korean War, and what do you have? The South Korean people are 10-20 times more well off than the North. One is socialist (communist) and the other is a mixed economy (part socialist and part capitalist). Just look at the freakin results.

Look at what has happened to China, just for making progress towards capitalism and freedom and they are exploding. If they continue to move towards Capitalism, they will continue to become richer.

I can't believe that this still has to be explained to people. Just learn about history. Even if you are a die hard socialist, if you are honest with yourself, you will see what the result of socialism is. Death, destruction and slavery. Socialism = force.

Saint-Simon, the grandfather of French socialism had admitted that true socialism was impossible unless you had a totalitarian government. He even said that people who do not believe in the governmetn and socialism must be treated as less than animals/cattle. That's what Socialism is. After that would not sell, the socialist stole the term "liberal" which used to mean classical liberal, capitalist, etc. They stole the term and said that socialism really was for freedom, just another kind of freedom. This is the biggest lie of the century.

Socialism has brought you the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republic), it has brought you the NAZI's (NAZI is short for "National Socialists), it brought you Moa's China, it brought you Castro's cuba. The list is endless. How many people have these lunatics killed? Something like 200 million people in the 20th century. That's basically everyone in the USA. And those were the lucky ones. The other BILLIONS were tortured, turned into cattle, raped and pillaged and basically turned into what Saint-Simon said they would be turned into, less than animals.