The Long Retreat of Liberalism

[Illum]

Quote from plyka:

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.

Liberals are the most vile creatures to ever walk the earth. their stupidity, their fear of their own freedom is a menace too all intelligent, confident humans. Their own self hate leads them to try to control everything, rob from those who are not scared and ashamed. Liberals don't even care if their bullshit works. They will grab more power in their idiotic desperation. They are worse than filth. A cancer. Their own failings need to be exposed, before they run their smelly mouths. They need to be shunned not helped or pitied. And their woe is me crap should be stomped, or you will find them sucking you dry.

There is a reason these banks are so huge. The big government that supports their failings is leeching off the free and the strong. And liberals will still try and place blame on freedom for what they have caused. Worse yet they believe it, because they are idiots.

 

[trefoil]

Martinghoul, why are you down here in the gates to the Underworld? You've been here long enough to know that ET politics is as follows:

1 - Tea Party/Libertarian
2 - Everybody else

...and everybody else is a flaming liberal.

Actually, that pretty much describes American politics as well these days. The problem is everybody else hasn't yet realized just how disengaged from reality the guys up in number one are...yet. But as the poll numbers for the governors of Ohio, Florida, and Wisconsin show, once they find out, they don't like it. (Don't worry about that last bit about the guvs. Stick to Denmark, it's nicer.)

 

[Ricter]

Quote from plyka:

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

All of those countries more free than the US have far larger tax rates (tax/GDP) than the US does. Is that the key to economic freedom, higher taxes?

Edit: oops, not Singapore. "Most".

 

[Trader666]

How about you chase those rabbits down by actually reading what I've already posted? Look -- if you want to believe "liberalism is successful" in countries with oppressive taxes that have increased faster than GDP, be my guest. Obama probably thinks Obamacare is a great plan too but time will tell on both. BTW, I don't believe increasing and high revenue/GDP is "all-encompassing" nor did I say it was. And just because the U.S. has a different set of problems, it doesn't render Denmark, Sweden and Norway immune to the negative effects of excessive taxation. And to further clarify, I have no idea the extent to which liberalism is retreating in any of those three countries, if at all, but am confident it will if their taxes get much higher.

Quote from Martinghoul:

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".

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from trefoil:
Martinghoul, why are you down here in the gates to the Underworld? You've been here long enough to know that ET politics is as follows:

1 - Tea Party/Libertarian
2 - Everybody else

...and everybody else is a flaming liberal.

Actually, that pretty much describes American politics as well these days. The problem is everybody else hasn't yet realized just how disengaged from reality the guys up in number one are...yet. But as the poll numbers for the governors of Ohio, Florida, and Wisconsin show, once they find out, they don't like it. (Don't worry about that last bit about the guvs. Stick to Denmark, it's nicer.)

I don't know why, to be honest... I think I'll stop.

I don't really see myself as either a flaming liberal or a flaming conservative. My two favorite places in the world are Scandinavia and Singapore and it's hard to imagine two cultures that could possibly be more different. Still, as far as I am concerned, both types work and who am I to say one's better than the other?

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from plyka:
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.

As I keep saying, it's not about Norwegian oil. We're talking about Scandinavia and neither Denmark, nor Sweden have anything special in the way of natural resources.

As to socialism, let me talk about my favorite regions, with which I am somewhat familiar. I am not really sure what your point is, except that this is a more complex issue than just the economic freedom. For example, Denmark seems to offer more economic freedom than the US (according to the Heritage Foundation ranking) and yet, as Trader666 keeps reminding us, it's a "socialist" country with the highest tax burden as %age of GDP in the OECD (48.2%). Moreover, Denmark is one of the top countries in the world ranked by political freedom (ranked #3 in the EIU Democracy Index, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index). On the other hand, Singapore, which seems to offer almost the best economic freedom out there, is actually ranked very low in terms of political freedom (#82 in the Democracy Index; 133 out of 175 in the Press Freedom Index). I can tell you first-hand that if you're a Westerner and you're into the whole "civil rights", "freedom of expression", etc thing, Singapore isn't the place for you (the Internal Security Act gives the govt very broad powers over the individual). So how do you reconcile these two: economic and political freedom? As I mentioned, I love both Scandinavia and Singapore and am happy that they both seem to work.

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from Trader666:
How about you chase those rabbits down by actually reading what I've already posted? Look -- if you want to believe "liberalism is successful" in countries with oppressive taxes that have increased faster than GDP, be my guest. Obama probably thinks Obamacare is a great plan too but time will tell on both. BTW, I don't believe increasing and high revenue/GDP is "all-encompassing" nor did I say it was. And just because the U.S. has a different set of problems, it doesn't render Denmark, Sweden and Norway immune to the negative effects of excessive taxation. And to further clarify, I have no idea the extent to which liberalism is retreating in any of those three countries, if at all, but am confident it will if their taxes get much higher.

Well, listen, mate, if you don't wanna address my specific points and just offer generalities, it's OK. I believe I have responded precisely to what you have said. Moreover, I have asked you a few times to confirm whether I have understood you correctly. In response, you keep saying the same thing and now start bringing in stuff that's completely irrelevant. When did I ever say anything about Obama and Obamacare?

At any rate, let me just point out my new favorite data point. According to the Heritage Foundation, Denmark, with its highest taxes in the OECD, ranks above the US in terms of economic freedom. Moreover, according to their data, Denmark's index of economic freedom has been rising steadily, although the earliest data point they have is from 1996 (1996 - 67.3, 2011 - 78.6). Shocking, isn't it?

 

[Trader666]

Nonsense. I've given you specifics, refuted points and faulty logic but am tired of re-explaining things. Speaking of which, you still don't get the oppressive taxation which is why I keep bringing it up... as I've said I believe it's because of your bias, thus the Obamacare analogy.

Looking at your "new favorite data point" we can see that Denmark overall is just barely above the United States but if you look at fiscal freedom (tax burden) and government, they have atherosclerosis in comparison to the others in the top 10. I also question the equal weighting of all factors. But you'll see what you want to in it given your biases and so will I given mine. Which BTW you wouldn't admit to until I boxed you into a corner. So do us both a favor and play your holier-than-thou games with someone else.

Quote from Martinghoul:

Well, listen, mate, if you don't wanna address my specific points and just offer generalities, it's OK. I believe I have responded precisely to what you have said. Moreover, I have asked you a few times to confirm whether I have understood you correctly. In response, you keep saying the same thing and now start bringing in stuff that's completely irrelevant. When did I ever say anything about Obama and Obamacare?

At any rate, let me just point out my new favorite data point. According to the Heritage Foundation, Denmark, with its highest taxes in the OECD, ranks above the US in terms of economic freedom. Moreover, according to their data, Denmark's index of economic freedom has been rising steadily, although the earliest data point they have is from 1996 (1996 - 67.3, 2011 - 78.6). Shocking, isn't it?

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from Trader666:
Nonsense. I've given you specifics, refuted points and faulty logic but am tired of re-explaining things. Speaking of which, you still don't get the oppressive taxation which is why I keep bringing it up... as I've said I believe it's because of your bias, thus the Obamacare analogy.

Looking at your "new favorite data point" we can see that Denmark overall is just barely above the United States but if you look at fiscal freedom (tax burden) and Government, they have atherosclerosis in comparison to the others in the top 10. I also question the equal weighting of all factors. But you'll see what you want to in it given your biases and so will I given mine. Which BTW you wouldn't admit to until I boxed you into a corner. So do us both a favor and play your holier-than-thou games with someone else.

Well, you're tired, I'm tired, we're all tired. And you're incorrect, I do get the whole oppressive taxation thing. But, as I have said before, you keep pointing to this single metric again and again and you think somehow that it's all encompassing and most significant. I disagree; it appears that the Heritage Foundation (which is a conservative think tank, if I am not mistaken) disagrees; the Economist Intelligence Unit disagrees; the financial mkts disagree. Still you insist that you and you alone are qualified to define what constitutes a crisis (as per the original assertion of the article). You'll therefore have to forgive me for attaching very little weight to your opinion given the weight of evidence against it.

As to boxing me into a corner and games, I am not quite sure what to say. It's a very childish attitude, in my view, but you're certainly entitled to it.

 

[Trader666]

More biased holier-than-thou nonsense. I never said it was all encompassing or most significant and even specifically said I don't believe it's all encompassing but despite all that, you pretend to know what I think ("you think somehow that it's all encompassing and most significant"). You also summarily dismissed my points and falsely claimed I insist that only I know what constitutes a crisis ("still you insist that you and you alone are qualified to define what constitutes a crisis"). So who's really being childish? As I said... go play your games with someone else.

Quote from Martinghoul:

Well, you're tired, I'm tired, we're all tired. And you're incorrect, I do get the whole oppressive taxation thing. But, as I have said before, you keep pointing to this single metric again and again and you think somehow that it's all encompassing and most significant. I disagree and it appears that the Heritage Foundation (which is a conservative think tank, if I am not mistaken) disagrees. Still you insist that you and you alone are qualified to define what constitutes a crisis (as per the original assertion of the article).

As to boxing me into a corner and games, I am not quite sure what to say. It's a very childish attitude, in my view, but you're certainly entitled to it.