Why does liberalism-socialism fail?

[Ricter]

Quote from Mav88:

by the size of government (39% GDP). In spite of your constant harping for more government you fail to understand we are already extremely socialist. The problem with people like you is that you want to keep doubling down on failure.

http://www.economics21.org/commentary/us-and-europe-governments-equal-size

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_percentage_of_GDP

 

[Mav88]

Quote from Ricter:

That will still leave them far more "socialist" than us.

when the welfare state threatened to ruin them, which direction did they move?

and no, they are not 'far more'

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Ricter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_percentage_of_GDP

Nothing in that link disputes anything in Mav's data.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Nothing in that link disputes anything in Mav's data.

Sweden's 47.9 & 52.5 are greater than the US's 26.9 & 38.9.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Ricter:

Sweden's 47.9 & 52.5 are greater than the US's 26.9 & 38.9.

Great, but the article is talking about IMF projections, and then goes in about spending on welfare alone, which is Mav's argument.

Despite perceptions of Sweden as a socialist society, the IMF projects that between 1993 and 2016, the Swedes will have shrunk their government by 32% as a share of their economy.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Great, but the article is talking about IMF projections.

Ahh, well if you want to bring in the IMF, let's discuss their recent study of the multiplier, and their recommendations to the first world governments re austerity.

Anyway, perhaps Mav88 would like to measure government size taking population into account.

<img src="http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/9789264075061-en/images/graphics/g04-02.gif">

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Ricter:

Ahh, well if you want to bring in the IMF, let's discuss their recent study of the multiplier, and their recommendations to the first world governments re austerity.

Anyway, perhaps Mav88 would like to measure government size taking population into account.

<img src="http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/9789264075061-en/images/graphics/g04-02.gif">

We can talk about the IMF all you like. I'm not in this debate. I'm just telling you what I think Mav's argument was, and your wikipedia link didn't really refute anything he said. As far as that chart goes, 6 years is a little out of date considering the last 6 years of US spending trajectory.

You might want to use something a tad more recent if you're going to stress a point (whatever point that might be). Just a suggestion.

 

[Mav88]

Quote from Ricter:

Ahh, well if you want to bring in the IMF, let's discuss their recent study of the multiplier, and their recommendations to the first world governments re austerity.

Anyway, perhaps Mav88 would like to measure government size taking population into account.

<img src="http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/9789264075061-en/images/graphics/g04-02.gif">

what is the source of that plot? there is no description of what it actually is

 

[stoic]

If you took all the income of people over $200,000, it would only yield about $1.89 trillion, enough revenue to cover the 2012 bill for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The rich, in short, aren’t nearly rich enough to finance Mr. Obama’s entitlement state ambitions—even before his health-care plan kicks in.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Mav88:

what is the source of that plot? there is no description of what it actually is

google.com, search string = "per capita government spending by country"