Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Welfare

Rate this topic


aleph_0

Recommended Posts

You are either being remarkably sloppy, or intellectually dishonest. The record shows that you were not referring to health care.

Please demonstrate since, from the very beginning, I've been referring to health care.

But these things are available to everybody without the welfare state. Do you have any concrete evidence that the state does these things?

Available but not provided. I have reason to believe the state does these things from conversations that I've had, and I'm now asking for evidence concerning the practices of the welfare state. Have you any evidence, or just more irrelevant posts that skirt the issue?

First, stay on topic. You asked what evidence I had that we can't predict the manner or time of the demise of Scandinavian socialism, and the fact which shows this is the lack of a predictive quantitative model.

I'd ask the same of you. Please show where I asked this particular question.

Your response is incoherent.

If you can't understand it, then leave. Others have already understood it and provided relevant responses.

Spurious reasoning: you have to factor in the consideration that each year, those in the bottom 1% of the upper 1% will simply produce $500 less to avoid the taxes, reducing GDP.

That assumes that they will have the managerial control to project earnings that narrowly and stop--for lack of a better phrase--on a dime.

Another 1% at the top end will get fed up and leave the country, or cheat on their taxes, or whatever.

Considering the extent to which people in Europe, America, and the world are comfortable existing in states with far greater taxes, I don't see evidence for this.

I still don't know that you mean by "sustainable".

I'm not going to waste my time teaching 5th grade English.

what evidence you have that Scandinavian welfare is "sustainable",

Did I ever say that I had such evidence? All I have done is ask for evidence. If you don't have it, then goodbye.

The tragic history of communist and socialist governments of the past 100 years is proof enough that socialism is flawed on simply practical grounds.

And yet they were administered differently from the socialism of modern Scandinavian countries, it seems, and I'm asking for evidence as to whether their states will necessarily lead to collapse or reform. Answer it or not, but this bullet dodging is getting old and distracting from the actual topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Please demonstrate since, from the very beginning, I've been referring to health care.
In a reply to this message, insert the link to the post that shows this, by 8ish Eurotime = 2am EDT, so I can see the reference. I'll address the rest in the morning, depending on what rabbit you manage to pull out of your hat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the extent to which people in Europe, America, and the world are comfortable existing in states with far greater taxes, I don't see evidence for this.

Do you live in Europe? Do you understand that it is only in an area such as Scandinavia, where they have billions to waste away on such projects, that any sort of sustainability can actually exist? When that oil runs out, then they truely will be screwed. I've explained before that... well... here in Europe we aren't existing 'comfortable'. Leaving the middle-class is near impossible. My mother, my father and my step-father have all had first hand experience of this - taxation is just at that sweet point where, yes, it's payable, but it's also so much that it's impossible to ever save up enough to move up in the world.

That aside, why are you trying to look for ancillary arguments for socialist health-care? Do you wish to see why they still manage to exist in Scandinavia? It's only possible due to the large amounts of money available. When you look at national health care elsewhere (like, er... Britain) it's absolutely fucked up, in terms of bureaucracy and financial deficit.

How about you stop making snide comments, insulting people on their reading ability, and just say what you mean? State, in a single post, specifically what you want to know and why.

Edited by Tenure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That aside, why are you trying to look for ancillary arguments for socialist health-care? [...]

How about you stop making snide comments, insulting people on their reading ability, and just say what you mean? State, in a single post, specifically what you want to know and why.

Tenure, you won't get an answer from him this late at night. He's either up late right now putting together a (slanted) website geared towards Objectivist voters in 2008...a website that, in his words is being made "obviously, with emphasis on information about Giuliani"...or he is resting from it. Boy, campaigning for Giuliani's virtues really is hard work!

He didn't insult me by suggesting that I might have trouble with reading comprehension either. He's actually dead on, now that I think about it. When he says that "welfare is immoral"...I can understand the language he is using, very clearly, (maybe even more than he) and can even comprehend it enough to agree with him about that statement. But...after saying that...when he goes on to look for it's sustainablility, effectiveness...instead of just how much more unsustainable it is...that's when it's...like reading something foreign, and my comprehension of the language he uses, deceases incrementally with every word thereafter.

If he is making a website specifically for Objectivist voters in 2008, please...use the correct language that I can understand it with. Better yet, how about just linking to Dr. Peikoff's statement about Guiliani...I can understand his use of the language perfectly clear, not yours.

I really do hope your website receives many, many hits...then maybe it won't be so slanted. Can I be the one to give it it's first hit? Hmmm... I think I just did...

[even his use of punctuation I can't comprehend...just look at the thread title...]

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can't understand it, then leave.

(snip)

All I have done is ask for evidence. If you don't have it, then goodbye.

I have to assume by this "goodbye" that you mean you would be leaving the thread. If you choose to stop responding to posts that you don't like, that's fine and within your ability. However, you don't have the juice to tell moderators to leave a thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you live in Europe? Do you understand that it is only in an area such as Scandinavia, where they have billions to waste away on such projects, that any sort of sustainability can actually exist? When that oil runs out, then they truely will be screwed. I've explained before that... well... here in Europe we aren't existing 'comfortable'. Leaving the middle-class is near impossible. My mother, my father and my step-father have all had first hand experience of this - taxation is just at that sweet point where, yes, it's payable, but it's also so much that it's impossible to ever save up enough to move up in the world.

When I say "comfortable" I don't mean the kind of comfort you get from sitting on the couch. I mean the kind of comfort you have with an abstract idea. E.g. "I'm comfortable with the idea of god." People in Europe have a long history of living with massive taxes. If you imposed those kinds of taxes in America we'd be up in arms, but Europeans have grown accustomed to it.

As for oil, that may well be. I need to look into it. I'll read the books recommended thus far. Is that information about oil contained in them? If not, can you recommend a source that does indicate how Scandinavian economies could not survive without oil?

How about you stop making snide comments, insulting people on their reading ability, and just say what you mean? State, in a single post, specifically what you want to know and why.

I've finished with those people. The reason I made snide and insulting comments is because they wrote rude things in regard to my posts, and wanted to show that I would not respect such a thing. I have no hostility toward you or anybody else who treats me with respect. I'm just here on an information-gathering mission.

I have to assume by this "goodbye" that you mean you would be leaving the thread. If you choose to stop responding to posts that you don't like, that's fine and within your ability. However, you don't have the juice to tell moderators to leave a thread.

No, I haven't left the topic, I've just stopped reading posts by people detracting from the topic and insisting upon rudeness. In the past I've tried to be reasonable with Odden and ammo, but it seems once they have a grudge over a philosophical matter it turns into a personal matter. So I'm done dealing with them.

Now as to what kind of juice I have, I don't know. I'm not sure what "juice" is. If it is the chutzpah to tell a moderator to leave, I certainly have it. I definitely don't have the "firepower" to tell a moderator to leave--I couldn't delete his posts or ban him. But as of yet, I haven't even told him to leave. I've provided a conditional statement to explain how this forum works: If you have no information on the topic, or if you are not interested in it, then nobody interested in the topic will care to read your posts and it will constitute clutter and distraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now as to what kind of juice I have, I don't know. I'm not sure what "juice" is. If it is the chutzpah to tell a moderator to leave, I certainly have it. I definitely don't have the "firepower" to tell a moderator to leave--

In American slang "juice" typically refers to authority or power to accomplish something. Clearly you have the capability of typing the words on the screen, as evidenced by the fact that you did, so that couldn't be it. Keyboard "bravery" (or chutzpa) comes a dime a dozen so I'm not talking about that. The later, the firepower, is what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got it. Though, telling me that I haven't the firepower to ban a moderator is just as obvious as noting my physical capacity to type the words, so both interpretations are rather straight-forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Welfare state is NOT sustainable. The Welfare state does NOT work. The Welfare state has hurt Sweden. I know because I live in Sweden. But you don't need to live here to know it. The facts speaks for themselves.

We got just like in the US public schools. And they are bad. And we got socialized health care. And just like in the UK and Canada, the health care is rationed. So people die while waiting for health care.

Sometimes they don't get any health care at all because the landstings (a regional government body) which deals with the health care can't afford it. And while the vast majority of Americans have a private health insure (at least via their employer), most people in Sweden can't afford it at all. The high taxes (about 60% of the income) make people forced to depend on socialized health care and public schools.

Now, Sweden is not a poor third world country. But it is not as wealthy as the US. And to the extent that is is wealthy, it is not due to the social democrats or the welfare state. That's a myth.

Just to give you one indication of how the welfare state has hurt Sweden and made it much poorer than the US: about 25% of the households in the US earn an income of 25 000 dollars or less. Well, in Sweden 40% earns an income of 25 000 dollars or less! (For the source of this statement, see the EU vs USA report from the Swedish think tank Timbro. See the link at the end of this post.)

Sweden became wealthy not thanks to the welfare state or the government interventions in the economy, but DESPITE them. Swedens rise from one the poorest countries in Europe in the 19th century, to one of the wealthies nations in the world around 1970, was entirely the result of it's high degree of capitalism.

The social democrats didn't get to hold office until the 1930s. During their first 30 years in power they were very pragmatic. They left the economy pretty much as it were before they took office. By the early 1960s, the Swedish government had roughly the same size as the US government have today, i.e., about 25-30% of GDP.

However, in the late 1960s the social democrats turned radical. During the 1970s they heavily increased the size of the government. The welfare state expanded and the taxes were increased. In the 1960s the tax pressure amounted to about 30% of the GDP. By the early 1980s it went over 50%!

It didn't work. Which was expected by everyone except social democrats. High taxes on everything and everybody, high inflation, the redistribution of wealth-policies, destroyed the incentives for people to work, to invest, to start companies, to create wealth. So during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s Sweden went from being the third richest country in the world, according to the OECD, to the 15th richest country in the world! This while the US is still among the five richest, just as it was in 1970!

Suggested reading:

http://www.neolibertarian.net/articles/san...i_20060414.aspx

Sweden is in a sense an ideal natural experiment in economic policies. Sweden was an impoverished nation until capitalism was introduced in the country during the 1870s.  Although the socialdemocrats had a strong influence during the first half of the 20th century, they were pragmatic and slow to expand the size of government. Sweden was one of the freest economies in the world during this period and experienced the second fastest growth in the world between 1870 and 1970, second only to Japan. During the 60s the socialdemocrats radicalized and a rapid expansion of taxation, the regulatory burden and government occurred. Sweden became the country with the most extensive welfare state in the world, the highest taxes, the strongest unions and the longest period of one party rule (the socialdemocrats have been in power 60 of the past 69 years). Between the 1960s and the 1980s the government’s share of the Swedish economy increased from about 30 percent (approximately the same as the US) to about 55 percent. From this period and onward, the Swedish model has been on the decline.

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/

If the European Union were a state in the USA it would belong to the poorest group of states. France, Italy, Great Britain and Germany have lower GDP per capita than all but four of the states in the United States. In fact, GDP per capita is lower in the vast majority of the EU-countries (EU 15) than in most of the individual American states. This puts Europeans at a level of prosperity on par with states such as Arkansas, Mississippi and West Virginia. Only the miniscule country of Luxembourg has higher per capita GDP than the average state in the USA. The results of the new study represent a grave critique of European economic policy.

http://truckandbarter.com/mt/archives/000590.html

By all relevant measures the Western European economies are not doing well compared to America. GDP per capita is some 40% higher in the US than among the EU 15. Unemployment for many of the welfare states is stuck in double digits, and even higher using comprehensive measures.

The relative poverty is reflected in many areas, such as lower private consumption, and lower quality of public services despite higher taxes. One would expect a vivid debate in Europe of their economic problems, especially given how resentful many Europeans are of America’s superior wealth and power. But Europe has chosen a much more painless approach: Denial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the information, knast, that kind of thing is definitely in the ballpark of what I'm looking for. Still, it misses the mark a bit. I mean, you say that some people die waiting for health care, but is that number larger than the number of Americans who die for lack of health care? Yes, Sweden's economy has suffered from their civic programs, but is there any indication that it will not survive?

Generally, what I hear people claim about Scandinavian welfare systems is that, while they drain the economy, the economy is not what these countries are trying to serve. They live with less wages, but they are all cared for as a result. My question is, is this a short-term situation, or must it end at some time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the information, knast, that kind of thing is definitely in the ballpark of what I'm looking for. Still, it misses the mark a bit. I mean, you say that some people die waiting for health care, but is that number larger than the number of Americans who die for lack of health care? Yes, Sweden's economy has suffered from their civic programs, but is there any indication that it will not survive? Generally, what I hear people claim about Scandinavian welfare systems is that, while they drain the economy, the economy is not what these countries are trying to serve. They live with less wages, but they are all cared for as a result. My question is, is this a short-term situation, or must it end at some time?

I don't know how many who dies from waiting for health care in Sweden or in the US. But my guess is that it is much more per capita in Sweden, just like it is much more in Canada and the UK compared with the US. But in the end the precise number is irrelevant. Why? It is irrelevant because the primary reason people lack proper health care in the US is essentially the same as in Sweden: government interventions!

This has been thoroughly explained several times before by philosophers like Leonard Peikoff and economists like George Reisman. And many, many more. Most recently Onkar Ghate from the Ayn Rand Institute explained it in his latest op-ed "No Right to 'Free' Health Care".

Basically, if socialism usually amounts to mass murder. Then the welfare state can properly be regarded as the slow mass suicide of a nation. So I guess that if a *slow mass suicide* is the standard of "survival", then I guess Sweden will "survive". Yeah, I guess, just like people, somehow, seem to "survive" and "prosper" in Third World countries. We'll just have to see, I guess...

Whatever myths and lies you've been exposed to, it's not true. People are *not* being "cared for" in the welfare state. People are being made into dependents who can't care for themselves. They are in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats who couldn't care less. Instead of being able to provide themselves with health care they have to turn to the government. And then they have to wait. But if the politicians at the landsting have decided that this particular kind of health care isn't important enough, then tough luck.

Now, people are not dependent on public schooling, or housing, or health care because the free market can't provide people with these things to reasonable prices. (Though that may be true in the sense that most people in Sweden can't afford it after all their taxes are paid.) They are dependent because the taxes for a *normal* wage earner in Sweden amounts to roughly 60%! The welfare state has turned the swedish population into beggars!

Must this end due to the economical realities? Yes. Otherwise we will end up as some other welfare states (see Uruguay) or the product of them (see New Orleans). It is a well known fact that in the early 1970s, the welfare state had drained the economy of the UK so much that it was widely considered, at the time, as one of the poorest countries in western Europe.

In fact, the economic crises we went through in the early 1990s made it clear to most people that we simply can't afford the welfare state any longer. The public pension system is just like the one in the US more or less bankrupt. Therefore the younger generation in Sweden know how utterly foolish it is to be dependent on the welfare state. Now, some people are still being in denial here, but they will get the wake up call soon enough.

Ask yourself, is it possible in the end, to survive in the long-term by eating up all your food today, leaving nothing left for tomorrow? If not, then why do you imagine that it would be anymore possible for 9 million people to slowly commit economical suicide by "eating up" all of our wealth? By punishing the producers with high taxes and regulations? By supporting millions of bums on the public dole? Are you being silly?!?

To the extent we survive it's not thanks to the welfare state. It's thanks to the degree of economical freedom, i.e., the degree of capitalism, which we still enjoy. The welfare state is like a pickpocket. It can hurt you, but it will take many of them to actually kill you economically. (And as long as you are free to create more wealth it won't be a big problem.) But that doesn't make the situation "sustainable". Not, when in fact, there actually is million on the public dole!

One of the reaons our politicians say there's never enough money for health care or public education, is precisely because millions are living on the public dole. It IS draining the economy. It, the welfare state, is in its essence nothing more than an "economical" black hole, which is slowly pulling everything and everybody down with its own demise!

I don't want to be rude, but your questions imply that you don't know much about this subject (the evils of the welfare state). Therefore I would suggest that you study more economics (in particular by economists such as Henry Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises and George Reisman), history and economic history. You should read books like The Welfare State Were In by James Bartholomew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to be rude, but your questions imply that you don't know much about this subject (the evils of the welfare state).

Obviously I don't know much about Scandinavian welfare states. That's why I'm asking.

As for other welfare states, I know that ours is not working to the extent that it is a welfare state. I know that it has drained the UK, USSR, many Latin American countries, New Zealand, and so on. These are all historic failures. So far, it seems the Scandinavian welfare state is not a historic failure, and I'm asking why. Not to be rude, but you really haven't provided any information on this. While it was informative to know that some people die while waiting for health care, the value of that information is very uncertain if it is not quantified and compared to other systems. Information on other welfare states is likewise not useful, because the question addresses specifically Scandinavian welfare systems. Now unless one can point out why the differences between the systems are not relevant, and can still explain why other welfare systems have failed while this one apparently succeeds, the failure of other systems is not yet evidence to the failure of the Scandinavian system.

I don't claim to have evidence that Scandinavian health care is relevantly different from other health care systems, nor do I have evidence that it is not. Like I said, I'm seeking out information, and as of right now the dearth of information that I have found does not tell me what I ought to believe.

Therefore I would suggest that you study more economics (in particular by economists such as Henry Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises and George Reisman), history and economic history. You should read books like The Welfare State Were In by James Bartholomew.

I've already read Theory of Money and Credit by Mises, as well as several of his articles.

Does the book you refer to specifically address Scandinavian welfare states?

Are you being silly?!?

Why do you assume that, just because I do not dogmatically and religiously believe that all political systems besides capitalism are doomed to failure, I must myself be a socialist? Have I once, at any point, argued for a welfare state?

I strongly suggest taking a couple classes in philosophy and logic.

Edited by aleph_0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far, it seems the Scandinavian welfare state is not a historic failure, and I'm asking why. Not to be rude, but you really haven't provided any information on this.

Yes, he did:

To the extent we survive it's not thanks to the welfare state. It's thanks to the degree of economical freedom, i.e., the degree of capitalism, which we still enjoy.

Why do you assume that, just because I do not dogmatically and religiously believe that all political systems besides capitalism are doomed to failure .....

Such view does not require dogmatism. Socialism has brought economic paralisis to every country (no matter what continent or culture) that tried it. The degree of socializaton, the degree of absence of capitalism has been the degree of disaster arround the world.

Do you think something can be immoral - yet practical? How?

But you want to discuss the practical so let's...

Welfare state can never reach the productive capacity that a capitalistic system can and thus it fails to satisfy the demands of the market. Collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Its failure can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.

In capitalism, market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior.

Welfare state, a system without market prices or profits, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. A lot of people don't appreciate the importance of market prices - but they are vital for economic efficiency - they transmit information about relative scarcity and then efficiently coordinate economic activity. A controlled or fixed price always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Administered prices are always either too high or too low, which then creates constant shortages and surpluses.

Welfare state's failure is also due to non-competitive (not profit-and-loss) system of accounting. A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses. By rewarding success and penalizing failure, the profit system provides a strong disciplinary mechanism which continually redirects resources away from weak, failing, and inefficient firms toward those firms which are the most efficient and successful at serving the public. A competitive profit system ensures a constant reoptimization of resources and moves the economy toward greater levels of efficiency. Unsuccessful firms cannot escape the strong discipline of the marketplace under a profit/loss system. Competition forces companies to serve the public interest or suffer the consequences.

Under central planning, there is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated. The results are a spiraling cycle of poverty and misery. Instead of continually reallocating resources towards greater efficiency, socialism falls into a vortex of inefficiency and failure.

(Taken from "Why Socialism Failed" by Mark J. Perry)

Socialized health care is run based on the same principles, faces the same problems, and results in the same failures - for the same reasons.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think something can be immoral - yet practical?

Sophia, that is a very well asked question!!!

The very pursuit for his ansillyry argument implicitly answers this for us already. The immoral is the impractical, right?...but let's go ahead and find an argument for the practicality, the sustainabilty, the effectiveness of welfare, anyways...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for other welfare states, I know that ours is not working to the extent that it is a welfare state. I know that it has drained the UK, USSR, many Latin American countries, New Zealand, and so on. These are all historic failures. So far, it seems the Scandinavian welfare state is not a historic failure, and I'm asking why. Not to be rude, but you really haven't provided any information on this. While it was informative to know that some people die while waiting for health care, the value of that information is very uncertain if it is not quantified and compared to other systems. Information on other welfare states is likewise not useful, because the question addresses specifically Scandinavian welfare systems. Now unless one can point out why the differences between the systems are not relevant, and can still explain why other welfare systems have failed while this one apparently succeeds, the failure of other systems is not yet evidence to the failure of the Scandinavian system.

I have indicated quite clearly that the welfare state in the Scandinavian systems don't work. I have provided you with explanations and facts. I can personally testify to the things I say because I after all live in one of theses "successful" welfare states.

You have not provided any information or reason as to why any of theses welfare state systems would be essentially different. The only difference I can think of, between the system in the UK, or the US, or Uruguay (to pick a extreme example), is the degree. In other words: to the extent other systems have failed MORE miserably than the Scandinavian systems, it is only because their welfare states have been larger, and their degree of capitalism is small.

What you are saying also suggests to me that you don't think in terms of principles. Because if you can see that the welfare state has failed in several countries, all over the world, then why can't you see that it is due to the very nature of the system? If you can realize this, then why do you expect the system of the Scandinavian countries to succeed? And how can you go on claiming that "one apparently succeeds" when the facts that I have provided you with shows us that it in fact doesn't?

Does the book you refer to specifically address Scandinavian welfare states?

No. But that is irrelevant. See above. (A clue: think in terms of principles.)

Why do you assume that, just because I do not dogmatically and religiously...

Now you ARE being silly. Are you suggesting that I am "dogmatically" and "religiously" because I say that the welfare state in Sweden doesn't work - even though I have provided you with several facts which indicates that's actually the case? Notice: facts - not religious "dogmas". I am *logically* arguing for my point with *facts*. The way I am looking at it, you actually comes out here as a dogmatic religiously ignoring everything I am saying.

I strongly suggest taking a couple classes in philosophy and logic.

This is totally arbitrary. Simply because YOU don't know much about this subject, and proves it by your own statements, does not mean that you can go and throw around insults like this. I am, and have been for the last four-five years, a student of philosophy at the University of Lund. And I will soon get my first degree. I know my philosophy and I know my logics, thank you very much!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the documented evidence that it ever will? Consider if you had a system that was purely capitalist. Then it regresses to a (highly) diluted welfare state in which each individual that composes the 1% of the society that has the greatest income, is taxed $500 every year for civil services. This society will not be as productive as it possibly could be, I'm sure. However, assuming this society is as productive as ours, it is clearly sustainable.

If the Scandinavian welfare states are sustainable, they are certainly sustainable only at a much lower level of affluence, but I wonder if they are at all sustainable--or would they have to give up either universality or effectiveness?

And therein lie The Catch. If taxing the top one percent works, why not tax the top two percent and "improve things" even more? For a democratic socialist system the only limiting negative feedback mechanism is vote by majority rule. This is a crude mechanism in indeed! For a non democratic socialist system, a forcible quasi fascist regime change is often invoked (see Russia after the fall of the communist state).

On the other hand, the market provides precision adjustments every second of every day. There is no need to invoke a global political process and -revolution- is incremental and the normal operating mode of the system. Think of the market as permanent revolution in a non-destructive form. Most people do not appreciate the market, Smith's Unseen Hand, for the near miracle is really is. Think of it. Just about everything you want or need is provided (for a price) and if it isn't there, there is every opportunity for someone to put it there. I know it works according to natural principles, but damn(!!) when you see it humming and working is seems like Ala Din's magic lamp. The market is our djinn.

I love the market system! No reasonable need or even desire need be unfulfilled.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to quote from a book by the Swedish author and proponent of capitalism, Johnny Munkhammar. The name of the book is European Dawn, and it deals with the problems of the welfare state all over Europe. The book begins with a interesting quote from Tony Blair:

Tony Blair spoke plainly about this in the European Parliament in June when he asked: "what type of social model is it that has 20 million unemployed in Europe, productivity rates falling behind those of the USA; that is allowing more science graduates to be produced by India than by Europe; and that, on any relative index of a modern economy - skills, R&D, patents, IT, is going down not up."

...

The pressure of taxation in proportion to the economy more than doubled between 1950 and 1980. The state grew dramatically as a share of society - the big state was born. The same thing happened in most of the countries of Western Europe, whatever the political colour of their governments.

Growth and employment have fallen since. High taxes cripple the productive forces by which all prosperity is generated. Companies move out and the entreperneurs that could replace them are crushed under the weight from the state. Labour market regulations create dependency on the state instead of job opportunity.

...

Healthcare is falling apart; people wait for months to have treatment. More youngsters are leaving school without basic skills. Older people are not getting the help they need to cope with everyday living. This is a direct consequence of the Model obstructing and prohibiting the forces of development. Free start-ups, free competition, free pricing, free funding.

We chose a command economy for welfare instead of a free one. That way you get a Trabant, not a BWM.

...

The problems have been obvious for a long time. (p 8-9.)

Let me quote some more:

A number of tragic occurrences show that things happen which are incompatible with basic human dignity. Public welfare services are insufficient even for fundamental needs. Ulla Berg, aged 61, living in Stockholm was told she has a form of cancer that is fatal unless treated promtly. But her doctor regretfully informed her: "There is no time. We don't have the resources. You'll have to put your name down on a long waiting list. We've no idea how long you'll have to wait." Ulla Berg describes the medical staff as trapped in a bad system: "The care chain is shot through with cynicism and hopelessness. No coordination ... Not knowing whether or when you will get treatment is the ultimate torment ... Night and day, all you can think about is getting help to die." (p 11-13.)

I see that the book is available at Amazon. The book is there described like this:

Western Europe is in deep trouble. Growth is low, unemployment is high, most people are dependent on the state and welfare services are falling apart. Yet most politicians defend the European Social Model. Reforms merely scratch the surface. But the model is not the solution to our problems – it is the problem. The high taxes put a brake on growth, the regulated labor market stops new jobs and public monopolies can’t deliver welfare services.

Forces like the international competition and the demographic situation make the need for radical reform desperate. Without reform, a collapse is coming. But if we decrease the size of the state and liberate the forces of development, Western Europe will face a new dawn. Many other countries have done it with great success. It is no secret what can be done, all it takes is political will. Facts and reality speak for themselves. This book shows what should be done and why.

But it is VERY expensive. It is not a long book which can make you feel like a sucker if you buy it for that price. Anyway, you can listen to a talk given by mr Munkhammar at the Heritage Foundation about this book, European Dawn, and the failure of the welfare state. See this link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, he did:

"To the extent we survive it's not thanks to the welfare state. It's thanks to the degree of economical freedom, i.e., the degree of capitalism, which we still enjoy."

That's just his claim. Can he substantiate that with evidence? That's what I've been asking for, and only few posts at the beginning have really spoken to that.

Such view does not require dogmatism. Socialism has brought economic paralisis to every country (no matter what continent or culture) that tried it.

This depends on what you mean by "economic paralysis". It should be obvious that socialism has restrained Sweden's economy, but it doesn't seem (as far as I know, unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary) to have impaired it such that it is collapsing. Indeed, it seems to be providing health care to the vast majority of its people in an effective way.

Please. Somebody correct me. With solid evidence.

Do you think something can be immoral - yet practical? How?

Practical unto an immoral purpose. Look at the Ottoman Empire, one of the longest-lived, largest, strongest political entities in history. Yes, I know, it was set apart because it was a leader in free thought and secular reason. But it still taxed and maintained a strongly mercantile economic system--which ultimately led to its downfall--and it survived for at least twice as long as America has been a country. That's pretty long-term success if you ask me. Also look at Napoleon.

Welfare state can never reach the productive capacity that a capitalistic system can and thus it fails to satisfy the demands of the market.

Nobody doubts that America's economy is stronger than Sweden's because of our smaller welfare system. What is doubted is whether the greater economy is useful for providing for people in our respective countries.

Socialized health care is run based on the same principles, faces the same problems, and results in the same failures - for the same reasons.

And yet, it seems that Scandinavian systems work.

I have indicated quite clearly that the welfare state in the Scandinavian systems don't work.

What studies have you cited? What are your sources? Government reports or ledgers? What particular evidence have you pointed to? If you have indicated this so clearly, your standards of rigor are much different from my own.

You have not provided any information or reason as to why any of theses welfare state systems would be essentially different.

I have said explicitly that I have no such evidence.

What you are saying also suggests to me that you don't think in terms of principles. Because if you can see that the welfare state has failed in several countries, all over the world, then why can't you see that it is due to the very nature of the system?

Because these particular countries seem to defy the principle. I'm certain that, if I had been alive in the 19th century I would have believed in Newtonian physics. But when I was shown the evidence that it was wrong, I would have questioned the principle. I'm doing the same now.

This is totally arbitrary.

No more than your suggestion that I read economic theory. It seems you are unable to understand logic, so I suggest you study it. Just because I ask a question which leaves open the possibility that socialism might be sustainable does not imply that I am a socialist. Basic logic.

Simply because YOU don't know much about this subject, and proves it by your own statements, does not mean that you can go and throw around insults like this.

You're the one calling me silly, and I'm the one "throwing around insults". Sure.

And therein lie The Catch. If taxing the top one percent works, why not tax the top two percent and "improve things" even more?

Now that's a point that I sympathize with. I think--and I could be wrong, so I would like to see evidence about this as well--but I think that a nation which taxes or accepts the idea of socialism cannot restrain itself as a matter of psychology. Fair enough.

I would like to quote from a book by the Swedish author and proponent of capitalism, Johnny Munkhammar. The name of the book is European Dawn, and it deals with the problems of the welfare state all over Europe. The book begins with a interesting quote from Tony Blair:

That's what I've been asking for all along. Finally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems you are unable to understand logic, so I suggest you study it. Just because I ask a question which leaves open the possibility that socialism might be sustainable does not imply that I am a socialist. Basic logic.

Basic logic? Don't make me laugh.

How about actually reading what I wrote? I never said that you were a socialist. I did however say that it would indeed be silly to think, with all that we know today about socialism in all of its forms and variations (including the watered down version of it which is the welfare state), that socialism in one way or another can be "sustainable". It is a sign that you don't have a good understanding of economics or economic history.

What studies have you cited? What are your sources? Government reports or ledgers? What particular evidence have you pointed to?

This is bizarre. I gave you three links to two articles and one book in my very first post. Did you ever read them? It doesn't seem like it. After that I recommended at least three more books: Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics by Reisman, Man versus the Welfare State by Hazlitt and The Welfare State We're In by Bartholomew. And while I am at it, I can also vouch for The Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein.

First you write things like: "I have said explicitly that I have no such evidence." Then in the next sentence you all of a sudden write: "Because these particular countries [the Scandinavian ones] seem to defy the principle." How do you know that if you don't have any evidence for believing that?

Is this, by the way, evidence of your superior understanding of "logic"? First, ignore all the facts which proves you to be completely wrong. Then say that you don't have any reason to actually believe the things you seem to believe. Then when you get the suggestion that maybe you should study the subject more, precisely because you don't seem to know what you're talking about, you get upset and starts to call other people "religious" and "dogmatic"? Yet you can't understand how someone can get the impression that you're not for real?

Gee, I wonder why. No, now I am done with you. You can say whatever you want to me or about me. I don't care. I only tried to help you. Hopefully others saw some value in what I wrote.

Edited by knast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This depends on what you mean by "economic paralysis". It should be obvious that socialism has restrained Sweden's economy, but it doesn't seem (as far as I know, unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary) to have impaired it such that it is collapsing.

I have explained what I ment in the next sentance:

"The degree of socializaton, the degree of absence of capitalism has been the degree of disaster arround the world". Prosperity in the world is the degree of capitalism. Pure socialism leads to mass starvation. If social programs survive it is because they are supported by capitalist policies in other areas and such programs are always a hindrance to the prosperity of a country.

Indeed, it seems to be providing health care to the vast majority of its people in an effective way.

But it is not providing timely care for everyone and is financially collapsing as is any other socialized health care system.

Look at Canadian system - it is going broke. It calculates that at present rates, Ontario will be spending 85 percent of its budget on health care by 2035. "We can't afford a state monopoly on health care anymore," says Tasha Kheiriddin, Ontario director of the federation. "We have to examine private alternatives as well." The federal government and virtually every province acknowledge there's a crisis.

The SAME forces and issues which created the crisis in Canada are operating everywhere in the same systems. Socialized systems costs spiral out of control (and yet they are inefficient and fail to provide timely care) even in countries with two-tier systems (two-tier only delays the time of the collapse - but does not eliminate it).

And have you read my post on "health ecomics"?

Health Economics

You have brought the issue of longevity. So let's look at the history of Canadian system. The Medical Care Act was passed in 1966 which allowed each province to establish a universal health care plan. It also set up the Medicare system. In 1984, the Canada Health Act was passed, which prohibited user fees and extra billing by doctors. Even if you take the earliest date - it took only roughly 40-50 years for the system to go bankrupt - and that is only one of the world's most prosperous countries in the world. It takes a lot less time when the system is not supported with such wealth. In US it would have lasted a bit longer.

Scandinavian system is on the same path.

What is doubted is whether the greater economy is useful for providing for people in our respective countries.

??? :P ???

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have explained what I ment in the next sentance:

"The degree of socializaton, the degree of absence of capitalism has been the degree of disaster arround the world". Prosperity in the world is the degree of capitalism. Pure socialism leads to mass starvation. If social programs survive it is because they are supported by capitalist policies in other areas and such programs are always a hindrance to the prosperity of a country.

Sorry I didn't take that to be a definition of "economic paralysis". It's not exactly what one would expect in a dictionary, but no matter. So you're saying that Scandinavian welfare states currently suffer a particular degree of disaster, though this degree may turn out to be somewhat minor. Well, granted.

But it is not providing timely care for everyone and is financially collapsing as is any other socialized health care system.

Evidence for that is exactly what I'm asking for. I have at least a hand-full of sources now provided, so I'll get to looking them up and I'll see what to make of this claim.

Look at Canadian system

No. I'm looking at the Scandinavian system

The SAME forces and issues which created the crisis in Canada are operating everywhere in the same systems.

I would like to see evidence for this.

Does it provide evidence about the current and projected future state of Scandinavian welfare systems, or point to specific evidence that its welfare system operates on the same relevant principles of other welfare systems that have led to disintegration?

Scandinavian system is on the same path.

Evidence?

??? :P ???

!!! :ninja: !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!!! :ninja: !!!

Steve steps in to block the star from hitting the lovely Sophia.

Al, we already are well aware, from your other post here, that you have imposed a relationship quota on your girlfriends which involves having a "slam-your-fist-on-the-table, wake-up-the-neighbors-shouting fight", wanting "at least one good fight every year, and a regular diet of minor fights in-between" with them, and ever since I read that I always wondered how you treated other women that either stand up to you, ask you excellent questions, or are confused by your statements, that weren't your girlfriend...now I know...you throw stars at them...

The topic of this thread of yours is "Welfare, Sustainable?"...

Maybe I should start a thread titled: "Al, is his oo.net membership sustainable?"

He said:

Practical unto an immoral purpose. Look at the Ottoman Empire, one of the longest-lived, largest, strongest political entities in history. Yes, I know, it was set apart because it was a leader in free thought and secular reason. But it still taxed and maintained a strongly mercantile economic system--which ultimately led to its downfall--and it survived for at least twice as long as America has been a country. That's pretty long-term success if you ask me.

Your use of the concepts "success" and "practical" in regards to that which is immoral makes me :confused: It's that language you speak again...so...so...foreign to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're saying that Scandinavian welfare states currently suffer a particular degree of disaster, though this degree may turn out to be somewhat minor. Well, granted.

Being aware of the kind of principles welfare states are based on - I know that the degree of disaster will only increase. If you use faulty recipy - you won't get a good cake out of it.

You have defined sustainability as "its existance able to be perpetuated by its own means". Welfare states are not self-sustainable as evidenced by every case in which they have been tried. Any system which results in lowering of productivity is doomed to fail.

What does it help you to know that the political-economic system of socialism can be sustained for X number of years before it collapses when it is supported by X% of free market economy when you also know that every second if such system violates human rights? Do you believe that rights can be violated if "for a good cause" (which you seem to think "universal" health care is)?

Because your statement, such as:

"I simply mean the ability to provide equal treatment for all" implies a question: How and who will pay for it? There is no one without the other.

The reason I linked you my "Health economics" post was because when you assume and make your resources as limited (by, for example, not allowing people to move up the economic ladder by heavy taxation "for the good of majority") - you have to somehow manage them the best the system allows and thus comes the idea of health economics which is being currently implemented in every socialized medical system there is, including the two-tier ones. Interesting thing is that as the amount of wealth remains the same, the amount of money comming into the system is stable - the cost of running it - increases drastically with every year of its existance.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a story on a Los Angeles "county run" hospital who had a patient die will waiting in the ER.

While speaking with a neighbor about this story over the weekend, he mentioned that she had a drug problem and was known to hospital workers. The allegation was that she had "cried wolf" so many times before while freaking out on drugs, that they paid little attention to her, not knowing that on this occasion she had a legitimate medical need. Has anyone else heard this aspect of the story? I am curious if it's true. I was not able to find anything during a quick internet search.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...