about that thread, globalization, cultural death, politics, sociology, and this community ....

[Nocke]

I just dug out another counter quotation to your Steven Pinker - but that doesn't really make sense, does it? Just throws a light on how we all tend to believe what fits us, and to read what reassures our already fixed opinion. Need to think about a different approach to this

 

But it is interesting to see how each interest group has its own bunch of scientists to quote them.

A little like 190 FM discussions

[Nocke]

Proposal: Let's not do this. Let's not start throwing links at each other, that's an endless story, considering the extent of the internet. Let's just talk about what we think and believe, without a need to win or be right.

[Holtzauge]

I just dug out another counter quotation to your Steven Pinker - but that doesn't really make sense, does it? Just throws a light on how we all tend to believe what fits us, and to read what reassures our already fixed opinion. Need to think about a different approach to this

 

Now that we are all guility of! Anyway, I'm not saying Pinker is right but I have to admit he makes a pretty good case and for me it was a bit of an "Aha!" moment when I first saw him speak and I really enjoyed reading his books.

Proposal: Let's not do this. Let's not start throwing links at each other, that's an endless story, considering the extent of the internet. Let's just talk about what we think and believe, without a need to win or be right.

 

Sure, no problem, I just wanted to share my view and I certainly respect yours. Do carry on!

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Come on, that's an excuse, 30 years ago those evil commies were the last block on the road to enterprisers paradise, now there's still some government intervention? Any excuse will not become true by repeating it. During the lifetime of the last generation there have been dozens of different setups to "develope unprogressive economies". Not a single one was successful, the experiments failed. The more market-radical the setup was, the more fatal it ended for the people. The common people had to endure being subject of an experiment burning their wealth, while those high-priests of capitalism were protected by their professorships and deficit guarantees.

You seem to be thinking that where there is no communism, then there must be a capitalism. It's on a 0 to 1 game. Most of the western countries remained capitalist to a some degree, but the Government spending remained a very significant part of GDP. In some instances it exceeded 50% of the GDP, those are the socialist or social democratic states we have in Europe. So it's not an excuse but a fact. In case you wouldn't believe me, here is data to backup my claim:

 

Source: Public Spending in the 20th Century - A Global Perspective by Vito Tanzi and Ludger Schuknecht, Cambrdige University Press, 2000, United Kingdom.

 

We have seen a drastic increase in Government involvement in the economy after the World War II, in some cases it remains very high and exceeds 50%. And we are talking about western countries, not China, Soviet Union, Romania or Poland in given period. Government involvement in provision of goods and services has been increasing thus it proves you are wrong.

 

Furthermore, which of those "free" experiments was a failure ? Was it Hong Kong ? Or maybe China or Vietnam after their opening to free private enterprise ? Frankly, I dont know what are you even talking about. So far it was socialist and communist systems that proved to be failures when Government was not capable of providing all kinds of goods and services to citizens since their demand was changing too frequently, something that free market addresses on daily basis when new goods are developed and old are being replaced. And common people endured famine, poverty and what else can you name in those big government systems.

 

 

 

Some lessons are learned now, even the "World bank" now admits their own enforcement of "pure capitalism" during the 1990 has been a disaster. IMHO there is no longer any need to argue: capitalism, it's praised market mechanisms and all the stuff constructed around it like "Compassionate conservatism" failed. That stuff It was disproved theoretically since Marx and by experiment during the last 25 years. We have have to stop that nonsense now. Nearly 50% of the US voters, living in the motherland of capitalism, are that desperate they voted for THAT president. This man in that position is the final proof for the malfunction of capitalism!

You miss the point completely. Most of the mistakes that happened during last 50 or 60 years are directly related to Government involvement. Not to mention that World bank has nothing to do with enforcing pure capitalism, its not a private institution and it serves different purpose. That stuff neither was disproved nor is it a thing to blame, and using Marx as a source makes you look very poor in terms of arguments and knowledge. 

 

Sidenote: U.S. is maybe a bit more capitalist than couple of other states like Norway or Sweden, but Government involvement was increased greatly during a New Deal policy by Franklin D. Roosevelt. It's funny how is this guy praised on the other side of the ocean, yet he is directly responsible for prolonging crisis and raising Government spending to unknown levels before. All his programs had nothing to do with free economy since he was believer in Big Government.

 

Also, pardon me but how exactly do you connect Trump and malfunction of capitalism ? I'm not seeing your point at all. 

[Holtzauge]

On the subject of genes and predisposition for crime: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29760212

 

Interesting and not very surprising: Makes sense don't it? I mean the reason I posted the Pinker stuff was not to say that we may as well give up because everything is dependent on genes but rather to balance what I've been breast fed with growing up in the 70's: The story then was that everything, and I mean everything was down to the environment..........

[Nocke]

But... The end of that article says it all:

"To call these alleles 'genes for violence' would therefore be a massive exaggeration. In combination with many other factors these genes may make it a little harder for you to control violent urges, but they most emphatically do not predetermine you for a life of crime."

 

I would say yes, we are influenced by genetic disposition. But this one sounds more like a factor that in a given situation can help you to be more active or energetic, but in another critical situation you just loose control and do something you perhaps regret. It does not convince me that our general social behaviour should be genetically fixed. But yes - perhaps we can agree on that it is a bit of all? And wouldn't it then still make sense to try to influence or develop the "freely programmable" part as much as possible? It could still be large.

[Nocke]

@Hiromachi: How can governmental spending be so inherently bad, if the countries with the highest state quote, the scandinavian ones, generally seem to be the ones with the happiest people?

[coconut]

Government spending is increasing in all countries were the state provides health and elderly care, retirement funds. That's a result of ageing populations and more illnesses becoming treatable. It certainly is challenge, and one has reasons to be pessimistic. Capitalist and "socialist" western countries are facing the same issues there.

[Retnek]

...

Also, pardon me but how exactly do you connect Trump and malfunction of capitalism ? I'm not seeing your point at all. 

 

It's no use in discussing some hypothetically form of pure capitalism. Market-believers always come up with that last exit "the market never has been free, it never has been done the right way" when confronted with countless examples of market failure.

 

  My point: one form of real existing capitalism developed itself in the US, planned and executed by dogmatic market-believers from Reagan on and never corrected by the powerless Democrat interregnums. If there is one country submitted itself willingly under rules of recent capitalism, it's the USA. Now how's the situation of the average US-citizen today? Is it better or worse than 1990? Anyone can see the economic situation went down for most people in the US. It became obvious to the majority of citizens after the Great Recession 2007 there is no stability, no balance, no "self healing capability" within capitalism - it's a just an ideology protecting the advantages of a small minority.

 

  With all that economic freedom present in the US compared to those "overregulated" economies in northern Europe, has the US-industry been able to develop and deliver first-class products, demanded all over the world? Again a No, except some weapons, maybe.

 

  The Democratic presidents failed to offer an alternative, a minimum of distributive justice, a hope to overcome the perspective of endless part-time-jobs and the gruelling hire-and-fire. The situation of a lot of people remained bad, the mood went down every year. All the time there was no real obstacle, no noteworthy limitation of the "free market" in the US. The market-mechanisms did what they always do when operating without strict control: making the poor more poor and the rich more rich. After the shock of 2007 half-hearted a few firewalls were placed, but all in all the motto of the US-economy remained a shameless "no respect, enrich yourself"!

  Placing more and more wealth into the pockets of a few, leaving the majority of the people in stress and growing dissatisfaction is an obvious malfunction of real existing capitalism. Finally it allowed that twitter-moron and his ruthless companions to successfully conquer the White House.

Edited April 4, 2017 by 216th_Retnek

[Holtzauge]

Since the Scandinavian countries have come up a number of times as a good example let me as a citizen of Sweden give my input: Yes, I think Sweden is one of the better countries to live in and our education and medical care system are for everyone. For example, I financed my education by state subsidized loans which I could then pay back when I finished my studies so social mobility is possible. OTOH, unfortunately, the incentive to work is in decline because our well meaning social workers have upped what constitutes minimum living conditions to such a level that some people rather stay at home and play BoX than go to work. I mean why should I? Since minimum wages will still enable me to get that nifty new graphics card because my leftie mates have seen to it that Holtzauge will pay for it! Other things I don’t like : Sweden’s self-proclaimed role as the worlds moral superpower: We always know best! That our foreign policy and defence forces are now “feministic”. Seriously, WTF does that mean? And finally to cap it all: That the politically correct lefties have without further ado bunched me into that terrible, terrible group to which all bad things can be attributed:  White middle aged men!

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

@Hiromachi: How can governmental spending be so inherently bad, if the countries with the highest state quote, the scandinavian ones, generally seem to be the ones with the happiest people?

There are number of countries with similar levels of spending such as France or Belgium, level of happiness varies there. Not to mention that Sweden always seem to be taken as a prime example of Scandinavian politics, but for last 10 to 15 years it's been steadily cutting spending and reducing taxation (in 2006 to 2008 - cant recall exact time, income tax was reduced, particularly for those earning least, from 30,7% to 17,1%. Company income tax from 28% to 26,3%, property tax and so on). National debt was reduced from 45,7% GDP in 2006 to 38,3% GDP 2008. Although this still resembles the life raft like the ones deployed in  mid 70s and early 90s when Sweden was in trouble, rather than consistent program I'd argue that it became clear for the most Swedish society that welfare state from 70s and 80s is a no go. But thats not the main point, you seemed to connect government spending with individual or collective happiness. I'm not sure one can make such an easy assumption. 

But then again, Sweden has very high levels of loneliness and depression, particularly among youngest generations as well as elders who are left alone (assumed that if state can take care of everything, than it should also take care of that old baggage). Dating in Sweden is increasing problem, about half of Swedish households are made up of childless single adults, compared with less than a third across Europe, on average, according to the European Union’s Eurostat. The average age for a first marriage is 33 for women and 35.7 for men, according to Eurostat. (It’s 27 for women and 29 for men in the US by comparison.)

Some time ago I've read following article about how different age groups perceived themselves, duties and society in Sweden throughout XXth Century and this has changed greatly since the introduction of welfare state: https://mises.org/library/how-welfare-state-corrupted-sweden

More recent documentary titled Swedish Theory of Love has been released with some highly controversial points:

 

I'm not so sure about that happiness.

 

 

It's no use in discussing some hypothetically form of pure capitalism. Market-believers always come up with that last exit "the market never has been free, it never has been done the right way" when confronted with countless examples of market failure.

 

  My point: one form of real existing capitalism developed itself in the US, planned and executed by dogmatic market-believers from Reagan on and never corrected by the powerless Democrat interregnums. If there is one country submitted itself willingly under rules of recent capitalism, it's the USA. Now how's the situation of the average US-citizen today? Is it better or worse than 1990? Anyone can see the economic situation went down for most people in the US. It became obvious to the majority of citizens after the Great Recession 2007 there is no stability, no balance, no "self healing capability" within capitalism - it's a just an ideology protecting the advantages of a small minority.

 

  With all that economic freedom present in the US compared to those "overregulated" economies in northern European, has the US-industry been able to develop and deliver first-class products, demanded all over the world? Again a No, except some weapons, maybe.

 

  The Democratic presidents failed to offer an alternative, a minimum of distributive justice, a hope to overcome the perspective of endless part-time-jobs and the gruelling hire-and-fire. The situation of a lot of people remained bad, the mood went down every year. All the time there was no real obstacle, no noteworthy limitation of the "free market" in the US. The market-mechanisms did what they always do when operating without strict control: making the poor more poor and the rich more rich. After the shock of 2007 half-hearted a few firewalls were placed, but all in all the motto of the US-economy remained a shameless "no respect, enrich yourself"!

  Placing more and more wealth into the pockets of a few, leaving the majority of the people in stress and growing dissatisfaction is an obvious malfunction of real existing capitalism. Finally it allowed that twitter-moron and his ruthless companions to successfully conquer the White House.

It's not about discussing a pure form of capitalism, most of free market supporters acknowledge the need of state to exist and to provide some services and govern some areas. Of course there is a number of anarcho capitalists who see no reason for a state to exist, but no need to discuss that. It's about the level of government intervention into economy and life of average men or women. And this has been high and raising for the last 100 years which is completely opposite to what you have claimed previously.

 

Besides, you havent pointed a single market failure yet. You keep talking about them but still fail to present any evidence.

 

Capitalism since Franklin D. Roosevelt has been politically in retreat in U.S., even despite the Chicago School of Economics having a decent influence and its brief return in 80s. But Reagan while introducing many positive bills and overall rather private enterprise friendly policies, is also responsible for increase in government spending (particularly in military) which you can observe in given table - U.S. government expenditure as a % of GDP increased from 31.4 % in 1980 to 32.8 % in 1990, it's not a big increase but visible. Reagan up to this day is criticized for some of his policies and praised for the others, but for the most part its also considered one of the better Presidents of the U.S. in XXth century.

 

What you claim of never corrected is true in that wrong things were never corrected but it was attempted and became true for those working policies to be replaced by a Democrat policies of Clinton administration. I'm not even sure if you understand that crisis of 2007 was largely influenced by Clinton and his administration attempt to increase the availability of properties. Government holds huge responsibility for that crisis. 

 

But what about the average U.S. citizen since 1990 ?

 

U.S. economy is highly regulated as well. In fact one would argue that there are countries in Europe with less regulations (though one has to take into account that in U.S. its always doubling due to Federal and State law).

 

Democratic presidents failed to deliver many things and seem to have completely abandoned middle class white workers to appease minorities (sexual, ethnic, what have you actually). Besides, would you mind actually giving some examples and data. Because you speak like it would be poetry or a novel, but in such a discussion I'd prefer to see hard facts. Market mechanisms managed to pull humanity out of feudalism and XVIIth century classes to a XXth free societies, never before were people as free and capable.  

[Holtzauge]

There are number of countries with similar levels of spending such as France or Belgium, level of happiness varies there. Not to mention that Sweden always seem to be taken as a prime example of Scandinavian politics, but for last 10 to 15 years it's been steadily cutting spending and reducing taxation (in 2006 to 2008 - cant recall exact time, income tax was reduced, particularly for those earning least, from 30,7% to 17,1%. Company income tax from 28% to 26,3%, property tax and so on). National debt was reduced from 45,7% GDP in 2006 to 38,3% GDP 2008. Although this still resembles the life raft like the ones deployed in  mid 70s and early 90s when Sweden was in trouble, rather than consistent program I'd argue that it became clear for the most Swedish society that welfare state from 70s and 80s is a no go. But thats not the main point, you seemed to connect government spending with individual or collective happiness. I'm not sure one can make such an easy assumption. 

But then again, Sweden has very high levels of loneliness and depression, particularly among youngest generations as well as elders who are left alone (assumed that if state can take care of everything, than it should also take care of that old baggage). Dating in Sweden is increasing problem, about half of Swedish households are made up of childless single adults, compared with less than a third across Europe, on average, according to the European Union’s Eurostat. The average age for a first marriage is 33 for women and 35.7 for men, according to Eurostat. (It’s 27 for women and 29 for men in the US by comparison.)

Some time ago I've read following article about how different age groups perceived themselves, duties and society in Sweden throughout XXth Century and this has changed greatly since the introduction of welfare state: https://mises.org/library/how-welfare-state-corrupted-sweden

More recent documentary titled Swedish Theory of Love has been released with some highly controversial points:

 

I'm not so sure about that happiness.

 

Umh, well I think this is a bit of a simplification: Sure, in Swedish society the rights of the individual has a very prominent position but it does not exclude the obligation to the collective. If you study Swedish history you will see that the Social Democratic party dominated politics during the 20^th century and built up I would say one of the better societies in Europe. In addition, the recent adaptation to the economic conditions in the UE has meant that the social welfare state has been tempered but I would not say it has been dismantled. Concerning the problems with family life and loneliness I would rather attribute that to the equal rights genus and feministic movement than the welfare state. Also, while I do see some issues with the way of living in Sweden, I much prefer the way we have it here compared to other parts of Europe where the state is meddling in free speech and some even argue that women should not be allowed to do an abortion even if raped. So on the whole, all things considered, turns out I’m still a bit of a patriot after all!

Edited April 4, 2017 by Holtzauge

[ZachariasX]

Three pages and still going on productive in a thread with such a topic. Wow. Just wow. Climate change? People writing (often enough) rather interesting essays, detailing their view on things, that's hard to find.

 

 

 

Personally, I think labels like 'socialism', 'capitalism' etc. are often misleading when trying to understand how a given (including the own) society is under scrutiny. Misleading in the sense that they have not the same exact meaning to everyone as well as their meaning is changing over time as well as dependent on how much personal experience one has with given systems.

 

Also, systems depend on their biotope whether they are viable or not. Taking Holtz' example of the Swedish model, that might work for a rather uniform society that has comparably large conformistic an paternalistic traits. People accept their lot because it is considered a fair one.

 

Now changing the demographics by adding people with different expectations on life will put a severe strain on that society. Transferring it to an individualist society will make it go belly up at once, that I'm sure.

 

To enable creation of wealth you must give people an incentive to do so. This is not necessarily the commonly called 'capitalism' as there are many ways for personal reward, not just the monetary one. It depends on the society whether the given mean of compensated by the individual as well as acceppted by society. The latter point is important as well as a single person can only take a lot of a reward as long as he is sure that the others will not burn him on a stake for doing so.

 

Every giving and every taking is the result of a negoitation between the society on what it is ready to give away and the individual on what he can take from.

 

Political forms as comunism and capitalism are just different results between these forms of compensation as well as a different readyness to accept a difference between individuals.

 

'Globalization' does nothing more than distributing the production-depht for (certain) products over more (all) societies that in turn themselves might differ a lot in their understanding of the individual in society and the individuals expected way to contribute and being compensated. Thus, by spanning the production depht beyond a society's (country/nation/federation) limits, it at once loses control over the creation of wealth and enters a dependency. This is the price to be paid for an in total increased production of value.

 

The effect of this is on the upside that things which needs huge initial investments become an economically viable investment as the market becomes sufficiently large. Like cheap Korean tellies. Without globalization, we still had analog tube tellies.

 

Downside is that entire steps of a production chain are lost to a given society. Along with this comes losing the ability to do so. Societies lose knowhow as well. They don't just aquire them. As long as certain arts are not practised, they will be forgotten. It doesn't help if you have a book where it is still written 'how-to', if you want to to participate in the world wide production, you have to have a lot of people with a certain skillset. Else you contribution will be insignificant.

 

Where does that leave the individual? I find it very bad news, as the western (and foremost socialistic) approach defines the value bestowed onto an individual thorgh the mean of his contribution to the economy. "What is your job?" First question to get to know you. You have an important job? People will value you. If you don't, then you are meaningless. There is a slight difference to if that was a 'capitalistic' way of defining one's place in society. If that was, the question would be "How much do you make?".

 

Even in Switzerland, not very long ago it was VERY different. 'Herr Meier' was always respected, just because he was 'Herr Meier' (and maybe because he wore a tie). No matter if he had no job or spent the evening after work being in a restaurant, drinking. With 'Frau Meier', it wasn't much different. Regardless of the fact that until late 1960's women were kept (politically) at almost the same level as dogs, she'd always be 'Frau Meier'. No need to be a good mother as well as having successfull career along with that.

 

If you define plainly through your function in society, then rendering entire portions of the society meaningless by transferring their contribution to economy elsewhere, you not only deprive them of income, you're also taking away their status which IMHO is even worse.

 

While 'capitalism' is obviously very easy to live in a cruel, inhumane way, it is astonishing how much social democracy succeeded in doing so especially over the last 40 years. Where I see their most unforgivable failure is that while they produced a lot of state associated jobs for all those 'surplus' people, but the job given to them gave them neither much recognition or purpose. Even worse, they knew that parties further to the right would knife those jobs at the first occasion, they took all those people for granted to vote for them. But at some point that just doesn't wort anymore and voters can be rather drastic on the ballot, using that one for a lot of messages as for instance Mr. Cameron had to notice. It is also of note that the social democratic party in Germany has almost no "worker" voting for the. Same in Switzerland. They just axed their base, consisting now mainly of well earning persons with a job in the gouvernment. The workers in turn moved on to the right wing parties (FN in France, AfD in Germany, SVP in Switzerland, Trump in the USA...). It is just sad seeing that *those* gave "the worker" a new home. The worker doesn't have to be a Nazi. But his new home might be... Even worse, this "new home" will soon betray them again, as they have little in common with that lost generation of workers.

 

 

Reality does not conform to labels. Thought of ways of "how to live" are cruel failures as well, as those only consist of the dreamworld of the respective intellectual.

 

If you want the world to be a better place, one can best start out by greeting your neighbor should you see him. And if you see something broken, go mend it, but don't mend other people. That doesn't work. They even tried that with the Gulag. They realized themselves that it was a costly failure.

Edited April 4, 2017 by ZachariasX

[Retnek]

...

Besides, you havent pointed a single market failure yet. You keep talking about them but still fail to present any evidence.

...

------------------

 

Hm, famous last words on this, I've put my points and the poison of insight will infiltrate and do the rest, one fine day.

 

  I pointed on a bunch of market failures, because the US-economy for at least 30 years was formed by hardcore followers of economic liberalism. From Reagan on any US-administration followed that monkey business, the US became the home land of capitalistic conversion.

- did it add something to the common welfare in the US? No = market failure

- check the US trade deficit, are the US well positioned in the worlds economy? No = market failure

 

During 30 years of "optimization" a la Economic Liberalism the US economy suffered badly, the political system is down on it's knees and the citizens vote in despair for an obvious trickster. Do you still want to present us fairy tales about the "Invisible hand" or a "Homo economicus" as a solution for real-world-problems?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Umh, well I think this is a bit of a simplification: Sure, in Swedish society the rights of the individual has a very prominent position but it does not exclude the obligation to the collective. If you study Swedish history you will see that the Social Democratic party dominated politics during the 20^th century and built up I would say one of the better societies in Europe. In addition, the recent adaptation to the economic conditions in the UE has meant that the social welfare state has been tempered but I would not say it has been dismantled. Concerning the problems with family life and loneliness I would rather attribute that to the equal rights genus and feministic movement than the welfare state. Also, while I do see some issues with the way of living in Sweden, I much prefer the way we have it here compared to other parts of Europe where the state is meddling in free speech and some even argue that women should not be allowed to do an abortion even if raped. So on the whole, all things considered, turns out I’m still a bit of a patriot after all!

Oh, most certainly it is ! I dont live in Sweden even though I visited it a few times by a ferry and know a number of good Swedish guys. I've studied Swedish history briefly at school, from my memory a lot was accomplished before the Social Democratic party. I'd argue that more important for modern Sweden was a period of 1860 to 1950 when Sweden was very liberal and pro free market state, in a given period Sweden had possibly one of the biggest increases of income per capita. Swedish capitalism achieved quite a bit back then, since before Sweden was relatively poor and barely industrialized country. Even in 1950s Sweden was relatively balanced but I'd say the "radical" welfare state became the thing since Olof Palme Government and once a generation of 1968 socialists and cultural Marxists reached the power. 

Plus, one has to consider that Sweden was at war last time in XIXth century ? Not invaded, having stable political situation, Sweden could build on achievements of it's ancestors. While rest of the Europe every few decades decided to turn everything into ruin. 

But Sweden abandoned at least some of the most radical policies since Ingvar Carlsson Government and Karl Bildt Government which released control over the currency (previous governments devaluation of the currency had very bad consequences) and reduced some of the taxation. 

 

I'm not so sure if only the equal rights and femminist movements are responsible. Welfare state promised to take care of young and old, the dependence on other people was greatly reduced in some form. But either way, Sweden is in last two decades slowly coming out of that welfare shell, at least economically, because culturally I have no idea where Sweden is trying to go. And by no means I'd consider my Government and it's actions good, frankly, I'm highly critical on it. But hey, thats what democracy gives you when two idiots have twice as many votes as one professor of the university. 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

...

Besides, you havent pointed a single market failure yet. You keep talking about them but still fail to present any evidence.

...

------------------

 

Hm, famous last words on this, I've put my points and the poison of insight will infiltrate and do the rest, one fine day.

 

  I pointed on a bunch of market failures, because the US-economy for at least 30 years was formed by hardcore followers of economic liberalism. From Reagan on any US-administration followed that monkey business, the US became the home land of capitalistic conversion.

- did it add something to the common welfare in the US? No = market failure

- check the US trade deficit, are the US well positioned in the worlds economy? No = market failure

 

During 30 years of "optimization" a la Economic Liberalism the US economy suffered badly, the political system is down on it's knees and the citizens vote in despair for an obvious trickster. Do you still want to present us fairy tales about the "Invisible hand" or a "Homo economicus" as a solution for real-world-problems?

Still no evidence, except for repeating same words. Claim repeated a thousand times will not become the truth. 

 

U.S. economy has been greatly changing in last 30+ years, with Reagan reforms, Clinton reversal of it, then George W. Bush policies and most recent Barack Obama. Hardly was Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barack Obama a follower of economic liberalism, particularly in its classical form of Austrian school of economics. So please be so kind and stop repeating that claims. U.S. has been continuously regulating the free market and increasing government investments since Franklin D. Roosevelt, so for the last 80 years there was an opposite happening to what you say.

- Did you ask average American how he feels about his life standard now and how he felt in 1980s ? 

- Sure, we should employ a direct, protectionist mercantilism - just like we had in XVIIth and XVIIIth century !

 

Unlike the fairy tails of "homo sovieticus", collectivization and government intervention, capitalism actually works. 

[Holtzauge]

Oh, most certainly it is ! I dont live in Sweden even though I visited it a few times by a ferry and know a number of good Swedish guys. I've studied Swedish history briefly at school, from my memory a lot was accomplished before the Social Democratic party. I'd argue that more important for modern Sweden was a period of 1860 to 1950 when Sweden was very liberal and pro free market state, in a given period Sweden had possibly one of the biggest increases of income per capita. Swedish capitalism achieved quite a bit back then, since before Sweden was relatively poor and barely industrialized country. Even in 1950s Sweden was relatively balanced but I'd say the "radical" welfare state became the thing since Olof Palme Government and once a generation of 1968 socialists and cultural Marxists reached the power. 

Plus, one has to consider that Sweden was at war last time in XIXth century ? Not invaded, having stable political situation, Sweden could build on achievements of it's ancestors. While rest of the Europe every few decades decided to turn everything into ruin. 

But Sweden abandoned at least some of the most radical policies since Ingvar Carlsson Government and Karl Bildt Government which released control over the currency (previous governments devaluation of the currency had very bad consequences) and reduced some of the taxation. 

 

I'm not so sure if only the equal rights and femminist movements are responsible. Welfare state promised to take care of young and old, the dependence on other people was greatly reduced in some form. But either way, Sweden is in last two decades slowly coming out of that welfare shell, at least economically, because culturally I have no idea where Sweden is trying to go. And by no means I'd consider my Government and it's actions good, frankly, I'm highly critical on it. But hey, thats what democracy gives you when two idiots have twice as many votes as one professor of the university. 

 

Well, I have to say you really seem know what you are talking about when it comes to Sweden and me giving all the credit to the Social Democratic party (SAP) was an even bigger simplification!

 

Anyway, even if all the credit cannot go to the SAP, which incidentally was actually formed in the 1889, they did hold the power for a substantial part of the 20th century and I would say from that point on they were instrumental in building up the Sweden we have today. So while I don't exactly share their current policies, I do respect what they once did for the country. However, in some ways they have been the victim of their own success in that living conditions for the average Swede improved so much that many now turn to more conservative parties to look after their interests. Talk about success! Also, you point out a very important fact in that while the SAP can take some credit politically, a lot of the improvements in the standard of living would probably have come anyways due to the booming economy.

 

Anyway, when it comes to the optimal form of government, my view on this is rather unimaginative I'm afraid in that I believe this is neither black nor white but like in so many cases a bland shade of grey: Neither capitalism nor a plan economy will save us but something in between........ Problem is hitting that sweet spot that's all.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Holtzauge

[Nocke]

 

 

Anyway, when it comes to the optimal form of government, my view on this is rather unimaginative I'm afraid in that I believe this is neither black nor white but like in so many cases a bland shade of grey: Neither capitalism nor a plan economy will save us but something in between........ Problem is hitting that sweet spot that's all.

 

That is probably very true.

However, to find that sweet spot, you need a compass. You will need to do things, organize your society, with some theory in mind of what could be the best way, and I think that is  what should be talked about more frequently.

 

Which brings me (again) to two points, in which I see the biggest difference between "rightists" and "leftists", or "capitalists" and "socialists", and from which perhaps all the remining differences can be derived:

 

The first very frequent argument I have read here is "capitalism has proven to be working, socialism has proven to be failing". Arguing like this people would have abandoned the idea of flying after the first few failed intents. Or when you think about times where religion was a dominant factor in europe - if you doubted it was the only possible way, you ran the risk of beeing burned. Nevertheless I think people really believed in it, and that there must be an absolute moral authority to prevent people from going rogue.

When talking about capitalism and socialism and whatever here, I am trying to think about where I would like to go, even without a guarantee that it will work, simply because I can't believe that the current state of affairs should be the best possible, and therefore the end of history. And I am also not predicating a violent overthrow, I am all in favour of small and gradual adjustments. But, repeating, I need to have an idea where I want to go - communism in my case, on the long run, in the encarnation I personally envision

 

So, my first postulated difference (and provocation) is: "rightists" tend to try to stay with what they have, because what could come instead could be worse.

 

Second postulation and provocation: 

 

This is partly a repetition of what I wrote somewhere above, but I would like to try to explain again how I see us human beeings. Without doubt, ones favorite idea about how society works, or should work, depends on how you see human us beeings. From the "rightists", I have seen in quite some of the many above posts a big fear, that in a socialist society some (one self...) would be the hard working guy, creating wealth, which then would be taken away by the government to redistribute it to mean and lazy others, who would just love to live on your expenses. And both, you and the lazies, are doing this as the result of a free and deliberate decision.

 

Now there are two aspects: One, the "mental problems" people might have, second, where do they stem from.

 

First aspect, mental problems: (please dont take this denomination too serious, I do not want to insult anybody, I am having my mental problems, and, in all seriousness, I think we all have, thats part of our human condition...)

There are, roughly speaking, two extreme groups with mental problems:

First, those who you fear that much. People who for whatever reason have dropped out, had never found an access to "normal" social integration, or, for whatever reason, are not willing or able to contribute to the society and general creation of wealth and wellbeeing.

But second: Those, who are nowadays generally considered successful, working like crazy to accumulate much more money than they will ever be able to spend, and just continously fighting to be "on top". This is a mental problem just as well, and it is causing, I believe, even much more harm, because these people really are shaping the world in a way that deems them suitable (for them...), without asking the others, thinking its their right to do so, because they can do so.

 

Aspect two: Where do these problems stem from.

 

I dont know. Its complicated. But I am absolutely sure about one thing: Nobody, at any point, decides to be an asshole, or to be stupid, or to be a parasite.

 

Once again, my vision of us is this one: We are an extremely complex bunch of cells and interactions, but we start as one. This then starts dividing, and forming an increasingly complex organism. This process is partly controlled by programs (genes), but also influenced by external factors, where we until now have no clue of the importance of each part, or the influencing factors. Much later then, when a lot of our basical structure already is set, our brain, or its interconnections, become that complex, that somehow a sort of feedback loop starts, called consciousness. But this is just the topping on a whole myriade of automatized, unconscious processes having been developed long before, and continuing to run under the hood. However, we dont like that idea very much, and prefer to see ourselfs as a sort of clear and conscious commander in chief, sitting up here in our braining, and having an overview of the situation. That is not true, we are just telling stories to ourselves most of the time.Only sometimes, and after having gained a lot of experience, we are actually then able to realize unconscious things we are doing all the time, and to change things. Just look e.g. at how terribly difficult it is generally to change a habit, which you have developed somehow, mostly without realizing that you where slipping into it when doing so, even after recognizing that habit and taking the decision to change or abandon it.

And the for me most important point here is: There is no point in all this story, where you really decide to be the person you are. At no point, nobody, consciously decides to be an idiot, or an asshole, or a genius, or a nice and hard working guy. You just slowly develope into that, steered by factors we dont control, may they be environmental or genetic.

What we all, though, I believe, have in common, is this: We do not want to be alone. We are beeing thrown into this without understanding anything, its a very awkward situation. We then realize there is others around, and search comfort in trying to be like them, in trying to be part of a group, actually. And if that works well, we really enjoy to cooperate. In the beginning, we really are social, and want to be part of the group surrounding us. However, things can turn out very differently. Some people are also growing up in environments that frustrate, and teach them its of no worth to struggle, and that it might be better to hide away, that they are helpless and can not do anything by themselves. 

But, let me repeat: To me its so absolutely obvious, that nobody really consciously could take such a decision, to be this or that type of person.

 

In short: If you dont want to share with asocial people, you are simply not willing to share with people who have had bad luck.

 

And to prevent any misunderstandings: I am not frustrated. I count myself among the most privileged people in the world. I got a nice job, giving me more money than I need, and a fantastic education, which however only was possible, because one of these "socialist" european governments made it for me, as a child of really poor parents, possible to visit a good school, study at a (good) university free of fees (which would have made that impossible), and to become the first in my family with an academic degree.

However, after all it was just luck. Not my smartness. And even if you say "I was successful because of my smartness, and strong will" - You were just lucky to develope that, for mostly unknown reasons. I mean, who would willingly take the decision not to be smart? Or to be evil?

 

In short, thats why I am socialist, and why I think we should try to share as much as possible with anybody.

[coconut]

 

 

Unlike the fairy tails of "homo sovieticus", collectivization and government intervention, capitalism actually works.

 

... for some. If you want examples of failures of unregulated markets, you can look at Russia just after the collapse of the Soviet union. Under the soviet markets were empty, after them they quickly got filled but unaffordable for most of the people. Russia fell under the control of oligarchs and the mafia, and things did not improve until a strong leader got the oligarchs under his rule and public services got funded again. Russia today is no longer communist, and for all the criticism the country and its leader receives, things appear to be on the right path. But if you don't consider that USA these 80 past years is a worthy champion of free markets, you can't really credit free markets for the progress of Russia these past decades either.

 

Now, don't get me wrong. I do think capitalism and free markets work in many situations, especially for educated people in big cities in the West. I like buying my stuff in private stores rather than queue in state-owned markets. But if you live in Sweden in one of the sparsely populated areas, you can't count on private investment to provide you with services. These days there are people who are getting their phone line terminated, without replacement. Poor mobile coverage, and the EU investment to provide broadband everywhere is still a few years away. Pregnancies become a lot more exciting when the closest clinic is 1000km away (or was it 100km? The Swedish mile always gets me confused) because small clinics are closing. One can view that as the failure of state-provided services, but the private sector is free to fill in and I don't see them doing that.

 

Even in Stockholm, electricity bills have increased after privatization of power distribution. The costs of electricity itself have been going down thanks to competition between producers (yay free market), but infrastructure owners, of which there are few, raise their bills because they can. Not really a free market because there are too few infrastructure owners, and no regulation to keep prices down. Part of the perceived failure of free markets are actually the difficult transition from big state ownership to private ownership. It can't be small actors because they are not robust enough, and few, big corporations are often no better than big state.

 

It's my impression that here in Sweden and in my country of birth, France, right-wing policies (Sarkozy's, but Hollande continued on the same line) of accumulated small budget cuts everywhere with the private sector supposedly taking up the slack are failing and taking their tolls. The recent revolts in a quarter in Stockholm that Trump were referring to in his "Look at what's happening in Sweden!" happened at a place where there is no police station, and there won't be another one for two more years. Not that it matters, because it's hard hiring policemen these days anyway. Tough job, shitty pay. There are quite a few state-funded socially valuable jobs that are in the same situation (nurses, school teachers). It may well be a failure of socialism, but privatization doesn't appear to be helping. Personally I have a good salary and I wouldn't mind paying more taxes, but politicians won't have my money.

[Holtzauge]

@Nocke: Having read a number of your posts now I can only say I’m sympathetic to your cause. In fact in some ways I envy you your positive view on human nature and belief that a communist society where everyone selflessly works together sharing everything equally is possible. And I’m not being ironic: In fact I think such a system would be possible if it was populated by individuals such as yourself because you truly seem to be a nice guy who could actually make such a society work.

 

However, I’m a bit more pessimistic in my view on human nature which if you boil it down is more leaning to that people’s incentive to work is more due to wanting theirs and their families lives to improve and they see co-operating in society as good citizens beneficial to that aim which I think is good enough because that gives you a win-win situation for everybody really. Me, I believe in an equal opportunity system which I think Sweden is great in providing, but IMHO, if you choose not to use that opportunity then don’t expect equal pay to those who do. But don’t get me wrong: I make enough dough and I’m OK paying high taxes so that people less fortunate can have a decent life, be it due to physical or mental issues. However, I take a very bleak view on freeloaders and while you with your more positive outlook seems to think that that would not be much of a problem, I have a somewhat different view: Just as an example, I hunt in a sparsely populated part of Sweden where people mostly work in the forest industry. Interestingly, some of the guys I hunt with are physically “disabled” so they can’t work but it’s amazing that every October when Moose season starts these guys are suddenly the very picture of health, running around pulling harvested Moose over rock and cranny. Then come Monday their "disability" mysteriously catches up with them and they have to stay at home watching sports on the telly. When that gets boring they go out hunting Deer or work on their own private forest plots because it seems they are fit enough for that anyway. But do an honest day of work? Why would they when they have their disability checks in the mail anyway? In addition, since I’m from the “big” city I have to answer to all their grievances about the EU and how this sinister organization is stopping them from topping off the Wolves and is sucking the lifeblood out of their poor community…..

 

@coconut: Interesting to hear your views on Sweden. You only mention you were born in France so I have no way of knowing how long you’ve been here but you bring up some interesting subjects. As you say, electricity did not become cheaper when privatized (who was surprised….) and services in the Swedish countryside are as you say being dismantled piece by piece but unfortunately I think that’s inevitable since most who can go to the cities. I’m totally against the way state institutions are forcibly moved out into nowhere just to try to keep the countryside alive. Subsidies to support viable industry maybe yes, but moving governmental agencies suited to be co-located where people live (in the cities) out into the boonies no.

 

Anyway, mentioning Trump’s comments on Sweden and the riots also means that the elephant in the room has finally trampled onto the stage. Since we were having the discussion we were having in this thread I was wondering how long it would be before that subject came up. However, that is one area I’m going to pass on because it does not matter what you say or how you frame your stance when it comes to the refugee situation: You will either be mercilessly hounded by those who are for or those who are against and it is sad to see what this rift is doing to the country. So again, for me this subject is a no go zone on the internet as I’m sure it is for many others in Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands etc. You just don’t want to go there…..

Edited April 5, 2017 by Holtzauge

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

... for some. If you want examples of failures of unregulated markets, you can look at Russia just after the collapse of the Soviet union. Under the soviet markets were empty, after them they quickly got filled but unaffordable for most of the people. Russia fell under the control of oligarchs and the mafia, and things did not improve until a strong leader got the oligarchs under his rule and public services got funded again. Russia today is no longer communist, and for all the criticism the country and its leader receives, things appear to be on the right path. But if you don't consider that USA these 80 past years is a worthy champion of free markets, you can't really credit free markets for the progress of Russia these past decades either.

 

This is actually an interesting example, but frankly very specific one. Russia as a direct successor of Soviet Union inherited most of its problems.Free market and capitalism do not make miracles but provide an opportunity which I'd say plenty of Russians took advantage of - look at 1C, Gaijin Entertainment, Optogan or Kaspersky Lab. But to start from the beginning one has to look at Russian history - for the most of it Russia was a feudal state with little concern for personal freedom, private enterprise and most importantly with limited education. The short period before Bolsheviks took over in 1917 was a Russian semi capitalism in its infancy that was killed before it had a chance to develop. Then you had many decades of communism and economy controlled by government from bottom to the top, economy that fell behind western developments, particularly in technologies. At the beginning of modern Russia the industry was outdated, economy was greatly based (and still is with companies like Gazprom) on natural resources and was unable to provide enough yields, hence why they had to import even basic foods - in year 1990 USSR produced 120 million tons of cereal but had to import further 47 million tons which was the biggest import of this kind in Russian history.

Russia also had low culture, limited trust in society and high levels of corruption. Soon after Soviet Union broke, ethnic issues happened as well. As a society Russians were used to public services and had little if any knowledge about markets, free economy and building own company. To be completely fair internal situation was absolutely horrible. 

 

In such situation Russia had to go with its transformation to release government control and build foundations for free economy, which they did without considering mechanisms and mostly consequences of switch to a completely new economic system (which by the way was considered in Poland, hence relatively smooth and quick process). This led immediately to exclusion of poor, uneducated and large numbers of people living in the countryside. The fastest to adapt were young and educated as well as former party figures or new leaders put on top of public companies - thats the group that rapidly made their fortunes. In most cases those rich guys managed to build their companies on exploration and extraction of natural resources - oil and gas, which they gained from Russian Government on prices well below market ones. To that you have to add men like Poganin, who became a chief of Oneksim-bank, W. Gusinski who became a leader in Media-Most. Not to mention that during first years men with great power were Governors (89 of them) organizing their provinces and administering, they indicated more interest in building their own fortunes than providing care for the rest of the society. That is how oligarchy has developed in Russia. Most of those men had connections inside of Government, relations with former Soviet politics and that's how they have gained their way to build fortunes. It has very little to do with actual capitalism. 

 

Largely responsible for this was of course Boris Yeltsin who has carried a relatively restrictive monetary policy and avoided major reforms, so crucial to reestablish stability inside of country. Hard political decisions were often postponed indefinitely. All of this resulted in high budged deficit and as a result, debt spiral. One has to remember that in regard to Boris Yeltsin there was even an attempt to carry the impeachment procedure since by 1997 he lost most of control on state matters, partially due to raise of oligarchs and partially due to his health problems. Hence why in 1999 he resigned giving his way to Putin. 

 

And this is where actual reforms started, many things can be said about Putin, but he was the man behind current Russia state and his reforms allowed Russia to restore it's position. He started with 13 % flat income tax for citizens, which increased the ability to collect taxes by 50 % (before many people desperately tried to avoid paying them due to their levels). Second important action was a devaluation of ruble, increasing Russian export profitability and internal manufacturing. In 2002 a major reform of real estate trade was sanctioned. This boosted Russian GDP increase to 5.5 % per year, kicking Russia into top ten fastest growing economies in the region. Real estate reform also boosted private farms production since average men could benefit from vegetables or cereal production. If you keep in mind the 1990 cereal import levels, in 2001 Russian market saw overproduction of 6.8 million tons of cereal which was exported. First time since October revolution was Russia exporting cereal to the western markets !

 

At present Russian debt to GDP relation is low, and most of debt is related to private owners rather than public. Poverty was decreased from 35 % in 2001 to 10 % in 2010, and most important for capitalism middle class from 2013 studies will constitute about 80 % of Russian society by 2020 (though this process might have slowed down, particularly after recent conflicts and embargo's). I'd say that even in this limited form capitalism was successful in Russia, and 1990s issues are a simple consequence of Russias past, incompetent and powerless leaders in that time and Russian society requiring time to adapt to a new reality. Yes, there is still high level of state participation in the Russian economy, we still have oligarchs but at the same time Russia is developing pretty steadily.  

 

 

 

Now, don't get me wrong. I do think capitalism and free markets work in many situations, especially for educated people in big cities in the West. I like buying my stuff in private stores rather than queue in state-owned markets. But if you live in Sweden in one of the sparsely populated areas, you can't count on private investment to provide you with services. These days there are people who are getting their phone line terminated, without replacement. Poor mobile coverage, and the EU investment to provide broadband everywhere is still a few years away. Pregnancies become a lot more exciting when the closest clinic is 1000km away (or was it 100km? The Swedish mile always gets me confused) because small clinics are closing. One can view that as the failure of state-provided services, but the private sector is free to fill in and I don't see them doing that.  

 

Even in Stockholm, electricity bills have increased after privatization of power distribution.The costs of electricity itself have been going down thanks to competition between producers (yay free market), but infrastructure owners, of which there are few, raise their bills because they can. Not really a free market because there are too few infrastructure owners, and no regulation to keep prices down. Part of the perceived failure of free markets are actually the difficult transition from big state ownership to private ownership. It can't be small actors because they are not robust enough, and few, big corporations are often no better than big state.   

 

It's my impression that here in Sweden and in my country of birth, France, right-wing policies (Sarkozy's, but Hollande continued on the same line) of accumulated small budget cuts everywhere with the private sector supposedly taking up the slack are failing and taking their tolls. The recent revolts in a quarter in Stockholm that Trump were referring to in his "Look at what's happening in Sweden!" happened at a place where there is no police station, and there won't be another one for two more years. Not that it matters, because it's hard hiring policemen these days anyway. Tough job, shitty pay. There are quite a few state-funded socially valuable jobs that are in the same situation (nurses, school teachers). It may well be a failure of socialism, but privatization doesn't appear to be helping. Personally I have a good salary and I wouldn't mind paying more taxes, but politicians won't have my money.

  

 

As I said, free market does not create miracles, it gives opportunities. I know such situations very well, Polish Telecomuniation company was a government owned monopolist that was privatized but it was carried in such a fashion that while market for internet and phone providers was opened, company itself was simply sold to big French corporation - Orange (which also holds rights to all lines, meaning that any 3rd party provider has to rent them). No quality in terms of services was improved and costs are not encouraging either. And it doesnt help that for many it is the only company that they can go for if they want internet. But corporationism is not equal to capitalism,  particularly when public services were privatized in a poor way. 

[Nocke]

Dammit .... I'll need to take (at least) a day off to reread and digest all this ...

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

You could take my shift so I could digest it for you. Sounds like a good deal to me  

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

OK, I flew over most Points made, think I got  the most of it, some interesting insight into the Capitalist Mindset. 

 

Now I will attempt to throw a Spanner into your Gearset: 

I myself will, to the best of my abilities, never have Natural Children (not attempting to brag of course  ). I may adopt and raise, but I have made the conscious Decision not to hurt the Planet more by putting new Children on it's Surface. 

I made this Decision consciously, many Western Women just miss the Point or have no Desire to go through the Strain that is Pregnancy, Results are the same. 

 

This is a General Trend in the World, even in the Middle East. The more Wealth there is the Older the General Population becomes. 

China's one Child Policy has done this to an Extreme where the Society is ageing to an almost catastrophic degree and the People simply don't have the Children to Balance out the rapidly growing Number of Elderly People. 

 

In General Western Societies are growing older as well. The Population of Germany isn't growing anymore and in just a few Decades we will drop below the 60 Million Mark. 

The only real Drivers of World Population are Muslim Women and even they aren't Popping out Babies like they used to. 

 

So ageing and therefore less productive Societies are an Issue for the Future Generations. I may not be able to Afford Children anyways, as I will have to pay for the Pensions of Old People. 

 

I personally welcome a Reduction of the World Population. It simply isn't sustainable or any good for the Planet. I don't get the Point Uwe made about Primitive People not making use of the Land properly which I see as a Positive. 

The Human Species is not the Purpose of Earths Existence, we are not here to Exploit it. We are Guests here. And the less Harm we do the Better. 

Edited April 5, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[[DBS]airdoc]

I absolutely agree to that, but I guess the problem is almost anybody would agree to that. There are many capitalists that are absolutely convinced they are doing something good to society, e.g. they think they are creating jobs in their companies and people should be grateful for that. And then it comes to the definition of what does it mean to harm somebody? Advocats of a competitive society would say they are triggering the best in the people, and advancing society through the energy liberated by competition. I would rather say the harm done to the losers is way more important .... but just nobody is talking about them.

 

... trying to see if I can provoke some defender of capitalism here? There should be some around???

You got me. Eurocentric view at the world. Thx!

 

A bit late to the party. I 'll pick it up as a libertarian "capitalist" defender.

Socialism, in its form described by Marx (transitioning state to communism) has never worked anywhere. I presume we all agree that Communism is equivalent to Nazism in terms of the millions of deaths and the sufferings it caused.

 

If by socialism one means social democracy, then that's closer to capitalism than to marxist socialism. For example, all of european countries, despite some having social democratic parties for governments are largely capitalist. Even the example of "socialist" Sweden mentioned, is an example of a largely capitalist country, that owes most of its GDP to its gigantic private sector corporations: AstraZeneca, IKEA, Ericsson, etc. What the Swedes did, is build a mixed economy that on the one hand leaves the true, private economy free of government intervention in order to produce wealth and jobs, and then reaps the benefits through taxation by providing public education, healthcare and generous welfare. Plus they did not see their economy get wrecked by the successive wars of the 20th century - they even made a profit by exporting iron to Hitler. The real motives of those who frequently refer to Sweden as a model country have to do with politics -they label a successful mixed economy as socialist, in order to create this cognitive dissonance. If that's what one calls socialism, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

But let me give you a true example of socialism: Greece, the country I currently live. At the beginning of the 20th century Greece was a very poor country. It achieved its independence after 4 centuries of enslavement by the ottomans in mid 19th century and kept fighting every decade up to ww2. However, by 1980, after about 35 years of peace, it managed to achieve a tremendous GDP increase and create the world's largest merchant fleet (which still has). In 1981, the Socialists got to power. They changed the economy by bloating the public sector immediately. They turned all the problematic private industries into public ones so that people wouldn't lose their jobs. Greece's public sector turned into bigger than Sweden's. Civil servants made up about 25% of the working force 10 years ago. Their salaries were double that of the private sector, despite working on average less hours. Education is completely free of charge, including university. I got though 6 years of medical school without having to pay a dime - even the books were free. People could retire as early as 50. Women with children could retire at 40. Everyone had completely free access to healthcare. Because of the large and generous public sector, most of the private sector focused on getting contracts with the Government. Easy money, no need to innovate, adapt, export, create. Just wait for the next big government contract.

 

By now, I guess you all know what 's happened to Greece's economy after a few decades of working in a socialist manner. Sorry guys, it just doesn't work. You have to live in it to understand how people react when they can vote themselves money. It is also very immoral in practice. Because socialism puts the young people at a great disadvantage, and teaches them NOT to try to succeed, NOT to try to improve, NOT to try to make a difference in their job (only exception is the political activism). If you think that capitalism is dog eat dog, try socialism. In socialism, each union competes with the other in order to get the state to steal money from the private sector or borrow money to pay them. The weaker unions and the non-represented young workers, always get bashed. Nobody ever cares where this money is coming from - the easy solution is: tax the rich, tax the corporations, tax the businesses. As a result, the private sector gets taxed to death - which is immoral. What gives the moral right to any politician to legislate a law that gives him the biggest percentage of your hard worked revenue? On what moral basis should a politician decide how much money he can take from you? Taxation, after a certain point, is blatant theft with a moral disguise. And the socialist politicians, hating ideologically the private sector, always prefer to drive businesses to bankruptcy by overtaxing, than cutting back on expenditure - public sector salaries and pensions. They are hypocritically in favor of "the workers" but they don't seem to sweat when the private sector workers get laid off because of businesses shutting down.

 

To add something else about the benefits of free economies:

More than 95% of currently available medications are the result of research done by big pharmaceutical companies. Universities do research, but rarely drug development. That's because the cost is staggering: for example, the development of an average CNS drug costs about 1 Billion dollars. And only about 1 in 20 finally gets approved, so you can imagine the risk. If we ever let something like that to public sector employees, I can guarantee you that the cost would double or triple, drugs would be more expensive, less available to the poor, and the pace of new drug discovery would be less than a fifth of the current one. So, by seeking out its own profit, the private sector has managed to save the lives of millions of people through drug development. SpaceX, a few days ago managed to reuse a rocket for space travel. This was not done by accident. It was done because some guys who actually care about the cost (because it's their own money) tried to assemble a team to tackle the issue. And this cuts the cost by 30%. If it were NASA, it would never had achieved that - because it relies on government subsidies, meaning other people's money. What motive would a NASA employee have to make something like this a priority?  None. But the free market does. And in this way, it achieves things, innovates, finds solutions. Always better and faster than the state. Which in the end, is in favor of the people.

 

Sorry guys, Adam Smith was right. 

Edited April 6, 2017 by [DBS]airdoc

[unreasonable]

Prematurely back and a little surprised to see this thread survive - sleepy moderators or unusually civil discussion - either way 

 

A few comments on the themes to date.

 

On the state-socialism vs capitalism thing: if you take a long enough view of history, it becomes clear that the reason the western countries became rich was not primarily to do with markets.

 

The main benefits to the populations of these states since about 1800 have been dramatic improvements in public health, including nutrition and medicine, uniform and progressive law codes, and mass education. Markets had little to do with any of these - rather these elements are the foundation on which capitalism depends.  The driver for these improvements was of course warfare, or the threat of warfare, between states in a period when small mercenary/professional armies were being made obsolete by huge mass armies based on conscription of the citizen body. In order to have a healthy mass army capable of meeting the increasingly technical demands of modern warfare, states all over Europe decided that government intervention was required.

 

Since the mass armies need to be motivated by ideas as well as by coin, the lash and the promise of loot and ravishment, states had to accept a democratization process in which the purpose of the state increasingly came to be identified as the material welfare of the mass of it's citizens: a concept entirely foreign to the pre-modern world. Mass armies created nationalism, just as they were also nationalism's tool. So the elites in every european state - and later in other modernizing states - had to allow some loss of power nationally in order to avoid catastrophic defeat internationally. Capitalism built on that foundation and then generated the wealth that allowed for larger and better equipped mass armies, and so on.

 

With the bomb and the near stability of the Cold War and later the hegemony of the US, capitalism was able to take the preconditions established by state action and clean up, and has undoubtedly then helped lift material standards of living further, most obviously in countries that have only recently moved from a feudal structure into a modern state plus capitalism model, as any Asia veteran will confirm. By contrast, countries with only the strong state model without capitalism have uniformly failed.

 

The problem is that before too long, any human institution starts to expend a greater proportion of it's energy on self protection and expansion than on it's original functional purpose. I am sure we all know many examples of this phenomenon. The difficulty with the state is that it is much harder to check or reverse this process than is the case in the private sector, where the much maligned "invisible hand" will give you a swift slap around the chops if you are not covering your costs.  In contrast, the public sector experiences a form of the "tragedy of the commons" - the benefits of state sector expansion beyond the point of functional usefulness are concentrated in the hands of a fewwho find it easy to mobilize a pressure group. The costs are spread over the population, so it is harder to organize resistance. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. This is made worse by the moralistic tone the "progressive" camp takes in it's appeals for continual incremental growth in the share of resources consumed by the state, since so much of the electorate and chattering classes are women for whom "empathy" always trumps hard hearted cost-benefit analysis.

 

The result  as we all know is bloated state sectors that can be financed, but only assuming GDP continues to grow rapidly. Given the trend for refusal to reproduce also discussed above, this growth requires mass immigration. edit - it should also be obvious that the planet as a whole cannot have net immigration, therefore this economic model cannot be extended to the globe as a whole - it requires a huge pool of poor people to be sucked in as immigrants, who in turn will form an even bigger lump of oldies requiring even faster immigration....

 

It has been claimed that the self-reported happiness of Scandinavian societies (really? suicide rate?) is due to their high state sector participation. I suspect it is at least as much to do with their ethnic and cultural homogeneity. This is uncomfortable for people with the "rebel-outsider" gene (including me), but seems to be the requirement for  generating trust, the key condition of social peace: diversity undermines trust, particularly if the "diverse" group has a vibrant contempt for almost everything in the host society except for it's welfare benefits. This is why mass immigration, especially from the lands of the sword and crescent is such a problem, and the Scandanavians are slowly finding that they are not quite so tolerant of cultural diversity as they imagined.

 

This is world as I see it - the main difference between conservatives (in the UK sense) like me and progressives is not to do with their ideals of what a perfect world might be like, but to the conservative beliefs that you cannot get to where you are going unless you have a reliable map, that you know where you actually are, that actions almost always have unintended consequences, and that change always incurs costs because people have invested heavily in the expectation that things will go along more or less as they are. 

 

As to what "should be" or "ought to be" in a moral rather than functional sense - everyone can opine on this until they are blue in the face but it is just propaganda: at least it is indistinguishable from propaganda. The problem is, that it is impossible to deduce any moral statement from any set of empirical statements. But this gets us onto the topic of ethics - a very interesting topic of course, but nothing to do with the system of the world.

Edited April 6, 2017 by unreasonable

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

 

 

Prematurely back and a little surprised to see this thread survive - sleepy moderators or unusually civil discussion - either way 

 

It's hard to stop people from talking Politics, Economy and Philosophy. An old Italian once told me that you can have all Kinds of Rules, the Way you enforce them is what matters. 

Maybe they are running this as an Experiment to see what happens when you actually let the Inmates run the Asylum. Maybe they hope this becomes the Dump for all the Politics Talk from other Threads in an Attempt to keep the General Topic clean. 

I very much enjoy gaining some Insight into what the Forum going Community thinks outside of the Il-2 Spectrum.

 

Also, quite an Interesting Approach. I think Demographic Changes will be among the Main Challenges my Generation will Face in the Near Future. Or total Nuclear Annihilation. That would also be Fun. 

[Retnek]

... However, I’m a bit more pessimistic in my view on human nature ... But do an honest day of work? Why would they when they have their disability checks in the mail anyway? ...

Just a short note on this, because this is a problem all societies and economies have to get along with. I've had insight in quite a few companies now, those in the private sector are usually as helpless against clever "low-performers" as are public enterprises, too. Large structures like big companies or the cities social administration always have the tendency to offer comfortable niches for people without motivation to work honestly. One can fight that egoistic behaviour with strict controls - usually the people tend to accept Orwell in a private company, but they refuse it when the same is done by a public instance. Anyhow, those control-mechanisms are imperfect, expensive and the stupid rules they provoke tend to frustrate the good-minded people.

Imho the best way to bring those low-performers back to work is a job that makes sense and an enhanced connection to a human community - most people care very much for respect and acknowledgement.

Edited April 6, 2017 by 216th_Retnek

[Retnek]

...

It has been claimed that the self-reported happiness of Scandinavian societies (really? suicide rate?) is due to their high state sector participation.

 

I haven't seen that argument. The relative happiness is statically well proved and not "self-reported" - as the high suicide rate. It's interesting to see that people in those famed countries of "state-socialism" are quite satisfied compared to those who live in countries where states for citizens are confused with companies for share-holders. A suicide not in any case must be an act of desperation, it can be autonomy, too. If you have the luck to live in a state where you are allowed to act as a sovereign in your own matters. Anyhow, I don't know it in detail, maybe it's the long darkness, the need to spend most of your assets to become properly drunken once a year ...

 

I suspect it is at least as much to do with their ethnic and cultural homogeneity.

 

Don't think so. Relative to the population strength the Scandinavians always were much more open to immigration than other European countries. They tend to care intensely for the immigrants and that pays off. I would search for cultural reasons much more into a direction of the harsh environmental conditions. People in thinly populated areas depend on each other much more than those in urban areas. This was true for the very heterogeneous immigrant societies during the colonisation (conquest) of the US and Canada, too.

Another factor I can't see in Scandinavia is an common "outer enemy" like those native warriors in the Wild West or a that "public enemy" authoritarian regimes love to present when their home policy is near collapse. Fine examples are groups of early-capitalism-employers welding together very heterogeneous groups of workers until they see themselves as a single "working class".

 

This is uncomfortable for people with the "rebel-outsider" gene (including me), but seems to be the requirement for  generating trust, the key condition of social peace: diversity undermines trust,

 

That's a plain statement or wishful thinking? Diversity undermines trust in societies not at all, as long as you live in a stable society not permanently under stress by war or a hire-and-fire-economy.

 

particularly if the "diverse" group has a vibrant contempt for almost everything in the host society except for it's welfare benefits.

 

That's a fact we have to learn - being friendly and forgiving against thick-witted immigrants or "rebel-outsiders" up to certain degree, but behind a point of tolerance firmly insisting on acceptance of the law. Sadly the left-winged, progressive groups never consequently tried to enforce their rules and limits in the rare cases they had the political power. Very much in contrast to conservatism or liberalism, who usually don't show any scruples about deforming the state with their ideology. (btw: LAW is the word, not those diffusely propagated "traditions of old men based on a pretended common sense" ...!)

 

... the Scandinavians are slowly finding that they are not quite so tolerant of cultural diversity as they imagined.

 

Sir, would please take your position at the end of the queue? The Scandinavians at the moment are busy with that blonde fool asking for their attention a few days before.

Edited April 6, 2017 by 216th_Retnek

[unreasonable]

@Retnek - I have found the issue of diversity and trust popping up in several of the books or articles about social issues I have read over recent years, and a quick search for it will reveal an extensive academic literature. 

 

https://scholar.google.co.th/scholar?start=10&q=diversity+and+trust&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1

 

Naturally the issue is somewhat contentious - firstly since this is based on correlations, it is possible to get different results with different data sets or even weighting results until you get the result you want. This is true even in harder areas of science such as medicine: much worse in the so called "social sciences" where the wording of questionnaires or the design of experiments is so crucial.

 

Most academics are either of progressive views themselves, or more importantly depend on senior academics for funding and preferment, and surely no-one with experience of universities can believe they are anything but progressive in bias.  So it is hardly surprising that early studies showing a negative correlation between trust and social diversity should be met with new studies showing the opposite.  As always, with these kinds of issues, the interaction is complex, and to a degree we are all forced to decide based on our own experience as well as the "facts" produced by academics.  

 

Whatever you think about that specific issue, my main point above was that modern western societies face a choice:  because citizens have voted themselves much higher benefits, especially in old age, than can possibly be financed through the taxes on a shrinking pool of people of working age, they must decide between between mass immigration or massive cuts in the welfare state.  (Given Murphy's Law, they will probably end up with both )  I believe this to be true in every western society, including the US.  

 

While it is true that the business lobby welcomes mass immigration since they garner the profits from a larger market and depressed wages, while bearing none of the costs, and the business lobby influences (ie buys)  the politicians, this is not just the result of an evil liberal corporatist conspiracy, or incompetent or corrupt politicians. In the end politicians have to respond to the voters if they make their views sufficiently clear, and the voters consistently want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

There can be no doubt that mass immigration will have huge effects, and naive to argue that some of them will not be to the detriment of the indigenes.  The alternative choice is the Japanese approach - maintain your culture, suppress immigration, but face up to a rapidly shrinking population and tax base. 

 

I am not arguing for one over the other: simply that this is the real game-changing question facing western society, and that the capitalism vs socialism argument is obsolete and irrelevant.