Erb's Swedish Socialist Love Affair (Re: Social Darwinism)
Michael Schneider
In article <5i0db9$1e...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, scot...@maine.maine.edu
(Scott D. Erb) wrote:
> In article <3347f9a1...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, gcr...@ix.netcom.com
> says...
>
> >>Of course, some Social Democratic countries like Sweden have done very well
> >>because societal cooperation can usually create strength that is destroyed
> by
> >>division and contention.
> >
> > No, they are going bankrupt and already
> > have the highest taxes in the world. It cannot
> > be maintained anymore than the social contracts
> > in Germany and France. The Germans know it.
> > The French don't want to think about it.
>
> Wrong. Germany has often outperformed the US, and only the need to pump $700
> billion into former East Germany has slowed their economy, probably
> temporarily. As for Sweden:
>
> Sweden is one of the world's classic examples of working Social Democracy.
>
> Some facts about Sweden:
>
> * export growth is outstanding, giving it one of the world's largest trade
> surpluses
> * Sweden has raised productivity faster than any other OECD country in the
> 1990s
> * has the second lowest corporate tax rate in the EU (28%)
> * spends more on R & D relative to GDP than any other country
> * electricty prices are the lowest in Europe, and industry pays no tax on
> the electricity it uses
> * has the most liberal telecommunications market in the world
> * is the most deregulated country in the EU, with the exception of Britain.
>
> Direct foreign investment has skyrocketed, both Swedish investment outside
> Sweden, and foreign investment inside Sweden. The relative unit labor cost
> is lower than that of the UK, USA, France, Netherlands, Germany and Japan.
> Sweden has increased productivity more quickly than the UK, France, the US,
> Germany and Japan.
>
> Sweden is second to the US in computers per capita, and ahead of the US in
> cellular mobile phone subscribers. (Sweden leads the world in this
> category). Quality of life is high due to an advanced social welfare system.
> cheers, scott
Potemkin village propaganda.
And now for the REALITY, from someone who actually LIVED THERE:
(Don't you love computers? I do. I can clip away a killer post chock
full of skewering truth, toss it away into God knows what crevice of my
2-gigger, log on quite some time later to someone's evident nonsense, and
within five seconds after a simple Command-F, have that Sweden file up and
ready to slap over.)
[In which Kempe and Gustafson dispatch assorted pinheads, they write:]
Sweden: The Ideals Are Evil
From: Magnus...@di.epfl.ch (Magnus Kempe)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.afghanistan,alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Sweden's Unemployment Rate was Two% for Years and Years and Years
Message-ID: <1994May...@di.epfl.ch>
[Lots of misleading and/or false information about Sweden deleted.]
I am Swedish. I lived there (but no longer do). Let me say a few things,
and then you may verify the facts about Sweden, and answer if you still
think Sweden is a great country to live in.
I worked in Sweden as an engineer. The money left to me after taxes (i.e.
the money I received) was less than what an alcoholic man I personally
knew received each month; he lived on welfare and never worked in his
whole life (he survived about 45 years until he killed himself).
It was literally impossible to save anything (remember: the state claimed
to take care of everyone from cradle to grave). I was told that my
education was paid for me by the state, and that therefore I owed the
state everything (it was factually false since I hadn't studied in Sweden,
but you see what the common viewpoint on one's relationship to the state
is).
I could afford to go to the restaurant two to three times a month. To the
movies? once or twice a month. After these luxuries I could not afford
anything else (e.g. buying books) unless I skipped meals.
The meat in Sweden is of the lowest quality in Western Europe (got to
protect the farmers) and extremely expensive (three to four times the
price of meat in France, where after-tax wages are higher than in Sweden).
I got my flat on the black market. There was no other possibility, since
rents are controlled and everyone has to stay where he lives in order to
keep his rent low (the guy I rented from rented himself four flats in
Stockholm, to make sure his kids would have something when they would want
to leave their parent's flat). A constant threat was that the State would
discover that he didn't live in the appartments he was renting; in order
to punish the "profiteers", he would have been fined and his lease would
have been invalidated. (And I would have been thrown out for the sake of
someone on a waiting list. Yes, there are waiting-lists managed by a
central bureau of renting.)
Such is the "standard of living" and "easy life" in Sweden. (It seems that
the United Nations statistics for "standard of living" include such
objective criteria as "equality of genders" and "social security.")
Now, on to "low unemployment."
Most of the economy in Sweden is strangled by the state. The bureaucrats
are everywhere. For instance, a drugstore will often have four persons
simultaneously working to serve one customer; one will say hello, please
give me your prescription, the second will look for the bottle of
medicine, the third one will type with two fingers, and the fourth will
read to you what has been typed just in case you thought you could get
away with reading it yourself. That's just one example. Remember, more
than half of the Swedish economy is controlled by the state.
If someone is out of work, what happens? He is "employed" by the state to
go to some school and try to learn something useful. Or he can choose to
get out of the market-place for labor (being on welfare is not counted as
being unemployed); someone over 50 years old will simply be "retired."
That went on for as long as Sweden had the money for it. When things
started to get difficult, the socialists invented "forced savings"; this
was intended to cool down inflation and better control what kind of
activities would be subsidized. It simply reduced my take-home pay by a
few percents with a vague promise to pay later (without accounting for
inflation in the meantime, of course).
How could the Swedish state pay for all these wonderful things?
It borrowed, and still borrows, on the international markets (just as some
third-world countries did in the past, until their economies crashed and
they had to default on their debt; the same will happen to Sweden). Also
Sweden has very low taxes on corporations, which enables them to remain
competitive internationally. Individuals are taxed to death; corporations
are subsidized in order to keep the milk streaming from the cow.
Some of the money went to communist Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, and Red China.
After Czecoslovakia got rid of communism, the Swedish socialists rushed to
tell the Czechs how to set up a welfare state by stealing from the
producers to feed the moochers. (The Czech Finance minister answered that
it couldn't work because there was nothing to redistribute, that wealth
had first to be produced before one could consume it.)
A few years ago, banks advertised, but in a very peculiar way; they used
to say that "borrowing is good, it will allow you to reach your goals" but
nowhere did they encourage their customers to save. Well, of course,
saving was impossible. Instead, the tax system was designed to encourage
loans; for instance, one of my relatives bought a 30-ft. sailing boat with
a loan, thus reducing his taxes, and ended up with more money after
taxes... so in Sweden the welfare system was growing while people thought
the lunch was free. In the meantime, "wagers' funds" were set up, which
basically took some stock from corporations and moved it into the hands of
the unions. The unions would care for the workers, and manage the
companies better than what evil businessmen had done; the union leaders
got to control most of the economy the government wasn't already
controlling; they also played with the stock market, and lost much money.
But there wasn't enough milk. Today, Sweden is broke. Unemployment rate
has soared to 15%. Strong companies leave the country. Asea merged with
Brown-Boveri to form ABB in Switzerland, Tetra-Pak moved to Switzerland,
Ericsson has moved much of its research to Germany, Volvo expanded its
production in Belgium while reducing it in Sweden, Alfa-Laval is getting
out of Sweden, Saab is bankrupt (even though GM has thrown billions of US$
at it), etc.
The Swedish Mind
The Swedish culture has become completely vicious. The national sickness
is envy (some Swedes are even proud of that!). Success is a sign of
anti-social behaviour (and many businessmen stupid enough to stay in
Sweden have gone to jail because they earned too much and tried to keep
some of their wealth instead of giving everything to the State). Tens of
thousands of Swedes, mostly businessmen, fled socialist Sweden in the
60's.
Anyone who dares think independently and assert his ideas vs. the
consensus is told "who do you think you are?". On the other hand,
mindless, emotional statements are strongly encouraged. (In case you
wonder, Sweden adopted the progressive education philosophy of Dewey.)
When I refused to join the union ("So, Magnus, I see you haven't joined
yet, well let's see... just fill out this form..."), I was called
"anti-social" in front of my colleagues and told that my job and salary
would not last long without the support of the union.
The Swedish TV is state-controlled. When satellite dishes started to
appear in the country, the socialists tried to forbid them. Last time I
was there (early 90's), the Swedish news used to be like news on Soviet
TV: grey background, ugly speaker as straight as a screwdriver, comments
about the "American imperialists" and "our friends in Russia," and social
documentaries whining that some young criminals couldn't help it, that
"capitalism made them greedy for material wealth."
Before the free elections in Nicaragua, the Swedish TV asserted regularly
that the communists would win; after, they didn't say anything about it.
Before the free elections in Eastern Germany, the Swedish TV asserted that
the communists and socialists would have an overwhelming majority; after,
they explained that the poor East Germans were tricked into wanting
material wealth, but that they would ultimately realize how evil
capitalism is.
So much for the Swedish model, standard of living, and cultural atmosphere.
I could go on with volumes of observations, but it is not really a
pleasure to describe the vices of Sweden. I'll stop here. You should have
enough too.
(I now live in a much freer country, Switzerland.) --
Magnus Kempe "I know not what course others may take, but as
for me, Magnus...@di.epfl.ch Give me Liberty... or give me Death!" --
Patrick Henry
Facts of Socialistic Sweden
From: f92...@dd.chalmers.se (Peter Gustafson) Newsgroups:
alt.philosophy.objectivism Subject: Re: Sweden's Unemployment Rate was
Two% for Years and Years and Years
Regarding the title: in Sweden one differs between 'open' unemployment and
those who are employed through government programs. Saying that the
unemployment rate was two percent for years and years is false.
Today 'open' unemployment is about seven percent and to that, add some
five percent (numbers not exact, but of the correct magnitude), giving us
a nice twelve percent.
Jawaid Bazyar asked the following questions to which I can provide some
rudimentary answers:
1) How many people live in Sweden?. During these years, what was the
population growth in Sweden?
Say about eight and a half to nine million, population growth very small.
2) What was the per-capita Gross National Product?
I can only speak for the last two or three years with some certainty - BNP
growth has been in the negative, one to two percent. Before that it was at
least positive, small but positive. Latest predictions sets it to a plus
two percent this year and a fairly nice progression of positives for the
rest of the decade. We'll need it. We have the largest relative foreign
debt in the western world.
3) What was the rate of invention in Sweden during these years? How many
things were invented by Swedes to improve their standard of living? How
many technological improvements were imported from other countries?
Actually, Swedish engineers are pretty good. As an example, some guys came
up with a (don't know what it's called in English) "thin TV screen"
several years ago. Unable to start production here, they sold it to the
Japanese, and this is not a unique event. Then the state-owned media has
the stomach to whine about "inventions slipping through are fingers".
Laugh or cry?
[ 4) Define "standard of living". ]
5) You claim Sweden has the highest standard of living. How is that
measured? Is that pre-tax or after-tax? (taxes in Sweden average 50%, or
HALF of income).
Subsidies are the keyword. The question "who pays?" mustn't be asked.
Swedish youth has to endure nine years of comprachico-compulsory
schooling, in which the "social aspects" are taken very seriously, another
three to get a high-school equivalent diploma. The result is shown at very
specific dates of the year, namely 30. march, around 6. june (school
ends), midsummer's eve, 13. december, when a large majority of them fills
the streets with vomit and broken bottles (it's a battlefield, you won't
believe it until you see it). This is called "to drink like a wiking" and
is more or less proudly boasted as a national characteristic. It's not so
heroic when the "wikings" are of age 14 or even down to 10 years old.
I remember a local block-buster movie about an average guy who goes on one
of these cheap one week trips to the mediterranean, where liquor is cheap
and the sun always shines. It started with the line, "Swedes don't go
abroad to get abroad, they go to get away from Sweden". Almost all Swedes
can relate to that line with a recognizing grin (it was a block-buster).
Some standard of living.
6) What was the rate of increase of Sweden's standard of living during
this time?
If related to our ability to buy products on our not so very free market -
inflation taken into account - it was during the eighties, decreasing.
The SAP (Socialist Worker's Party) is collectivist, mediocrity-worshipping
to the extreme. One of the top members proudly confesses that "she was
just one of the gang who didn't care too much about school". The man who
will most likely be in control of our country's economy, should they win
this falls elections, has no high-school degree. They are presently
supported by 48 percent of those allowed to vote. Draw your own
conclusions.
Peter Gustafson.
+--+--+
Remove "_N_O_S_P_A_M_" from my eddress before emailing.
Pyromania: http://www.tncnet.com/~rsears/oak/explode.html
America's soap opera: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Iconoclast Greg Swann Writes: http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/
Yahoo! Maps: http://maps.yahoo.com/yahoo/ (submit La Crosse, WI)
National Organization for Non-Enumeration: http://www.ime.net/none/
W. Beck's Anthology: http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
Assimilation: http://image.ucr.edu/~borg/jwz/Constitution/intro.htm
Waco Holocaust Museum: http://www.mnsinc.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/
Welcome to Rancho Runnamukka: http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
Internet Infidels "The Secular Web": http://www.infidels.org/
Download'n Fool: http://www.shareware.com/SW/Search/Index/
Pyromania2: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
Billy Beck
mike1@_N_O_S_P_A_M_visi.com (Michael Schneider) wrote:
>scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb) wrote:
(to hell with that twerp)
> Potemkin village propaganda.
>
> And now for the REALITY, from someone who actually LIVED THERE:
>Sweden: The Ideals Are Evil
>
>From: Magnus...@di.epfl.ch (Magnus Kempe)
>Newsgroups: soc.culture.afghanistan,alt.philosophy.objectivism
>Subject: Sweden's Unemployment Rate was Two% for Years and Years and Years
>Message-ID: <1994May...@di.epfl.ch>
(got it)
That's a gold-plated keeper, Mike.
Good job.
Billy
gary cruse
On 4 Apr 1997 17:07:44 GMT, s...@sig.I.hate.spam (Keith Jackson) graced
us all with:
>In article <mike1-04049...@192-129.d.com>, gcr...@ix.netcom.com
>>> says...
>>> >Scott Erb wrote :
>
>Scott Erb never lets *FACTS* get in the way of his notions.
>
>In other threads he is accusing a black man of being a white
>supremacist. When it is pointed out he has no evidence to support
>such a wild accusation, Scott says it's just a "hypothesis,"
>thus misusing his title as an Assistant Professor of Political
>Science to imply that his childish name calling has some scientific
>basis.
>
>Poor Scott.
Poor Scott???? I pity any students
he may come in contact with, much less
teach. I am honestly shocked that
someone factually bereft as this
guy is can possibly have a position
in academia. Thank God my
kids are out of college. What
are earth is this country coming to?
>
>--
>(now reading in talk.politics.misc )
>
>Keith kjac...@cs.tamu.edu
>
Gary
Michael Schneider
In article <5i23oc$l...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, mcq...@iix.netcom.com
(McQ) wrote:
>scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb) wrote:
>>gcr...@ix.netcom.com says...
>>>Of course, some Social Democratic countries like Sweden have done very well
>>>because societal cooperation can usually create strength that is destroyed
>>>by division and contention.
>>
>> No, they are going bankrupt and already
>> have the highest taxes in the world. It cannot
>> be maintained anymore than the social contracts
>> in Germany and France. The Germans know it.
>> The French don't want to think about it.
>Wrong. Germany has often outperformed the US, and only the need to pump $700
>billion into former East Germany has slowed their economy, probably
>temporarily.
Germany has NOT often outperformed the US. In 1987 for instance, the
US held a 27% productivity lead over West Germany according to reseach
done by economists at the University of Groningen. And it certainly
hasn't outperformed the US in the '90s. The living proof of this are
the huge German auto plants opening in the US. I'd suggest you check
the OECD figures for productivity. The US comes in 16% higher than
Germany according to OECD and 25% higher according to McKinsey Global.
As for Sweden:
>Sweden is one of the world's classic examples of working Social Democracy.
It sure is...
>Some facts about Sweden:
> * export growth is outstanding, giving it one of the world's largest trade
> * surpluses
And 51% tax rates are common...
> * Sweden has raised productivity faster than any other OECD country in the
> * 1990s
This means nothing as stated. How did they compare IN PRODUCTIVITY
to other OECD countries in the 1990s? Very poorly. See below.
> * has the second lowest corporate tax rate in the EU (28%)
And the highest subsidy rate.
> * spends more on R & D relative to GDP than any other country
See subsidy. Then see taxes.
> * electricty prices are the lowest in Europe, and industry pays no tax on
> * the electricity it uses
Of course not...it's citizens do. Their taxes subsidize the
electricity.
> * has the most liberal telecommunications market in the world
> * is the most deregulated country in the EU, with the exception of Britain.
>Direct foreign investment has skyrocketed, both Swedish investment outside
>Sweden, and foreign investment inside Sweden.
It would have to skyrocket. It had no where to go but up. I would
assume the investment outside of Sweden has to do with looking for
productivity increases.
>The relative unit labor cost
>is lower than that of the UK, USA, France, Netherlands, Germany and Japan.
That's because in relation to those countries it's productivity is
abysmal. It doesn't even register.
>Sweden has increased productivity more quickly than the UK, France, the US,
>Germany and Japan.
More below. Any gains in productivity are very relative. According
to the Paris based Organization For Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) AND the McKinsey Global Institute, the US has held
the productivity lead over all nations by a good margin for quite some
time. Sweden hasn't even registered on the scale to this point.
There's a reason for that.
Swedish manufacturers saw their productivity steadily decline since
1970. For instance, labor demands resulted in over 28% increases in
wages from 1989-1991, while productivity grew only 2%. Given
prohibitive tax rates, employers have found it almost impossible to
get employees work overtime. Daily absenteeism soared in some sectors
to 25% of the work force. Volvo has an average of 13% of its work
force absent EVERY day; in the same area, bus and trolley drivers
average 73 sick days a year.
As one would expect then a 1% increase in productivity might
register a 30-50% relative increase, but be nothing worth noting in
comparison to the ACTUAL productivity numbers of the rest of the OECD
countries.
>Sweden is second to the US in computers per capita, and ahead of the US in
>cellular mobile phone subscribers. (Sweden leads the world in this
>category).
Subsidized.
>Quality of life is high due to an advanced social welfare system.
Really?
Some other facts about Sweden under the Social Democrats:
Under their guidance, Sweden has a mediocre (at best) economy beset
by horrific social problems (a disease that has became known as the
"Swedish Disease" i.e. a seemingly unbreakable dependence on
government and government intervention at all levels and in all areas
of daily life). 31% of it's workers are on the government payroll
(twice the average for the developed world) and 51% tax rates are
common.
Under the SD's 2/3ds of Sweden's GNP is spent on social programs.
This has provided the Swedes with Western Europes higest inflation
rate and lowest growth rate.
The impact?
-Family. Taxes were so high that few Swedish families could survive
on one income. Mothers, who would rather have been home tending to
schoolage children had to work to pay the taxes to support
state-subsidized day care centers. Make sense?
-Child care. The program has been variosly described as a "disaster"
and a "scandal". Directed to "promote a favorable development of the
young", some social workers slapped custody orders on children who
simply seemed withdrawn at school or whose parents had dirty kitchens.
At last count, the country had nearly 16,000 chidren in care - in a
nation of 8.5 million - almost 5,000 of whom were taken into custody
"by force".
-Housing. Just over 6% of Swedes are on housing waiting lists and
the housing crisis continues to worsen despite huge subsidies.
-Education. Sweden also has one of the world's most expensive school
systems, but academic standards are slipping.
-Health care. Simple diagnostic procedures such as x-rays can take
up to 14 months scheduling and if surgery is called for then another 7
month wait.
Better quality of life?
Better than what...Bangladesh?
McQ
_________________________
Remove one of the "i's" in "iix" and email away...
Michael Schneider
In article <kj33295...@news.tamu.edu>, s...@sig.I.hate.spam wrote:
> Scott Erb never lets *FACTS* get in the way of his notions.
>
> In other threads he is accusing a black man of being a white
> supremacist. When it is pointed out he has no evidence to support
> such a wild accusation, Scott says it's just a "hypothesis,"
> thus misusing his title as an Assistant Professor of Political
> Science to imply that his childish name calling has some scientific
> basis.
>
> Poor Scott.
"Assistant..." He's a fuggin *TA*?!?!?!?!
Mohahahahahahahaaa!
(That's "ta" as in "caTAmite"!)
> (now reading in talk.politics.misc )
>
> Keith kjac...@cs.tamu.edu
Ah, m'man! alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater is where the action's at.
Michael Schneider
In article <mike1-04049...@192-129.dynamic.visi.com>,
mike1@_N_O_S_P_A_M_visi.com (Michael Schneider) wrote:
> Facts of Socialistic Sweden
>
> From: f92...@dd.chalmers.se (Peter Gustafson) Newsgroups:
> alt.philosophy.objectivism Subject: Re: Sweden's Unemployment Rate was
> Two% for Years and Years and Years
snip
> 3) What was the rate of invention in Sweden during these years? How many
> things were invented by Swedes to improve their standard of living? How
> many technological improvements were imported from other countries?
>
> Actually, Swedish engineers are pretty good. As an example, some guys came
> up with a (don't know what it's called in English) "thin TV screen"
> several years ago. Unable to start production here, they sold it to the
> Japanese, and this is not a unique event. Then the state-owned media has
> the stomach to whine about "inventions slipping through are fingers".
Must be the human nature to channel energies into creative work, no
matter how oppressive the social climate, if the climate outside is even
worse. I remember when I was a teenager living the happy life: room and
board paid for. For six months of the year it was winter and I hashed a
lot of code on that trusty Apple ][+.
~~~
(From the Great White North, now being mauled by its 14th blizzard this
winter, and facing the worst flood season since the glaciers melted. One
wonders what marvels would appear off Billy Beck's CAD platform if the
weather in Georgia half the year would congeal the Valvoline in his Harley
crankcase into roofing tar.)
scot...@maine.maine.edu
In article <mike1-04049...@192-129.dynamic.visi.com>,
mike1@_N_O_S_P_A_M_visi.com says...
I gave a number of facts on Sweden. Schneider responds with the opinion of
one disgruntled Swede.
Hmmmm. What if someone was anti-American. Do you think on the net we could
find someone who would say that the American system was evil, people were all
sheep, conspiracies by government were everywhere, or that corporations were
trying to take over, and government was thwarting all freedom?
Of course you could. The internet is full of American America-bashers. One
disgruntled Swede hardly disproves real stats about the country.
In any event, I have a number of friends in Sweden who like it there, I've
visited there and found the society very open and friendly, and free.
No, Schneider, positing a diatribe by one alleged Swede is hardly persuasive.
Name me one country who couldn't produced a disgruntled complainer?
Face it: the argument made (I think by Gary C.) that Sweden and other Social
Democracies are going bankrupt is wrong. Their economies are doing fine, and
while I agree they (like us) need some reforms, the system has been quite
effective.
cheers, scott
scot...@maine.maine.edu
Mike, is there any reason for putting my name in the subject heading? Such
behavior is usually considered in bad taste for real discussions, it belongs
more in "alt.flame."
Anyway, on to the issue....
In article <mike1-06049...@192-152.dynamic.visi.com>,
mike1@_N_O_S_P_A_M_visi.com says...
>
> Germany has NOT often outperformed the US.
German performance was higher in the seventies and early eighties, as well as
the early ninties.
> In 1987 for instance, the
>US held a 27% productivity lead over West Germany according to reseach
Hardly a stat that proves much. In fact, all it proves is that German
workers are better paid, and get more vacation time. Their economy still
managed to plug along very well, often outperforming the US. Imagine that --
you can treat workers well and still have growth. What a revelation!
>hasn't outperformed the US in the '90s. The living proof of this are
>the huge German auto plants opening in the US. I'd suggest you check
Hmmm. So when a country invests abroad, that country is doing poorly
economically? Here's a stat: the US is does more investing abroad than any
other country. Is that proof that the US is falling? The US produces Autos
in Europe? Hmmm.
Again, Schneider, you do the logically fallacious method of arguing by
example. Counter examples always exist. Proof lies in statistics.
Also, in 1990 and 1991 the German economy dramatically outperformed the US.
The two were pretty equal in 1992, but then as the costs of German
unification hit home, the Bundesbank tightened the money supply dramatically
and pushed Germany into a recession in late 1992. I think that once the East
gets going (they now have the most modern infrastructure in the world,
including the world's best phone lines), the German economy will start
growing again in the late nineties.
As to your criticisms of Sweden: again, statistics don't lie. The Swedish
economy is in a growth stage. I agree that there were certain reforms that
needed to be made (in fact, I argued with Sweden friends a few years ago that
the short Conservative government was a good thing because they would
institute necessary reforms; they did, and when the Social Democrats came to
power, they continued them, with success).
After all, people could look at US slums, crime, lack of social welfare, lack
of vacation time, etc., and make majors criticisms of us via analogy. The
fact is, the Swedish economy has been stable and successful for most of the
last sixty years, and even the late eighties downturn has been corrected.
The US in 1990-91 looked like it was falling fast. The same discussion in
1991 would be about the distruction of the American economy. And, with the
emergence of the EU, I expect Europe's economic strength to continue to grow
as well. Hopefully Europe, Japan and the US can work together and continue
the interdependent trade-based relationships which have brought all
unprecedented economic growth.
The real issue is how to bring the post-Communist states and the third world
into this system.
cheers, scott
scot...@maine.maine.edu
In article <3345792e...@news.mindspring.com>, ain't...@tno.e-mail says...
> That's a gold-plated keeper, Mike.
>
> Good job.
Thank you, Billy, for proving you are motivated by faith, rather than logic.
People motivated by faith will be convinced by one analogy which supports
their view, even if scientific evidence is against them. Why? They are
simply trying to bolster pre-existing biases. Billy Beck and Michael
Schneider, with a strong faith in utopian capitalism, show this psychological
bias.
Alas, for those of us seeking truth, we have to dig deeper, look at all the
evidence, and observe everything, even analogies from one disgruntled person
which agree with our biases, with a critical eye.
As I said before: where won't you find a disgruntled citizen criticizing
their country. Yawn.
But keep your faith, Billy. I'm sure it gives your otherwise useless
existence some points of interest. Now go set up them amps roadie ;)
cheers, scott
McQ
scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
>In article <mike1-04049...@192-129.dynamic.visi.com>,
>mike1@_N_O_S_P_A_M_visi.com says...
>I gave a number of facts on Sweden. Schneider responds with the opinion of
>one disgruntled Swede.
I, however, responded with facts and figures from OECD and the
McKinley Global Insitute that show your productivity claimes to be
wrong, meaningless or misleading. I also provided their impact from a
University of Gronnigen study which seems to show the social welfare
state is pathological, even spawning a social problem known as the
"Swedish Disease".
You've completely ignored it.
>Hmmmm. What if someone was anti-American. Do you think on the net we could
>find someone who would say that the American system was evil, people were all
>sheep, conspiracies by government were everywhere, or that corporations were
>trying to take over, and government was thwarting all freedom?
How about this hypothesis? What if someone was so intent on proving
that his premise (social democracy is good) that he used half-truths
and deception to try and do so?
I'd bet you'd attempt to call him or her on it, wouldn't you?
>Of course you could. The internet is full of American America-bashers. One
>disgruntled Swede hardly disproves real stats about the country.
America bashers or GOVERNMENT bashers? AMERICA is NOT it's
government.
>In any event, I have a number of friends in Sweden who like it there, I've
>visited there and found the society very open and friendly, and free.
Proof by anecdote?
>No, Schneider, positing a diatribe by one alleged Swede is hardly persuasive.
>Name me one country who couldn't produced a disgruntled complainer?
So is this question intended to suggest that all "complainer's"
arguments are invalid?
A rather silly suggestion, wouldn't you say?
>Face it: the argument made (I think by Gary C.) that Sweden and other Social
>Democracies are going bankrupt is wrong.
No sir it's not.
>Their economies are doing fine,
No sir, they're not.
> and while I agree they (like us) need some reforms, the system has been quite
>effective.
No sir, it has not.
If you'd like further discussion, I'll be glad to give you an
example from Norway as well.
Martin McPhillips
On Sun, 06 Apr 97 10:44:01 EST, scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
>
>No, Schneider, positing a diatribe by one alleged Swede is hardly persuasive.
>Name me one country who couldn't produced a disgruntled complainer?
>
Soviet Union, circa 1931
scot...@maine.maine.edu
In article <5i8iu5$n...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, mcq...@iix.netcom.com
says...
> How about this hypothesis? What if someone was so intent on proving
>that his premise (social democracy is good) that he used half-truths
>and deception to try and do so?
Face it: Sweden, Germany and other countries have been relatively successful.
Now, people can make studies saying capitalism leads to inner city violence
like in the US, or that social welfare systems can lead to abuse. My
personal view is that the Swedes are on the right track in undertaking
reform. But any comparative view of the economic results over the last fifty
years of Norway, Sweden, West Germany, Denmark, and most other European
countries shows that social welfare systems can work.
I can point to productivity increases, you can interpret stats to claim that
doesn't matter (and anyway, high productivity often just means workers are
underpaid and don't get a good amount of vacation time -- I hardly see high
productivity as a good in and of itself, it depends on quality of life for
those who are working). If you wish, I can post a number of articles and
books on European political economy which clearly shows that while all states
have problems (and of course that has to include the US), there are strengths
and weaknesses in various systems, and they are operating reasonably well.
Your one study and one interpretation of one statistic is hardly convincing
in the face of aggregate statistics and UN and other quality of life
measures.
> So is this question intended to suggest that all "complainer's"
>arguments are invalid?
On the contrary, I think the social welfare system in Sweden went too far in
some cases, esp. in areas of sick leave and a few other instances. And not
everyone is happy with a particular system, that's politics. There are many
Americans who don't like our system either. If you look for demons, you'll
find them. My point is simply that both types of systems work.
AND, by the way, my original point was that these systems aren't falling
apart bankrupt. That seems to have been conceded.
Funny how you can take wealthy countries, ranking high in all categories,
high in quality of life, and find a couple examples or tendential studies and
pretend that this proves that their system is evil and rotten. That is
intellectually dishonest. Luckily, we in the field of political science and
comparative political economy have analyzed this in detail, and can provide
an extensive reading list if you so desire.
cheers, scott
Billy Beck
scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
>Alas, for those of us seeking truth...
"As if", Erb. You wouldn't know correspondance from
hypothesis until the bullet slammed into the back of your little
pointed head.
Now go polish the professor's apple.
Billy
scot...@maine.maine.edu
In article <3347eb32...@news.mindspring.com>, ain't...@tno.e-mail says...
> "As if", Erb. You wouldn't know correspondance from
>hypothesis until the bullet slammed into the back of your little
>pointed head.
(snicker)
Such a brilliant retort Billy!
Tell me, did that oh-so clever response occur to you after an amp fell on
your head when you were unloading the gear after smoking up before the
concert?
cheers, scott
Billy Beck
scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
"It turns out that in that terrible year Andrei Yanuaryevich
(one longs to blurt out 'Jaguaryevich') Vyshinksy, availing himself of
the most flexible dialectics (of a sort nowadays not available to
either Soviet citizens or electronic calculators, since to them *yes*
is *yes* and *no* is *no*), pointed out in a report which became
famous in certain circles that it is never possible for mortal men to
establish absolute truth, but relative truth only. He then proceeded
to a further step, which jurists of the last two thousand years had
not been willing to take: that the truth established by interrogation
and trial could not be absolute, but only, so to speak, relative.
Therefore, when we sign a sentence ordering someone to be shot we can
never be *absolutely* certain, but only approximately, in view of
certain hypotheses, and in a certain sense, that we are punishing a
*guilty person*. Thence arose the most practical conclusion: that it
was useless to seek absolute evidence - for evidence is always
relative - or unchallengable witnesses - for they can say different
things at different times. The proofs of guilt were *relative*,
approximate, and the interrogator could find them, even when there was
no evidence and no witness, without leaving his office, 'basing his
conclusions not on his own intellect but also on his party
sensitivity, his *moral forces*' (in other words, the superiority of
someone who has slept well, has been well fed, and has not been beaten
up) 'and on his *character' (i.e., his willingness to apply cruelty).
Of course, his formulation was much more elegant than Latsis'
instructions. But the essence of both was the same.
In only one respect did Vyshinsky fail to be consistent and
retreat from dialectical logic: for some reason, the executioners'
*bullet* which he allowed was not relative but *absolute*."
(Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago - An
Experiment In Literary Investigation", 1973, Harper & Row, Inc., Vol.
I, Part I, "The Prison Industry", chapter 3, "The Interrogation", pp.
100-101, all emphases original)
~~~~~
Snicker all you want, punk. The fact of the matter is that
you don't know *shit* about life on a rock tour, nor what I do out
there, or anything else. And, I know that you wouldn't last two days
under those conditions before you were on your knees screaming for
mommy, and I would personally kick your skinny little ass out into the
parking lot after breakfast, and prior to calculating the length and
load of a rig bridle 90 feet in the air and no net below. Even with a
broken hip and two pounds of steel in it at the age of 41, I would
outperform you physically in realms where you wouldn't dare to go if
Sandra Bullock promised to suck your dick at the end of a head-first
abseil.
On the other hand, I make my way around in *your* arena, too.
Billy
scot...@maine.maine.edu
In article <5i8uhc$oeq$2...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, jam...@NOSPAMecheque.com says...
>
>scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
>> Face it: Sweden, Germany and other countries have been relatively
successful.
>
ROTFL! No, silly. Look at economic performance over the last fifty years.
Look at all quality of life indices out there. I'm talking about successful
compared to every country in the world. Some a little more successful in
some cases, some a little less. Or do you want to make the untenable
argument that Sweden and Germany are on a par with North Korea. This oughta
be good, let's see what James comes up with here...
>Germany has been relatively successful compared to most of Europe,
>though unsuccessful relative to more capitalist governments such as
>Switzerland and the US.
Wrong. Germany's economic growth outdid America's during much of the
post-war period, and as recently as 1991 analysts were putting Germany far
above the US. Only the costs of unification (so far over $750 billion) have
slowed the German economy. In the seventies it was "Modell Deutschland," not
suffering the recession as much of others. Switzerland, a small country with
its own problems, benefits from a few things like it's banking system.
Prices there are very high, and quality of life is not better - in fact by
most indices worse -- than Germany.
> Sweden has not been successful by reasonable
>European standard. This fiction about Sweden is like the tale of all
>those people who cite Cuba as a paradise, when anyone can see that it
>is Animal Farm.
(yawn). Is this what counts as argument from you, James? To simply make an
assertion, then try to distract away from your lack of evidence by talking
about Cuba and fiction books, which have nothing to do with the discussion.
Very impressive. NOT. I'll post a reading list on Monday with classics from
the field of comparative political economy and comparative politics which you
can go to in order to educate yourself on this field. You obviously are
driven by your own faith in your beliefs, not a desire to study and learn the
truth.
> Sweden may not be Animal Farm, but plainly it is no
>poster ad for the welfare state either, and anybody who claims it is,
>simply ignores the plain facts, out of self delusion or simple
>dishonesty.
ROTFL! Gee, how impressive James! No facts, no evidence, just a bunch of
blustering. Sorry, but you are wrong. I've posted facts about Sweden, and
the only response is to quote one disgruntled Swede, one study (which I don't
even know really exists), and to try to argue about the interpretation of one
minor statistic. So far, no real counter evidence. But you don't even do
that. In any event, I'll post the reading list tomorrow in case you do want
to actually try to educate yourself.
Na, James. Your faith in utopian capitalism is so pure, you probably
wouldn't want facts to get in the way.
>Strange to support, somehow this alleged productivity and high
>standard of living just somehow fails to translate into consumer white
>goods and discretionary consumption on small luxuries. Funny thing
>that.
No, James, wrong again. Sweden is near the top in many consumer goods, and
in things like computers and high tech products above almost all countries of
the advanced industrialized world. Sweden is number one in cellular phones,
for instance.
Ah, but you don't post facts, you just assert. I forgot.
>I guess your standard of living is higher when the wise bureaucrat
>spends money on your behalf for desirably social goods, whereas if you
>had the money yourself you would just waste it on VCRs and swimming
>pools and stuff.
Nope, nobody claimed that was the case.
Gee, James, another unimpressive strategy. Make up arguments you wish the
other side would make and argue against those. You probably would have been
well advised to be quiet in this debate, your strategy alone shows your
ignorance on this issue.
>In fact Sweden has been repeatedly bailed out by the EEC,
ROTFL! That is a pure crock, a brash lie. James, you ought to be ashamed of
yourself. Do you even know when Sweden joined the EU? (BTW, do you know
when the EEC became the EC, and then the EU? Do you know ANYTHING about any
of these issues!
>their current reforms are motivated by the fact that the people
>holding the purse strings are getting a little impatient, so the
>welfare state in Sweden is indeed being abandoned due to bankruptcy,
>or at least due to severe impatience amongst creditors.
Again, another lie. The welfare state is not being abandoned. Even in the
short time the conservatives were in power they were careful to say they were
not opposed to the welfare state. Even business isn't opposed.
You are a liar, James. You made up these lies about Sweden to simply argue.
I find that disgusting.
cheers, scott
Paul Zrimsek
>Poor Scott???? I pity any students
>he may come in contact with, much less
>teach. I am honestly shocked that
>someone factually bereft as this
>guy is can possibly have a position
>in academia.
I dunno, the guy's really not doing half bad considering that he labors under
the handicap of pragmatism. It's easy to become factually bereft when you
disbelieve in the very existence of facts.
Paul Zrimsek
pzri...@tiac.net
scot...@maine.maine.edu
In article <5i8uir$oeq$4...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, jam...@NOSPAMecheque.com says...
>I observe that lots of Swedes emigrate, or seek to emigrate, to
>America, but no Americans emigrate to Sweden, including those you
>describe as exploited and oppressed.
Another lie. In fact, Sweden finds it necessary to restrict immigration.
James, your lies disgust me. Apparently you feel that if you can lie and
convince people, the truth doesn't matter. You just want converts to your
views. As a scholar and teacher, I find that behavior dangerous -- in
history disregard for the truth in order to push a political agenda has had
disastrous results.
Please post evidence on this, and the points I made in the last post. I'll
be posting a reading list tomorrow where you can go to find out all you want
about Sweden, from a variety of scholars from different fields.
Remember: look at James' style. He makes brash bold assertions, never with
evidence, often things that are obvious lies. His type use the lack of
oversight given to the internet to try to push their agenda. Watch out!
>I observe that in Sweden, there are very few small companies. Your
>only hope of a job is with one of a few big companies with intimate
>ties to the state. This must surely create a sense of fear,
>impotence, and powerlessness, a fear that your career could be forever
>blighted by some capricious whim of someone you have hardly seen and
>do not know.
WOW! Another LIE by James Donald. James, the Swedish system has protection
for workers that go far beyond that of those in the US. The labor unions
have real power to make sure that the state or private industry cannot blight
a career by whim. Your lies are so brazen that they aren't even credible.
Apparently you are from the school which thinks that the bigger the lie, the
more one will believe.
> This is not the fear that I saw in Cuba, where people
Again, trying to talk about Cuba instead. Yawn. Stay on topic, will you
James?
>I observe that in Sweden the media is directly controlled by the
>political parties.
ANOTHER LIE! Wow! Guess what, James. Sweden has cabal TV, and a number of
private stations. You can get TV from all over Europe. Papers and other
media sources are very free.
You are one pathetic little liar, James. I'm disgusted by you.
cheers, scott
Loren Petrich
In article <5i96lu$1b...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>In article <5i8uir$oeq$4...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, jam...@NOSPAMecheque.com says...
>Remember: look at James' style. He makes brash bold assertions, never with
>evidence, often things that are obvious lies. His type use the lack of
>oversight given to the internet to try to push their agenda. Watch out!
I am still amused by a boner he made when I described an example
of the Tragedy of the Commons: people getting onto or off of
multi-occupant vehicles like buses, trains, ferries, or airplanes. He
claimed that it only happened on gov't-owned buses, but not on
privately-owned small shuttle vans.
The reason this boner was so revealing about Mr. Donald's ideology
is that it ignores a whole lot of features of these vehicles. On very
small vehicles, the T of the C does not kick in very strongly, from there
not being very many riders. However, on airplanes and on intercity buses,
it does kick in, and these are very virtuously owned in Mr. Donald's view.
However, the solution to it that airlines use for suppressing the T of the
C in getting on, filling a plane from back to front, is the sort of thing
that Mr. Donald seems to think that only governments do.
>>I observe that in Sweden, there are very few small companies. ...
>WOW! Another LIE by James Donald. James, the Swedish system has protection
>for workers that go far beyond that of those in the US. ...
I'm afraid that that's not the same thing as there being a lot of
small businesses.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Kevin Kelly
Billy Beck (ain't...@tno.e-mail) wrote:
: scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
: ~~~~~
I guess that's a yes.
: Snicker all you want, punk. The fact of the matter is that
: you don't know *shit* about life on a rock tour, nor what I do out
: there, or anything else. And, I know that you wouldn't last two days
: under those conditions before you were on your knees screaming for
: mommy, and I would personally kick your skinny little ass out into the
: parking lot after breakfast, and prior to calculating the length and
: load of a rig bridle 90 feet in the air and no net below. Even with a
: broken hip and two pounds of steel in it at the age of 41, I would
: outperform you physically in realms where you wouldn't dare to go if
: Sandra Bullock promised to suck your dick at the end of a head-first
: abseil.
Oh how cute, a roadie dick size war. Grow up child.
--
"Under capitalism, man exploits man.
Under communism it is just the
reverse." - John Kenneth Galbraith
James A. Donald
scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
> I gave a number of facts on Sweden. Schneider responds with the opinion of
> one disgruntled Swede.
The fact is that in this workers paradise, people are pretty short on
material goods like microwaves, VCRs, and washing machines, generally
cannot go out to dinner, etc.
I observe that lots of Swedes emigrate, or seek to emigrate, to
America, but no Americans emigrate to Sweden, including those you
describe as exploited and oppressed.
I observe that in Sweden, there are very few small companies. Your
only hope of a job is with one of a few big companies with intimate
ties to the state. This must surely create a sense of fear,
impotence, and powerlessness, a fear that your career could be forever
blighted by some capricious whim of someone you have hardly seen and
do not know. This is not the fear that I saw in Cuba, where people
were afraid of capricious and terrible violent punishment for breaking
some secret rule that they were forbidden to know and forbidden to
break, but disease is similar to communism, though considerably less
serious.
I observe that in Sweden the media is directly controlled by the
political parties. Although these parties have diverse policies, they
have a common interest in political, rather than private, solutions to
problems, and in practice their policies are not that diverse. Again,
the same disease as communism, though considerably less extreme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com
James A. Donald
scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
> Face it: Sweden, Germany and other countries have been relatively successful.
Successful relative to who? Cambodia, Cuba, and North Korea?
Germany has been relatively successful compared to most of Europe,
though unsuccessful relative to more capitalist governments such as
Switzerland and the US. Sweden has not been successful by reasonable
European standard. This fiction about Sweden is like the tale of all
those people who cite Cuba as a paradise, when anyone can see that it
is Animal Farm. Sweden may not be Animal Farm, but plainly it is no
poster ad for the welfare state either, and anybody who claims it is,
simply ignores the plain facts, out of self delusion or simple
dishonesty.
> I can point to productivity increases, you can interpret stats to claim that
> doesn't matter
Strange to support, somehow this alleged productivity and high
standard of living just somehow fails to translate into consumer white
goods and discretionary consumption on small luxuries. Funny thing
that.
I guess your standard of living is higher when the wise bureaucrat
spends money on your behalf for desirably social goods, whereas if you
had the money yourself you would just waste it on VCRs and swimming
pools and stuff.
> AND, by the way, my original point was that these systems aren't falling
> apart bankrupt.
In fact Sweden has been repeatedly bailed out by the EEC, and many of
their current reforms are motivated by the fact that the people
holding the purse strings are getting a little impatient, so the
welfare state in Sweden is indeed being abandoned due to bankruptcy,
or at least due to severe impatience amongst creditors.
Billy Beck
kke...@best.com (Kevin Kelly) wrote:
>Oh how cute, a roadie dick size war. Grow up child.
Go fuck yourself with a soldering iron. Erb started this
because he knows it's the only angle he's got: he's pissed off because
I know just how afraid he is to step off the nowhereville of
"hypothesis". Well, he can have it. I live in the real world where
people lay their very lives against things which don't admit a guess -
gravity and electricity. Poseurs don't make the cut, and people who
don't know precisely what they're doing, beyond the shadow of a
hypothesis, get killed. He thinks he knows what it's all about, and
he's happy to to snoot his little jokes about it. (I won't even go
into "ad hominem" with him, because I can take it: he's fucking
wrong.)
You're even less pertinent than he is.
And, your, "yes", is your own insipid little claim, to which
you are entitled.
Would you care to test it against a 9mm in the Lubyanka
cellars or their existential analog anywhere of your choosing? Step
right up. Let me know when and where, and I'll be there to watch you
cheese out.
Billy
gary cruse
On 6 Apr 1997 22:28:56 GMT, pzri...@tiac.net@tiac.net (Paul Zrimsek)
graced us all with:
Just pick up a copy of a newspaper, I dunno,
to be outre let's say the Toronto Globe and Mail.
Watch for articles discussing the travails of the
French and German economies. Sweden doesn't
get that much coverage. Read the articles
and then tell us how will social democrtatic
government is managing to retain the welfare
state while creating new jobs. And how
they are going to have to bail out of
many welfare programs to make the EU work.
Then come back and tell us the difference
between Erb's slanted interpretation of the
data and that of the world press, the OECD,
and the EU.
There is a dfference between disbelief in facts
and scorn for those who misrepresent them.
Gary
Posting from alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater.
Billy Beck
gcr...@ix.netcom.com (gary cruse) wrote:
>The problem is, as Mr. Beck so
>amply demonstrated, the ability to even
>recognize truth is often dependent on the
>arrival of the bullet to the back of the head...
Very good, Gary. That was the whole point of that cite, and
it is perhaps the very most eloquent that I have ever seen on the
subjects which it subsumes.
No matter the various sophistries crafted by these fools,
their lives are filled with moments which validate the concept of
truth. (Or, if they have led such cloistered lives that they have
never had occasion to look death or extreme danger in the eye, such an
experiment can always be concocted for them. One of my favorites is
an invitation to a motorcycle ride in rush-hour traffic. Even if they
are strong enough to ward off the temptation to religion, one can be
assured that they will nonetheless scrupulously attend all the reality
they can gather...and there won't be any subjectivist bullshit about
they evaluation of its value.)
Make no mistake, the implications follow: these people are not
interested in validations or refutations of the concepts of "truth" or
"moral absolutes". Such concepts are only defended by people
interested in *liberty*. (Various examples held out as exceptions -
Hitler, the church, et al, - are invalidated by their contradictions.)
Apprehensions of reality and moral evaluations its implications are
only important to those whose goal is to make the most of it in
relation to their own lives. The creeps with whom we are currently
engaged have different goals. Liberty is not among them.
*That* is why they expend such effort at invalidating truth.
It's the only angle they have. If they can convince people
that there is no such thing as a truth, then they are well on their
way to convincing that person that there is no difference between
slavery and freedom.
"You'll come to know...
When the bullet hits the bone."
(Golden Earring - "Twilight Zone")
Billy
Kevin Kelly
Billy Beck (ain't...@tno.e-mail) wrote:
: kke...@best.com (Kevin Kelly) wrote:
: >Oh how cute, a roadie dick size war. Grow up child.
: Go fuck yourself with a soldering iron.
Oh that's real witty child, learn it in shop class?
: Erb started this
Uh no child a reading of the posts that you and he have participated in
shows that you've been thumping your chest in some vain attempt to
overpower with stupidity that which you cannot overcome with intelligent
thought.
: Well, he can have it. I live in the real world
You've yet to demonstrate this.
: And, your, "yes", is your own insipid little claim, to which
: you are entitled.
: Would you care to test it against a 9mm in the Lubyanka
: cellars or their existential analog anywhere of your choosing?
See what I mean? Feel like a man when you spew nonsense like the above do
you? Do you bruise your chest or your ego when you thump so hard?
: Step
: right up. Let me know when and where, and I'll be there to watch you
: cheese out.
Yawn. Grow up child. Now go out and play.
gary cruse
On Sun, 06 Apr 97 18:07:37 EST, scot...@maine.maine.edu graced us all
with:
>In article <5i8uir$oeq$4...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, jam...@NOSPAMecheque.com says...
>
As a scholar and teacher, I find that behavior dangerous -- in
>history disregard for the truth in order to push a political agenda has had
>disastrous results.
Coming from you this is doubly hilarious. Actually,
the disregard for truth is *how* political agendae
get pushed. The problem is, as Mr. Beck so
amply demonstrated, the ability to even
recognize truth is often dependent on the
arrival of the bullet to the back of the head,
or the seriousness of the charges against
K by his death at the end of The Trial.
>
Gary
Posting from alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater.
Billy Beck
kke...@best.com (Kevin Kelly) wrote:
>Billy Beck (ain't...@tno.e-mail) wrote:
>: Would you care to test it against a 9mm in the Lubyanka
>: cellars or their existential analog anywhere of your choosing?
>
>See what I mean? Feel like a man when you spew nonsense like the
>above do you?
You say it's "nonsense". Fine. You get to do that because
it's not your ass in the cross-hairs.
Don't think about it, Kelly. Whatever you do: don't think
about it.
Billy
Kevin Kelly
gary cruse (gcr...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: On Sun, 06 Apr 97 18:07:37 EST, scot...@maine.maine.edu graced us all
: with:
: >In article <5i8uir$oeq$4...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, jam...@NOSPAMecheque.com says...
: >
: As a scholar and teacher, I find that behavior dangerous -- in
: >history disregard for the truth in order to push a political agenda has had
: >disastrous results.
: Coming from you this is doubly hilarious. Actually,
: the disregard for truth is *how* political agendae
: get pushed.
What wonderful irony given what I have seen in this thread.
Jeffrey N Woodford
On Sun, 06 Apr 1997 04:04:03 -0500 Michael Schneider (mike1@_N_O_S_P_A_M_visi.com) wrote:
: In article <kj33295...@news.tamu.edu>, s...@sig.I.hate.spam wrote:
: > Scott Erb never lets *FACTS* get in the way of his notions.
: >
: > In other threads he is accusing a black man of being a white
: > supremacist. When it is pointed out he has no evidence to support
: > such a wild accusation, Scott says it's just a "hypothesis,"
: > thus misusing his title as an Assistant Professor of Political
: > Science to imply that his childish name calling has some scientific
: > basis.
: >
: > Poor Scott.
: "Assistant..." He's a fuggin *TA*?!?!?!?!
No. An Assistant Professor actually has a Ph.D. degree. TA's don't
get cool titles like that.
-Jeff
a TA
--
Jeffrey N. Woodford jwoo...@unlgrad1.unl.edu je...@olivier.dementia.org
Homepage: http://olivier.dementia.org/~jeffw/index.html
"Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas!"
McQ
scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
>> Germany has NOT often outperformed the US.
>German performance was higher in the seventies and early eighties, as well as
>the early ninties.
Performance at what? Certainly not their productivity performance.
Opera perhaps, or beer drinking?
To make the point, German and Japanese productivity never caught the
US, even in the '70s and '80s. From a study done by Dirk Pilat and
Bart van Ark, "Productivity Leadership in Manufacturing, Germany,
Japan and the United States, 1973-1989 (Groningen: Economics Faculty,
University of Gronigen, 1992, p2) the following quote:
"In 1987 (the latest date for which the figures used were available)
value added per working hour in the United States was 27% ahead of
West Germany and 32% ahead of that in Japan. What's more, German
productivity, which had been close to that of the United States in
1980, has slipped badly since, and Japanese productivity, which has
been rapidly catching up with that of the United States in the 1970s
stagnated relative to the United States in the 1980s."
Note the study SPECIFICALLY says that Germany and Japan didn't out
perform the US in productivity at any time.
So what performance are we talking about?
And what is it's relevance to the claims about Sweden you made?
>> In 1987 for instance, the
>>US held a 27% productivity lead over West Germany according to reseach
>Hardly a stat that proves much.
Really? Aren't YOU the one that said Germany (and prior to
unification, West Germany) out performed the US?
Well the stat above proves you're wrong. They damn sure didn't
outperform us in productivity.
>Their economy still
>managed to plug along very well, often outperforming the US.
Ah, is THIS what the "outperformance" is all about? Ah yes, let's
compare a 1.6 trillion economy against a 6.4 trillion economy and see
how relevant THAT is.
But if it will make you happy, The real growth rates for the two
countries for 80 to 91 were even, sir. DEAD even. 2.1% to 2.1%.
But here's a stunner...between '89 and '93, the per capita income in
the US rose 15% ($21,082 to 24,700) while Germany's barely made 7%
($15,300 to 16,500). So, tell me again, the relevance of this
comparison?
I don't know about you, but to me, Mr. Average Person on the street,
I'll take that per capita income OUTPERFORMANCE any day of the week
over any other stat you want to throw at me. Kind of the bottom line,
isn't it? Kind of indicates too that any other type "outperformance"
might be so much "smoke and mirrors," huh?
>Imagine that --
>you can treat workers well and still have growth. What a revelation!
Which of course makes the false presumption that workers aren't paid
or treated well here, huh? Fallacious argument, my friend. But
that's not a particular revelation here.
>>hasn't outperformed the US in the '90s. The living proof of this are
>>the huge German auto plants opening in the US. I'd suggest you check
>Hmmm. So when a country invests abroad, that country is doing poorly
>economically? Here's a stat: the US is does more investing abroad than any
>other country. Is that proof that the US is falling? The US produces Autos
>in Europe? Hmmm.
The REASON they're opening here is because they get more
"productivity" for their money than in Germany.
If anyone knows anything about Germany and Germans, opening a BMW
and Mercedes plant here were done for very specific economic
reasons...i.e. American workers are the best producers for the money
in the world. That is the VERY reason that Honda NOW ships cars made
in the US BACK to Japan. German companies saw a chance to PROFIT from
our productivity. What a crime, huh?
>Again, Schneider, you do the logically fallacious method of arguing by
>example. Counter examples always exist.
True, they always exist, but most are stronger than "I've got some
Swedish friends..."
>Proof lies in statistics.
Really? That's precisely why I produced statistics concerning
productivity, which is seen by many economists as THE telling
statistic about an economy. Seeing as they're inconvenient to your
point, you said:
>Hardly a stat that proves much.
...when you had your argument stuffed.
Those statistics supporting the German auto plant moves were there,
you just blew them off with:
>Hardly a stat that proves much.
Of course had you paid attention, you'd have realized this was only
offered as an example of the result of those statistics. Productivity
studies tell the German's they're better off building autos here than
in Germany.
>Also, in 1990 and 1991 the German economy dramatically outperformed the US.
Even if it were true, which appears to be in doubt, what has what to
do with the Social Democratic paradise of Sweden?
Want me to trot out all the years the US economy DRAMATICALLY
outperformed the German? It would be rather irrelevant to whether
SWEDEN is the economic dynamo or social paradise you claim, wouldn't
it?
>As to your criticisms of Sweden: again, statistics don't lie. The Swedish
>economy is in a growth stage.
Then why, since 1990 has its average wage per hour gone DOWN? From
$20.93 an hr. in '90 to 18.81 in '94. What do THOSE stats tell you?
All's fine in Stockholm? I don't think so.
And perhaps you can explain why Sweden's real growth from '85-'93
was a scorching .1% while its European neighbors were averaging from
1.2 to 1.9? Or it's average inflation rate from '85-'93 was 6.3% while
the rest other European countries were averaging about 3% inflation.
A roaring economic dynamo, wouldn't you say?
>I agree that there were certain reforms that
>needed to be made (in fact, I argued with Sweden friends a few years ago that
>the short Conservative government was a good thing because they would
>institute necessary reforms; they did, and when the Social Democrats came to
>power, they continued them, with success).
Do tell?...0.1% real growth is a real success story?...well, if so,
they ought to put it in 40 point type above the fold and proclaim it
to the world.
>After all, people could look at US slums, crime, lack of social welfare, lack
>of vacation time, etc., and make majors criticisms of us via analogy.
All people didn't proclaim the US a paradise and used cooked claims
to bolster their "argument".
>The
>fact is, the Swedish economy has been stable and successful for most of the
>last sixty years, and even the late eighties downturn has been corrected.
Maybe it's just me, but I'd say that was a load of beans according
to the provided real growth figures from the World Bank.
>The US in 1990-91 looked like it was falling fast. The same discussion in
>1991 would be about the distruction of the American economy.
But it wasn't the discussion, was it?
The discussion is centered on your claims about Sweden. This
attempted diversion has no relevance to your claims.
Sweden either is or isn't what you say. Thus far, the STATS say it
ISN'T.
scot...@maine.maine.edu
In article <5i9ajd$cno$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, kke...@best.com says...
>
>Billy Beck (ain't...@tno.e-mail) wrote:
>: Snicker all you want, punk. The fact of the matter is that
>: you don't know *shit* about life on a rock tour, nor what I do out
>: there, or anything else. And, I know that you wouldn't last two days
>: under those conditions before you were on your knees screaming for
>: mommy, and I would personally kick your skinny little ass out into the
>: parking lot after breakfast, and prior to calculating the length and
>: load of a rig bridle 90 feet in the air and no net below. Even with a
>: broken hip and two pounds of steel in it at the age of 41, I would
>: outperform you physically in realms where you wouldn't dare to go if
>: Sandra Bullock promised to suck your dick at the end of a head-first
>: abseil.
>
>Oh how cute, a roadie dick size war. Grow up child.
Ah, well, I guess I shouldn't tease Billy about his, er, profession any more.
He's obviously very sensitive.
No, Billy, there is nothing wrong with being a roadie, though perhaps you
exaggerate the mathematical expertise needed. You were being quite insulting
so I made a rather subtle zinger at you.
Yet, by Billy's response -- very long winded and angry -- I see I touched a
nerve. I have no desire to further hurt Billy's feelings, so I'll cease
teasing him about his, uh, career.
still chuckling, scott
Billy Beck
scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
>Yet, by Billy's response -- very long winded and angry -- I see I touched
>a nerve.
Yeah: it's the difference between the efficacy of people who
actually do it, and the impertinence of sideline twerps. You couldn't
"hurt [my] feelings". You don't know how.
Come follow me around for a single day on the road, Erb.
*Then* we'll see why you cannot stand to address Solzhenitsyn
on Vyshinsky.
Billy
Michael Schneider
In article <5i8cm9$r...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
> In article <mike1-04049...@192-129.dynamic.visi.com>,
> mike1@_N_O_S_P_A_M_visi.com says...
>
> I gave a number of facts on Sweden. Schneider responds with the opinion of
> one disgruntled Swede.
Two, twit.
Forget it, hoser. Yer blown away.
> Hmmmm. What if someone was anti-American. Do you think on the net we could
> find someone who would say that the American system was evil, people were all
> sheep, conspiracies by government were everywhere, or that corporations were
> trying to take over, and government was thwarting all freedom?
>
> Of course you could. The internet is full of American America-bashers. One
> disgruntled Swede hardly disproves real stats about the country.
>
> In any event, I have a number of friends in Sweden who like it there, I've
> visited there and found the society very open and friendly, and free.
>
> No, Schneider, positing a diatribe by one alleged Swede is hardly persuasive.
> Name me one country who couldn't produced a disgruntled complainer?
>
> Face it: the argument made (I think by Gary C.) that Sweden and other Social
> Democracies are going bankrupt is wrong. Their economies are doing fine, and
> while I agree they (like us) need some reforms, the system has been quite
> effective.
> cheers, scott
+--+--+
Remove "_N_O_S_P_A_M_" from my eddress before emailing.
Pyromania: http://www.tncnet.com/~rsears/oak/explode.html
America's soap opera: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Iconoclast Greg Swann Writes: http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/
Yahoo! Maps: http://maps.yahoo.com/yahoo/ (submit La Crosse, WI)
National Organization for Non-Enumeration: http://www.ime.net/none/
W. Beck's Anthology: http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
Assimilation: http://image.ucr.edu/~borg/jwz/Constitution/intro.htm
Waco Holocaust Museum: http://www.mnsinc.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/
Welcome to Rancho Runnamukka: http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
Internet Infidels "The Secular Web": http://www.infidels.org/
Download'n Fool: http://www.shareware.com/SW/Search/Index/
Pyromania2: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
Michael Schneider
In article <5i8e9i$r...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
> In article <3345792e...@news.mindspring.com>, ain't...@tno.e-mail says...
>
> > That's a gold-plated keeper, Mike.
> >
> > Good job.
>
> Thank you, Billy, for proving you are motivated by faith, rather than logic.
>
> People motivated by faith will be convinced by one analogy which supports
> their view,
What "analogy" are you blathering about?
> even if scientific evidence is against them.
What "evidence"? You mean that unattributed tripe in your posts?
> Why? They are simply trying to bolster pre-existing biases.
The "pre-existing bias" that thievery sucks and you're a pinhead?
> Billy Beck and Michael Schneider, with a strong faith in utopian
> capitalism show this psychological bias.
What the fuck is "utopian capitalism"?
> Alas, for those of us seeking truth, we have to dig deeper, look at all the
> evidence, and observe everything, even analogies from one disgruntled person
> which agree with our biases, with a critical eye.
>
> As I said before: where won't you find a disgruntled citizen criticizing
> their country. Yawn.
>
> But keep your faith, Billy. I'm sure it gives your otherwise useless
> existence some points of interest. Now go set up them amps roadie ;)
I'm sorry, but which particular *fact* asserted by Magnus, et al, were
you in disagreement with, and what source are you pointing to for yours
support?
Or are you just here farting through a tuba?
Michael Schneider
> Face it: Sweden, Germany and other countries have been relatively successful.
> Now, people can make studies saying capitalism leads to inner city violence
> like in the US....
Yeah. Before you know it soccar matches will be breaking out.
Michael Schneider
> In article <3347eb32...@news.mindspring.com>, ain't...@tno.e-mail says...
>
> > "As if", Erb. You wouldn't know correspondance from
> >hypothesis until the bullet slammed into the back of your little
> >pointed head.
>
> (snicker)
>
> Such a brilliant retort Billy!
>
> Tell me, did that oh-so clever response occur to you after an amp fell on
> your head when you were unloading the gear after smoking up before the
> concert?
> cheers, scott
Aw, gee, Scott; did he use words too big for you?
Michael Schneider
In article <5i96lu$1b...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
> In article <5i8uir$oeq$4...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, jam...@NOSPAMecheque.com says...
>
> >I observe that lots of Swedes emigrate, or seek to emigrate, to
> >America, but no Americans emigrate to Sweden, including those you
> >describe as exploited and oppressed.
>
> Another lie. In fact, Sweden finds it necessary to restrict immigration.
>
> James, your lies disgust me. Apparently you feel that if you can lie and
> convince people, the truth doesn't matter. You just want converts to your
> views. As a scholar and teacher, I find that behavior dangerous -- in
> history disregard for the truth in order to push a political agenda has had
> disastrous results.
>
> Please post evidence on this.....
Oh Mr. Hypocrite, where are *your* cites? Hmmmmm???
, and the points I made in the last post. I'll
> be posting a reading list tomorrow where you can go to find out all you want
> about Sweden, from a variety of scholars from different fields.
>
> Remember: look at James' style. He makes brash bold assertions, never with
> evidence, often things that are obvious lies. His type use the lack of
> oversight given to the internet to try to push their agenda. Watch out!
>
> >I observe that in Sweden, there are very few small companies. Your
> >only hope of a job is with one of a few big companies with intimate
> >ties to the state. This must surely create a sense of fear,
> >impotence, and powerlessness, a fear that your career could be forever
> >blighted by some capricious whim of someone you have hardly seen and
> >do not know.
>
> WOW! Another LIE by James Donald. James, the Swedish system has protection
> for workers that go far beyond that of those in the US. The labor unions
> have real power to make sure that the state or private industry cannot blight
> a career by whim. Your lies are so brazen that they aren't even credible.
> Apparently you are from the school which thinks that the bigger the lie, the
> more one will believe.
>
> > This is not the fear that I saw in Cuba, where people
>
> Again, trying to talk about Cuba instead. Yawn. Stay on topic, will you
> James?
>
> >I observe that in Sweden the media is directly controlled by the
> >political parties.
>
> ANOTHER LIE! Wow! Guess what, James. Sweden has cabal TV, and a number of
> private stations. You can get TV from all over Europe. Papers and other
> media sources are very free.
>
> You are one pathetic little liar, James. I'm disgusted by you.
> cheers, scott
+--+--+
Michael Schneider
In article <5i9l2g$it2$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, kke...@best.com (Kevin
Kelly) wrote:
> : Would you care to test it against a 9mm in the Lubyanka
> : cellars or their existential analog anywhere of your choosing?
>
> See what I mean? Feel like a man when you spew nonsense like the above do
> you? Do you bruise your chest or your ego when you thump so hard?
Your intellect is so shallow you can't even comprehend what he said.
> "Under capitalism, man exploits man.
> Under communism it is just the
> reverse." - John Kenneth Galbraith
Provide a cite. Sounds like horseshit to me.
(The quote is an inverse of a popular Russian joke.)
Michael Schneider
In article <5i9ntm$j...@crcnis3.unl.edu>, jwoo...@unlgrad1.unl.edu
(Jeffrey N Woodford) wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Apr 1997 04:04:03 -0500 Michael Schneider
(mike1@_N_O_S_P_A_M_visi.com) wrote:
> : In article <kj33295...@news.tamu.edu>, s...@sig.I.hate.spam wrote:
>
> : > Scott Erb never lets *FACTS* get in the way of his notions.
> : >
> : > In other threads he is accusing a black man of being a white
> : > supremacist. When it is pointed out he has no evidence to support
> : > such a wild accusation, Scott says it's just a "hypothesis,"
> : > thus misusing his title as an Assistant Professor of Political
> : > Science to imply that his childish name calling has some scientific
> : > basis.
> : >
> : > Poor Scott.
>
> : "Assistant..." He's a fuggin *TA*?!?!?!?!
>
> No. An Assistant Professor actually has a Ph.D. degree. TA's don't
> get cool titles like that.
Jesus. How many "gut" courses does one have to take in a life of
shirking work out in the real world to get a Ph. D. in polysci, of all
ridiculous, useless "sciences"?
It's enough to make me run screaming to the nearest local video store
and hurredly rent out Animal House and PCU.
Loren Petrich
In article <5ia2q6$p5$2...@nntp2.ba.best.com>,
James A. Donald <jam...@NOSPAMecheque.com> wrote:
... I notice you did not attempt to deny the fact that the Swedish
>economy is dominated by a tiny handful of big corporations, that small
>and medium business is insignificant in Sweden. ...
And I thought that all you ultracapitalists *adored* Big Business...
Michael Schneider
M. Soja
Good post, James. I haven't been to Sweden but the parts of Europe
that I've seen so far do not shout "prosperity," at least not in any
measure that would compare to the US. Of course, most of the people
here don't actually "notice" that their lifestyles are more akin to
the US in the 50s, because "most" of the people don't have the
wherewithall to make a valid comparison. And people like scotterb
should spend a couple years hunkered down with the average joes over
here before they claim this is a workers paradise (or whatever.)
On Tue, 08 Apr 1997 06:04:03 GMT, jam...@NOSPAMecheque.com (James A.
Donald) posted:
>Any American that can get any EEC passport, (and lots of Americans can
>because of family relationships) can go to Sweden if he chooses. Very
>few do so choose, whereas I run into Swedes all over the place in
>America.
And the Swedes you run into are the well connected ones, or the ones
who can work the system. I met one who was here travelling on
"business", but when we got to talking about his business it turned
out there really wasn't one. It was a sham so that he could "write
off" his travel expenses. Weird loop holes go with high taxes.
>Swedish restraints on immigration are against third worlders and
>people of the ex communist countries. People from countries with
>better levels of economic freedom do not want to live there.
Exactly. I had no trouble getting my green card (little book
actually), because I came from the US. I was rubberstamped in the
blink of an eye. The immigrants from Africa and the middle and far
east have a much, much, much harder time.
And though the Europeans view Americans as overtly rascist, you don't
have to scratch very deeply to find the same problems simmering away
here. Immigration policy is only one part of it.
>(US figures
>rounded to nearest 10% because of lack of accuracy) Source US.
>Bureau of census, 1992, Euromonitor, 1991)
>Average Swede * Poorest fifth of Americans * owns
>48% * 60% * VCR
>37% * 60% * Microwave
>31% * 20% * Dishwasher
>18% * 50% * Dryer
When we moved in we got flyers though the mail slot touting the
"modern" conveniences of refrigeration and freezers. Driers are hard
to sell because the price of electricity is so high and the sunshine
and the wind are so cheap. And space is at a premium, too; it isn't
possible to fit the average suite of American appliances into the
cottages and bungalows and flats that most people live in. Now that I
think about it, I don't think I've seen any big screen TVs for sale.
>What good are these protections when power is concentrated in very few
>hands? I notice you did not attempt to deny the fact that the Swedish
>economy is dominated by a tiny handful of big corporations, that small
>and medium business is insignificant in Sweden.
>The labor unions and the state are almost indistinguishable. All
>negotiation is highly centralized. The negotiations are all done at
>the center and handed down from above. And if your particular
>workshop, your particular union local, does not like the outcome of
>these summit negotiations, between the leadership supposedly
>representing all workers in diverse workshops and diverse trades, and
>the leadership supposedly representing business and government, tough
>cookies.
It's why Europeans tend to be more politically aware (though at the
same time more resigned) than people in the US. Everything is
politically driven.
The European economies that have done the best have done so with a
technological edge in a handful of industries. If they can continue
to keep ahead (by offering quality world wide marketable goods) then I
believe they'll continue to support the welfare state. If the central
planners guess wrong, oops. As you say, "tough cookies."
Paul Zrimsek
> Just pick up a copy of a newspaper, I dunno,
> to be outre let's say the Toronto Globe and Mail.
> Watch for articles discussing the travails of the
> French and German economies. Sweden doesn't
> get that much coverage. Read the articles
> and then tell us how will social democrtatic
> government is managing to retain the welfare
> state while creating new jobs. And how
> they are going to have to bail out of
> many welfare programs to make the EU work.
> Then come back and tell us the difference
> between Erb's slanted interpretation of the
> data and that of the world press, the OECD,
> and the EU.
>
> There is a dfference between disbelief in facts
> and scorn for those who misrepresent them.
Hmmm... I may have inadvertently created the impression that "disbelief in
facts" was intended to describe you. It wasn't; that was for Erb, the self-
described "pragmatist".
Now, as for facts: the current situation in the European mega-welfare
states is as you say, and for the reason you say. (I'd consider the
redistribution carried out by those governments immoral even if their
economies were "working", but that's neither here nor there.)
But proving that their social-welfare programs are unworkable has got
to be more than just a matter of pointing to their current malaise and
saying "QED". The US has suffered roughly similar economic problems in
the not-so-very-distant past; and the Europinks have experienced
growth rates roughly similar to the (rather lackluster) current US rate
in the not-so-very-distant past. The latter fact, at least, has to be
accounted for by anyone who believes, as we both do, that the mega-
welfare state is inimical to economic growth.
My own take is that the Europeans have been coasting on an inherited
work ethic, which their redistributionism has been slowly undermining
all the while, and that they are now starting to suffer the effects. But
again, the mere existence of economic stagnation Over There does not,
all by itself, prove this.
Paul Zrimsek
pzri...@tiac.net
McQ
scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
>In article <5i8iu5$n...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, mcq...@iix.netcom.com
>says...
>> How about this hypothesis? What if someone was so intent on proving
>>that his premise (social democracy is good) that he used half-truths
>>and deception to try and do so?
>Face it: Sweden, Germany and other countries have been relatively successful.
Ah...now we're down to "relatively" successful and only if Germany
is lumped in there.
No, sir, I won't concede Sweden has been relatively successful, at
least not economically. And THAT is the point of your claim.
> Now, people can make studies saying capitalism leads to inner city violence
>like in the US, or that social welfare systems can lead to abuse.
So now stats DON'T prove anything and studies are invalid if you say
so? Excellent. Ever hear of equivocation?
> My personal view is that the Swedes are on the right track in undertaking
>reform.
And that's precisely what they are...personal opinions. Those stats
you thought so highly of a few posts back don't agree.
> But any comparative view of the economic results over the last fifty
>years of Norway, Sweden, West Germany, Denmark, and most other European
>countries shows that social welfare systems can work.
No, it doesn't. It shows they rode a bubble of prosperity that
wasn't particularly normal, much like the Soviet Union. For instance,
Norway showed a REAL growth of .05% from '85 - '91. France has had
strikes when it tried to reform it's welfare state. All is NOT well
in welfare land.
>I can point to productivity increases, you can interpret stats to claim that
>doesn't matter (and anyway, high productivity often just means workers are
>underpaid and don't get a good amount of vacation time -- I hardly see high
>productivity as a good in and of itself, it depends on quality of life for
>those who are working).
It may also suggest that technology application, and managment and
manufacturing methods and techniques are SUPERIOR to other countries
too. It also may just point to a superior work ethic.
Now as to quality of life, you tell ME how bad our brothers in the
UAW have it, will you?
> If you wish, I can post a number of articles and
>books on European political economy which clearly shows that while all states
>have problems (and of course that has to include the US), there are strengths
>and weaknesses in various systems, and they are operating reasonably well.
Your claims had to do with Sweden. I'd prefer you either produce
stats that will back your claim or find something else to go on about.
>Your one study and one interpretation of one statistic is hardly convincing
>in the face of aggregate statistics and UN and other quality of life
>measures.
My one study is at least more than you've produced to date. Which
should I take more seriously, their facts or your assertions? Oh, and
the stats were from THREE studies.
>> So is this question intended to suggest that all "complainer's"
>>arguments are invalid?
>On the contrary, I think the social welfare system in Sweden went too far in
>some cases, esp. in areas of sick leave and a few other instances. And not
>everyone is happy with a particular system, that's politics. There are many
>Americans who don't like our system either. If you look for demons, you'll
>find them. My point is simply that both types of systems work.
And it's such a relative argument as to be insconsequential. Nazism
"worked". It was QUITE efficient. Would you call those that spoke
out against it as "complainers".
>AND, by the way, my original point was that these systems aren't falling
>apart bankrupt. That seems to have been conceded.
Not at all...that remains to be seen. If we hit any type of global
down turn you may see a couple of these pardises roll over.
Now...THAT is my OPINION.
>Funny how you can take wealthy countries, ranking high in all categories,
>high in quality of life, and find a couple examples or tendential studies and
>pretend that this proves that their system is evil and rotten.
What was pointed out was your claims were wrong and the inferences
you drew from them weren't quite up to par. My personal opinion is
that any type of socialism (and theirs by latest figures extorts 58%
of their income in taxes) is "evil" and "rotten". However, it is
indeed the Swedes business how they live. What I won't stand by and
watch is someone tout it with falsehoods. Isn't reality a good enough
sales' pitch for you? The stats I've provided are as real as we can
get.
>That is intellectually dishonest.
What's intellectually dishonest is to build the sort of strawman you
have here and attack it as "intellectually dishonest." What's
intellectually dishonest is to try an paint a picture of reality with
half-truths as you did in your initial post about Sweden.
>Luckily, we in the field of political science and comparative political
>economy have analyzed this in detail, and can provide an extensive reading
>list if you so desire.
Reading list, smeading list.
"Show me the STATS" and cite them.
I've DONE that for you.
Scott D. Erb
In article <33487b6c...@news.mindspring.com>, ain't...@tno.e-mail says...
>
> Yeah: it's the difference between the efficacy of people who
>actually do it, and the impertinence of sideline twerps. You couldn't
>"hurt [my] feelings". You don't know how.
(snicker)
Methinks thou doth protest too much.
Scott D. Erb
In article <5iar7p$m...@news-central.tiac.net>, pzri...@tiac.net@tiac.net
says...
>Hmmm... I may have inadvertently created the impression that "disbelief in
>facts" was intended to describe you. It wasn't; that was for Erb, the self-
>described "pragmatist".
Disbelief in facts? That's NOT pragmatism. I'd suggest the philosophy of
science book by Laudan (I'll try to find the title) where a pragmatist,
positivist and realist argue with a relativist. You'll see that there is a
lot of difference between relativism and pragmatism.
In any event...
>Now, as for facts: the current situation in the European mega-welfare
>states is as you say, and for the reason you say. (I'd consider the
>redistribution carried out by those governments immoral even if their
>economies were "working", but that's neither here nor there.)
Many of them consider the American system immoral, but just as you don't want
them to impose their morality on you, you shouldn't impose yours on them.
>But proving that their social-welfare programs are unworkable has got
>to be more than just a matter of pointing to their current malaise and
>saying "QED". The US has suffered roughly similar economic problems in
>the not-so-very-distant past; and the Europinks have experienced
>growth rates roughly similar to the (rather lackluster) current US rate
>in the not-so-very-distant past. The latter fact, at least, has to be
>accounted for by anyone who believes, as we both do, that the mega-
>welfare state is inimical to economic growth.
Before setting up the "mega-welfare state" as a straw man, consider that most
Europeans want a workable practical welfare system which provides the basics
but does not try to equalize outcomes or eliminate market forces. Many
(myself included) believe that some welfare programs went too far and created
disincentives for production and innovation. Those need to be reformed (in
fact, I find myself in agreement with Gerhard Schroeder, Social Democrat in
Germany who is really working closely with business leaders to develop a
business friendly plan, while not giving up on the ideals of promoting social
justice). Again, look at the FACTS, not a broad straw man conception of what
Europe is about.
>My own take is that the Europeans have been coasting on an inherited
>work ethic, which their redistributionism has been slowly undermining
>all the while, and that they are now starting to suffer the effects. But
>again, the mere existence of economic stagnation Over There does not,
>all by itself, prove this.
Not only that, but your assertion does not prove anything either. The German
model has been one of consensus. The idea is to put workers on the boards of
directors so they understand the problems facing the company, while the state
helps facilitate negotiations between the two sides. Welfare programs are a
way of giving workers benefits that do not directly cost the companies. As a
whole, this model has worked very well. Germany's current "stagnation" is a
short term result of pumping over $750 billion into former East Germany to
modernize their economy. This has led to tax increases which slow economic
growth, as well as an increase in interest rates (though they have been
brought down as the economy slowed and Waigel's plans to balance the budget
became more credible).
I suspect that the Germany economy is ready for another period of expansion
by 2000. If that doesn't happen, then I'll re-examine your hypothesis
(though I think you could be more precise).
cheers, scott
Harold Brashears
On Sun, 06 Apr 97 17:59:21 EST, scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
>In article <5i8uhc$oeq$2...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, jam...@NOSPAMecheque.com says...
>>
>>scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
>>> Face it: Sweden, Germany and other countries have been relatively
>successful.
>>
>>Successful relative to who? Cambodia, Cuba, and North Korea?
>
>ROTFL! No, silly. Look at economic performance over the last fifty years.
>Look at all quality of life indices out there.
I would like to see those figures, minus the 50 years aspect. The
problem with starting in 1947 should be obvious to anyone who is an
adult. All of Europe was in a shambles in 1947. It is easy to prove
enormous growth when you start from zero, in the aftermath of a
terribly destructive war. Why don't you talk about performance from
1977 to date?
>I'm talking about successful
>compared to every country in the world. Some a little more successful in
>some cases, some a little less. Or do you want to make the untenable
>argument that Sweden and Germany are on a par with North Korea. This oughta
>be good, let's see what James comes up with here...
Europe has been more successful than almost the entire rest of the
world. Bested consistently by only the US and Hong Kong. The reason
is that it has a relatively free economy. The term is very
"relative", however. Europe has a slower growth rate than the US
precisely due to the problems of high taxes and regulation introduced
by governments which appear to meddle too much.
In France, for example, it is necessary to attend two years of
government training *before* you are given a license to start a
business. While this may contribute to a well trained force of CEOs,
it is sure to retard the introduction of new technologies, as well.
>>Germany has been relatively successful compared to most of Europe,
>>though unsuccessful relative to more capitalist governments such as
>>Switzerland and the US.
>
>Wrong. Germany's economic growth outdid America's during much of the
>post-war period,
Again, you make the error of starting after WWII. Remember, Germany
was little more than a pile of rubble after that war. It is easy to
show great progress just by building a hut from piles of brick which
were once a tank factory.
[edited]
To add to the confusion, note that according to the US Census Bureau,
Sweden has increased its per capita GDP by 88% between 1980 and 1994,
while the US has increased 114.5%, Germany 133% and France 104% after
adjusting for parity purchasing power (see Table 1335, US Statistical
Abstracts, 1996).
I would call none of these "failures", but it is clear Sweden, with
the most comprehensive welfare apparatus, is paying for that by
reduction in the average standard of living. Over the 14 years
covered, the average US citizen has gained nearly 30% more resources
than the average Swede, while the average German has gained more than
50%. This is an absolutely enormous difference in available
resources.
For interested parties, in 1994, on a parity purchasing power basis:
country per capita GDP
Luxembourg $29,454
US 25,512
Switzerland 23,942
Norway 21,968
after that they start to bunch up (US Census Bureau again).
>Again, another lie. The welfare state is not being abandoned. Even in the
>short time the conservatives were in power they were careful to say they were
>not opposed to the welfare state. Even business isn't opposed.
Well, if not abandoned, certainly modified. Every European nation
that I can recall (outside the UK) is trying to rein in a debt that,
on a per capita basis, dwarfs the US debt.
I am sure you are also aware that the unemployment rate in Europe is
now twice the US rate, at best (Germany) it sits at 11%. In France,
unemployment tops 17%.
Business in Europe does not "oppose" the welfare state, partly because
they have simply elected to avoid it. In an article in Business Week
a German business leader (unattributed quote) noted his firm, like
many others, was simply not going to build additional manufacturing
capacity in Germany. They would build it in the US.
Regards, Harold
----
"A society that puts equality - in the sense of equality of
outcome - ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality
or freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy
freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will
end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own
interests."
--- Milton Friedman
Kevin Kelly
Billy Beck (ain't...@tno.e-mail) wrote:
: kke...@best.com (Kevin Kelly) wrote:
: >Billy Beck (ain't...@tno.e-mail) wrote:
: >: Would you care to test it against a 9mm in the Lubyanka
: >: cellars or their existential analog anywhere of your choosing?
: >
: >See what I mean? Feel like a man when you spew nonsense like the
: >above do you?
: You say it's "nonsense". Fine. You get to do that because
: it's not your ass in the cross-hairs.
Whatever. Your little chest thumping is hardly worth the time to deride
it. DO grow up and try and act like an adult.
--
Scott D. Erb
In article <5i9838$p...@news-central.tiac.net>, pzri...@tiac.net@tiac.net
says...
>I dunno, the guy's really not doing half bad considering that he labors
>under
>the handicap of pragmatism. It's easy to become factually bereft when you
>disbelieve in the very existence of facts.
Ah, I suggest you learn again what pragmatism is. The key is to recognize
the context in which factual claims are made. Within a context it is
perfectly acceptable to state things as facts. Just because there is no
objective proof doesn't mean we can't make truth claims.
cheers, scott
Scott D. Erb
In article <mike1-07049...@192-137.dynamic.visi.com>,
mike1@_N_O_S_P_A_M_visi.com says...
> Your intellect is so shallow you can't even comprehend what he said.
That's one interpretation. I personally find Kevin's intellect to be so far
ahead of Billy's weirdness that it's not even a contest. And your side
comments above show virtually no imagination or intellectual content.
cheers, scott
Tim Starr
In article <mike1-07049...@192-137.dynamic.visi.com>,
Michael Schneider <mike1@_N_O_S_P_A_M_visi.com> wrote:
>In article <5i8cm9$r...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
>
>> In article <mike1-04049...@192-129.dynamic.visi.com>,
>> mike1@_N_O_S_P_A_M_visi.com says...
>>
>> I gave a number of facts on Sweden. Schneider responds with the opinion of
>> one disgruntled Swede.
>
>
>
> Two, twit.
>
>
> Forget it, hoser. Yer blown away.
Perhaps, but just to add to the chorus:
1) I have a friend who's a Swedish political activist. He reports that the
Swedish economy has gotten so bad that they had a hard time finding anyone
willing to run for Prime Minister a while back. Nobody wanted the job,
because nobody wanted to take the blame for the spending cuts that were
necessitated by the need to make the interest payments on Sweden's foreign
debt. They can't borrow any more, because they've already borrowed to the
hilt, & they can't raise taxes any more, because they've long since passed the
point where raising taxes leads to lower revenues. All they can do is cut
spending.
2) I met an American several years back who'd been living in Stockholm. He
said that in Sweden they don't bother sending the secret police after you to
throw you in jail, they just leave you where you are & try to make normal life
as much like prison as possible. (Of course, Swedish jails apparently aren't
all that bad. Among other things, they're designed to be escapable if their
inmates are sufficiently motivated.)
>>Face it: the argument made (I think by Gary C.) that Sweden and other Social
>>Democracies are going bankrupt is wrong.
How much foreign debt does Sweden have? How do the interest payments on that
debt compare to Sweden's tax revenue?
*******************************************************************************
"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the
symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there!" - George
Orwell, 1940, in the democratic socialist weekly "Tribune," quoted in "Orwell:
The Authorized Biography," by Michael Shelden
"Yes, I am." - "Saint" Anne Pearston, organizer of the British "Snowdrop" Victim
Disarmament petition, when asked if she was in favor of making the UK into a
slave state on the Jim Hawkins BBC-radio show, 5/17/96, by Sean Gabb, editor of
Free Life, the journal of the libertarian Alliance.
*******************************************************************************
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; is...@isil.org, http://www.isil.org/
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Scott D. Erb
In article <5iav76$i...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>, mcq...@iix.netcom.com
says...
> Ah...now we're down to "relatively" successful and only if Germany
>is lumped in there.
"Down to"? Remember, my response was to someone who said these systems were
going bankrupt. We're "up to" arguing whether or not they are "relatively
effective." I think everyone has dropped the original cause of the debate.
> No, sir, I won't concede Sweden has been relatively successful, at
>least not economically. And THAT is the point of your claim.
I suggest you take a trip there and look around. Consumer goods everywhere,
clean, modern cities, a high standard of living, a growing economy...
> And that's precisely what they are...personal opinions. Those stats
>you thought so highly of a few posts back don't agree.
WRONG. You only gave one stat -- productivity, and you interpreted in a way
which I disagreed with. You ignored the other stats. Now you try to
equivocate by calling your one productivity stat "stats" and saying that my
disagreement with your interpretation of that stat is claiming that stats
don't matter. That is dishonest.
> No, it doesn't. It shows they rode a bubble of prosperity that
>wasn't particularly normal, much like the Soviet Union. For instance,
>Norway showed a REAL growth of .05% from '85 - '91. France has had
>strikes when it tried to reform it's welfare state. All is NOT well
>in welfare land.
My growth rates for Norway are different than that, but never mind. In 1991
the US was in a recession, while Germany and other states in Europe were
doing well. Now the US seems to be doing well, and Europe is in a funk. So
goes business cycles. There are no major problems, even the French reforms
are starting to work pretty well -- they strike routinely you know.
> My one study is at least more than you've produced to date.
(yawn) Arguing studies is meaningless. Any social scientist knows that
studies routinely prove alot. Unless you provide methodology and give more
than a vague reference, you aren't giving anything. I gave more stats than
you anyway, which you try to ignore by your one vague study, and argument
about productivity. Very lame on your part. Anyway, I'm putting together a
reading list of sources on Sweden and the European political economy. I
hoped to post it today, but it might be tomorrow. That will direct you to
more stats and studies than you know what to do with.
> What was pointed out was your claims were wrong and the inferences
>you drew from them weren't quite up to par. My personal opinion is
>that any type of socialism (and theirs by latest figures extorts 58%
>of their income in taxes) is "evil" and "rotten".
(yawn)
That and a quarter will get you a phone call.
cheers, scott
Scott D. Erb
In article <334b00d8....@nntp.st.usm.edu>, brsh...@whale.st.usm.edu
says...
>I would like to see those figures, minus the 50 years aspect. The
>problem with starting in 1947 should be obvious to anyone who is an
>adult. All of Europe was in a shambles in 1947. It is easy to prove
>enormous growth when you start from zero, in the aftermath of a
>terribly destructive war. Why don't you talk about performance from
>1977 to date?
Well, Sweden wasn't all that destroyed in the war, and of course any date
could be argued about. I'll stick to the long term, perhaps even going back
to the pre-war times to compare growth with pre-war levels.
>Europe has been more successful than almost the entire rest of the
>world. Bested consistently by only the US and Hong Kong. The reason
>is that it has a relatively free economy. The term is very
>"relative", however. Europe has a slower growth rate than the US
>precisely due to the problems of high taxes and regulation introduced
>by governments which appear to meddle too much.
That really isn't a persuasive causal statement. High growth in Thailand,
Korea, and the so called "NICs" has been spurred by state capitalism, with
massive state involvement in the economies. This has led to real growth.
There is no direct correlation between internal economic "freedom" and
growth. Rather, there is a correlation between market economics and growth.
The states of Europe succeed in as much as they build the social welfare
system in a way that does not disrupt economic ties to world markets.
Also, taxes and regulation have rationale. Sometimes pure economic output is
not the most important thing to a society. It often has to be balanced with
social justice concerns.
>In France, for example, it is necessary to attend two years of
>government training *before* you are given a license to start a
>business. While this may contribute to a well trained force of CEOs,
>it is sure to retard the introduction of new technologies, as well.
I'm not sure why that is so certain. Much of this training is in the form of
internships and other things. Perhaps you could explain why you would make
the causal claim you suggest above.
>Again, you make the error of starting after WWII. Remember, Germany
>was little more than a pile of rubble after that war. It is easy to
>show great progress just by building a hut from piles of brick which
>were once a tank factory.
I also note that this occurred during the seventies and late eighties/early
ninties, so it's not just the total post-war picture.
>To add to the confusion, note that according to the US Census Bureau,
>Sweden has increased its per capita GDP by 88% between 1980 and 1994,
>while the US has increased 114.5%, Germany 133% and France 104% after
>adjusting for parity purchasing power (see Table 1335, US Statistical
>Abstracts, 1996).
OK, all are doing very well. Germany doing better than most, as I had
suggested.
>I would call none of these "failures", but it is clear Sweden, with
>the most comprehensive welfare apparatus, is paying for that by
>reduction in the average standard of living. Over the 14 years
I have stated very clearly that I agreed with Swedish welfare reform, and
even welcomed the victory of the conservatives (though I'm glad the SAP now
back in power with a minority government is continuing the reforms, pretty
successfully it seems to me).
>covered, the average US citizen has gained nearly 30% more resources
>than the average Swede, while the average German has gained more than
>50%. This is an absolutely enormous difference in available
>resources.
I don't think you can make that claim about average citizens from aggregate
GNP data. Also, I note that Germany's outperformance of the US is contrary
to what one might expect if government size was causal.
(deletions)
>Well, if not abandoned, certainly modified. Every European nation
>that I can recall (outside the UK) is trying to rein in a debt that,
>on a per capita basis, dwarfs the US debt.
Dwarfs is too strong, most are similar. Some, like Italy's does indeed dwarf
the US debt.
>I am sure you are also aware that the unemployment rate in Europe is
>now twice the US rate, at best (Germany) it sits at 11%. In France,
>unemployment tops 17%.
In Germany I think much of that is directly related to unification, and will
probably rebound by the year 2000. France has some real problems, but I
suspect that structural unemployment may end up being accepted at a higher
level in Europe over the long run due to the nature of their economies (more
urban, specialized). In any event, I expect that the European economy will
probably boom when this correction is over, just like the US economy
contradicted the gloom and doom statements (many coming from Europe) made
right after 1990-91.
>Business in Europe does not "oppose" the welfare state, partly because
>they have simply elected to avoid it. In an article in Business Week
>a German business leader (unattributed quote) noted his firm, like
>many others, was simply not going to build additional manufacturing
>capacity in Germany. They would build it in the US.
I doubt this is really because of the welfare system, but for the same
reasons that all advanced countries find their corporations engaged in FDI to
save costs. They may try to claim it as a reason for political purposes.
So far, though, even your stats show Europe and Germany to be doing well.
There certainly is no cause to make the type of sky is falling statements
that some are making about Europe's economy. Especially a growth in Eastern
Europe and the impact of Maastricht might push the European economy greatly
in the coming years. Social welfare systems can work well within a modern
market economy. Any cost they have in aggregate growth might be made up for
in terms of social justice and collective goods -- that's up to each country.
Each has worked well, and I suspect will continue to work.
But, of course, if data over the next five or six years suggest changing this
hypothesis, I will do so. I fear that a few in the third, like McQ, James,
and Mike S., are driven solely by ideology. If I were that way, I'd be
defending all social welfare systems, arguing against the needed reforms, and
going totally on ideology. I prefer to observe, hypothesize, and test. So
far, I see no reason to abandon the hypothesis that the European economies
are doing well over all. We'll see if the current slump is a normal business
cycle, or something more structural over the coming years.
cheers, scott
Tim Starr
In article <5i8db4$r...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>Mike, is there any reason for putting my name in the subject heading? Such
>behavior is usually considered in bad taste for real discussions, it belongs
>more in "alt.flame."
>
>Anyway, on to the issue....
>
>In article <mike1-06049...@192-152.dynamic.visi.com>,
>mike1@_N_O_S_P_A_M_visi.com says...
>>
>
>> Germany has NOT often outperformed the US.
>
>German performance was higher in the seventies and early eighties, as well as
>the early ninties.
1970s - The Great Inflation. Is it any wonder that Germany would be likely to
do better, since the Bundesbank's infamous for its anti-inflationary policies?
As for the early nineties, that was when the US was in a recession. This could
easily be an artifact of business cycles that are out of sync with each other.
If one economy starts a boom at the same time another starts to bust, that
doesn't prove either superior to the other.
>> In 1987 for instance, the
>>US held a 27% productivity lead over West Germany according to reseach
>
>Hardly a stat that proves much. In fact, all it proves is that German
>workers are better paid, and get more vacation time.
How does it prove that?
>Their economy still managed to plug along very well, often outperforming the
>US.
As measured by GDP growth rates only, with business cycles that start & stop
at different times. Talk about stats that don't prove shit!
How does the average standard of living compare, measured in per-capita GDP?
How does it compare in goods consumed by the average person? When has ANY
European economy, except the Swiss, outperformed the US by either of those
measures since WWII?
>Again, Schneider, you do the logically fallacious method of arguing by
>example. Counter examples always exist. Proof lies in statistics.
Statistics = LOTS of examples. If a few examples used as "proof" is a fallacy,
then how can LOTS of fallacies become "proof"?
>Also, in 1990 and 1991 the German economy dramatically outperformed the US.
When it was booming & the US was busting.
>The two were pretty equal in 1992...
When Germany was starting to bust & the USA starting to boom.
>but then as the costs of German unification hit home, the Bundesbank
>tightened the money supply dramatically and pushed Germany into a recession
>in late 1992.
Then Germany really busted, & the USA really started to boom.
BTW, I believe that German monetary policy was inflationary upon unification,
as East German currency was converted to Deutschmarks at an inflated rate.
Perhaps the Bundesbank tightened to correct the anticipated inflationary
effects of that.
>I think that once the East gets going (they now have the most modern infra-
>structure in the world, including the world's best phone lines), the German
>economy will start growing again in the late nineties.
Duh, after a bust, it'll boom again. Did you skip the part of Econ101 where
they cover basic business cycle theory?
(As for those phone lines, much of the Third World's jumping straight to
cellular. Who needs wires?)
>As to your criticisms of Sweden: again, statistics don't lie.
"Figures are like ladies of the night. Once you get 'em down, you can do
anything with 'em." - Mark Twain
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, & statistics." Mark Twain
"Figures don't lie, but liars figure." - Anonymous
Guess they didn't teach common sense in your statistics classes, eh?
Harold Brashears
>In article <334b00d8....@nntp.st.usm.edu>, brsh...@whale.st.usm.edu
>says...
>
>>I would like to see those figures, minus the 50 years aspect. The
>>problem with starting in 1947 should be obvious to anyone who is an
>>adult. All of Europe was in a shambles in 1947. It is easy to prove
>>enormous growth when you start from zero, in the aftermath of a
>>terribly destructive war. Why don't you talk about performance from
>>1977 to date?
>
>Well, Sweden wasn't all that destroyed in the war, and of course any date
>could be argued about. I'll stick to the long term, perhaps even going back
>to the pre-war times to compare growth with pre-war levels.
Stick to whatever you wish. I will then be free to note when you are
starting from an period with some unusual characteristic, such as a
world war.
>>Europe has been more successful than almost the entire rest of the
>>world. Bested consistently by only the US and Hong Kong. The reason
>>is that it has a relatively free economy. The term is very
>>"relative", however. Europe has a slower growth rate than the US
>>precisely due to the problems of high taxes and regulation introduced
>>by governments which appear to meddle too much.
>
>That really isn't a persuasive causal statement.
That's OK, I don't mind. To what though do you attribute the slowdown
in the last three years in Europe?
>High growth in Thailand,
>Korea, and the so called "NICs" has been spurred by state capitalism, with
>massive state involvement in the economies. This has led to real growth.
Have you looked at Korea lately? See last week's Business Week.
Korea is very shaky at this time, and for the precise reasons you seem
to have labeled as beneficial.
>There is no direct correlation between internal economic "freedom" and
>growth. Rather, there is a correlation between market economics and growth.
I define economic freedom as necessary to "market economics". indeed,
I am uncertain how you can have "market economic" without internal
economic freedom.
>The states of Europe succeed in as much as they build the social welfare
>system in a way that does not disrupt economic ties to world markets.
>Also, taxes and regulation have rationale. Sometimes pure economic output is
>not the most important thing to a society. It often has to be balanced with
>social justice concerns.
If this is true, aren't you simply saying we should follow Hong Kong's
model. Their economic freedom has brought much more progress in both
the economy and in the social sphere (measured by such things as
infant mortality rate)?
>>In France, for example, it is necessary to attend two years of
>>government training *before* you are given a license to start a
>>business. While this may contribute to a well trained force of CEOs,
>>it is sure to retard the introduction of new technologies, as well.
>
>I'm not sure why that is so certain. Much of this training is in the form of
>internships and other things. Perhaps you could explain why you would make
>the causal claim you suggest above.
Easy. A acquaintance of mine has a company he started with an idea.
The company employs 65 people with a new medical product. He has had
no formal training at all in how to be a CEO. If he had waited two
years, there is a good chance that he would have either given up or
simply sold the idea to a bigger business. Personally, I think he did
a better job than most big business would have done.
>>Again, you make the error of starting after WWII. Remember, Germany
>>was little more than a pile of rubble after that war. It is easy to
>>show great progress just by building a hut from piles of brick which
>>were once a tank factory.
>
>I also note that this occurred during the seventies and late eighties/early
>ninties, so it's not just the total post-war picture.
Sorry no. As a matter of fact, much of the total economic progress
made by Sweden was prior to 1985, not after. The economy is slowing
down while that of the US is speeding up. That is the reason the
Swedes are trying to reform their welfare system, to make it cheaper.
>
>>To add to the confusion, note that according to the US Census Bureau,
>>Sweden has increased its per capita GDP by 88% between 1980 and 1994,
>>while the US has increased 114.5%, Germany 133% and France 104% after
>>adjusting for parity purchasing power (see Table 1335, US Statistical
>>Abstracts, 1996).
>
>OK, all are doing very well. Germany doing better than most, as I had
>suggested.
>
>>I would call none of these "failures", but it is clear Sweden, with
>>the most comprehensive welfare apparatus, is paying for that by
>>reduction in the average standard of living. Over the 14 years
>
>I have stated very clearly that I agreed with Swedish welfare reform, and
>even welcomed the victory of the conservatives (though I'm glad the SAP now
>back in power with a minority government is continuing the reforms, pretty
>successfully it seems to me).
>
>>covered, the average US citizen has gained nearly 30% more resources
>>than the average Swede, while the average German has gained more than
>>50%. This is an absolutely enormous difference in available
>>resources.
>
>I don't think you can make that claim about average citizens from aggregate
>GNP data. Also, I note that Germany's outperformance of the US is contrary
>to what one might expect if government size was causal.
Sure you can. I indeed just did. I assume you think it is
unjustified, but why so?
Do you have a better criteria for judging the performance of an
economy and the resources available for disposal to the average
citizen?
>(deletions)
>
>>Well, if not abandoned, certainly modified. Every European nation
>>that I can recall (outside the UK) is trying to rein in a debt that,
>>on a per capita basis, dwarfs the US debt.
>
>Dwarfs is too strong, most are similar. Some, like Italy's does indeed dwarf
>the US debt.
Dwarfs or not, almost without exception, they are indeed attempting to
modify their welfare state to make it cheaper, and hence sustainable.
>>I am sure you are also aware that the unemployment rate in Europe is
>>now twice the US rate, at best (Germany) it sits at 11%. In France,
>>unemployment tops 17%.
>
>In Germany I think much of that is directly related to unification, and will
>probably rebound by the year 2000.
It may be, though apparently most Germans will disagree with you about
it going away. It has gotten steadily worse since 1994.
> France has some real problems, but I
>suspect that structural unemployment may end up being accepted at a higher
>level in Europe over the long run due to the nature of their economies (more
>urban, specialized).
This is hard to accept without data, since I have seen no information
which leads me to suspect that urban = higher unemployment. In fact,
what little information I have implies the opposite.
> In any event, I expect that the European economy will
>probably boom when this correction is over, just like the US economy
>contradicted the gloom and doom statements (many coming from Europe) made
>right after 1990-91.
>
>>Business in Europe does not "oppose" the welfare state, partly because
>>they have simply elected to avoid it. In an article in Business Week
>>a German business leader (unattributed quote) noted his firm, like
>>many others, was simply not going to build additional manufacturing
>>capacity in Germany. They would build it in the US.
>
>I doubt this is really because of the welfare system, but for the same
>reasons that all advanced countries find their corporations engaged in FDI to
>save costs. They may try to claim it as a reason for political purposes.
>
>So far, though, even your stats show Europe and Germany to be doing well.
I don't recall saying they were not doing well. As a matter of fact,
I remember saying I would not call them failures. I do think that
they have enormous problems related to their welfare state, and they
apparently recognize this more than do you, and are attempting to
change the situation.
>There certainly is no cause to make the type of sky is falling statements
>that some are making about Europe's economy. Especially a growth in Eastern
>Europe and the impact of Maastricht might push the European economy greatly
>in the coming years. Social welfare systems can work well within a modern
>market economy. Any cost they have in aggregate growth might be made up for
>in terms of social justice and collective goods -- that's up to each country.
>Each has worked well, and I suspect will continue to work.
>
>But, of course, if data over the next five or six years suggest changing this
>hypothesis, I will do so. I fear that a few in the third, like McQ, James,
>and Mike S., are driven solely by ideology. If I were that way, I'd be
>defending all social welfare systems, arguing against the needed reforms, and
>going totally on ideology. I prefer to observe, hypothesize, and test. So
>far, I see no reason to abandon the hypothesis that the European economies
>are doing well over all. We'll see if the current slump is a normal business
>cycle, or something more structural over the coming years.
We will indeed. I wish them well (I have some of my IRA in foreign
mutual funds). I suspect though, Europe will need to change some of
its welfare state to reduce the burden to economic activity.
Regards, Harold
----
"But I am deeply convinced that any permanent, regular, administrative
system whose aim will be to provide for the needs of the poor will breed
more miseries than it can cure, will deprave the population that it wants
to help and comfort, will in time reduce the rich to being no more than
the tenant-farmers of the poor, will dry up the source of savings, will
stop the accumulation of capital, will retard the development of trade,
will benumb human industry and activity"
--Alexis de Tocqueville, Memoir on Pauperism , 1835
Guru George
Sorry to bring up the old stumper, but is the claim "there is no
objective proof" objectively proven or not?
- Guru George
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
"A true God needs no adoration,
and will not be affected by your scorn.
A 'Black Brother' will shrivel without one,
and foam when faced with the other."
- Marcelo Ramos Motta
from Class C commentary to Liber AL vel Legis
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
scot...@maine.maine.edu
In article <3355c0cf...@news-feed2.globalnet.co.uk>,
ms...@globalnet.co.uk says...
>Good post, James. I haven't been to Sweden but the parts of Europe
>that I've seen so far do not shout "prosperity," at least not in any
>measure that would compare to the US.
Really? Hmmm, my friends in Germany and Sweden have computers, VCRs,
cellular phones, top of the line appliances, stereos, a better TV system than
our own (cable is multinational and extensive -- that's another lie James
told, claiming it was all media owned). Most who visit the US think it's OK
here, but especially Germans are appalled sometimes. Oh well, I guess
everybody suffers from selective perception.
James told a pack of lies driven by ideology. He apparently believes that
the bigger the lie, the more the gullible will believe.
cheers, scott
scot...@maine.maine.edu
In article <334a4fca....@nntp.st.usm.edu>, brsh...@whale.st.usm.edu
says...
>That's OK, I don't mind. To what though do you attribute the slowdown
>in the last three years in Europe?
Normal business cycle, and a need to reform the welfare systems and privatize
some major industries in many of the continental countries. You see, I'm
definitely not anti-capitalist. After all, even John Major said "I am a
child of the welfare state, and I want to be sure that my children and
Grandchildren are as well."
>Have you looked at Korea lately? See last week's Business Week.
>Korea is very shaky at this time, and for the precise reasons you seem
>to have labeled as beneficial.
Well, Korea's problems are political as well, but ALL the NICs (Southeast
Asian states) except Hong Kong used massive state intervention and state
planning to get their high growth rates. Not just Korea.
>I define economic freedom as necessary to "market economics". indeed,
>I am uncertain how you can have "market economic" without internal
>economic freedom.
I simply find a working welfare state good for economic freedom.
>If this is true, aren't you simply saying we should follow Hong Kong's
>model. Their economic freedom has brought much more progress in both
>the economy and in the social sphere (measured by such things as
>infant mortality rate)?
Hong Kong is a city state, and has a number of unique advantages. Still, I
would not follow it's model in most cases.
>Easy. A acquaintance of mine has a company he started with an idea.
>The company employs 65 people with a new medical product. He has had
>no formal training at all in how to be a CEO. If he had waited two
>years, there is a good chance that he would have either given up or
>simply sold the idea to a bigger business. Personally, I think he did
>a better job than most big business would have done.
Perhaps. But the European system tends to be based more on large businesses
than small ones. That has advantages and disadvantages. Germany is making
it easier for mid-size and small businesses to develop, which I think is a
good idea. France has traditionally been very state centered (though under
Mitterrand they started decentralizing, a trend which I think should
continue). I think French reforms need to continue.
>Sorry no. As a matter of fact, much of the total economic progress
>made by Sweden was prior to 1985, not after. The economy is slowing
>down while that of the US is speeding up. That is the reason the
>Swedes are trying to reform their welfare system, to make it cheaper.
I agree completely. Sweden's system became very inefficient, it showed the
limits of that style of social welfare. But even the conservatives didn't
want to do away with it. I'm arguing that a social democratic system can
work. It doesn't always work perfectly, and, like here, not every policy is
successful.
(deletions)
>It may be, though apparently most Germans will disagree with you about
>it going away. It has gotten steadily worse since 1994.
Germans have different opinions. I read *Die Zeit* weekly, and try to keep
up on other media sources there. There are positive and negative trends, but
the main cause of the difficulties seem to be the after effects of
unification, and the continuing problems of the ex-DDR. We'll see what
happens. I think that one big unknown is if eastern markets start working,
esp. in the Czech Republic and Poland.
>I don't recall saying they were not doing well. As a matter of fact,
>I remember saying I would not call them failures. I do think that
>they have enormous problems related to their welfare state, and they
>apparently recognize this more than do you, and are attempting to
>change the situation.
I doubt they "recognize this" more than I do. They, (and I throughout this
thread) said reforms are needed. But this is adjusting the system. No one
wants to do away with health care guarantees, pensions, and other basics of
the social welfare system. Remember the quote I gave from Major --
conservatives in Germany are also very quick to point out that they don't
want "an unsocial system, like the US" (Heiner Geissler, CDU chair). Look at
the politics there -- reform is not elimination.
>We will indeed. I wish them well (I have some of my IRA in foreign
>mutual funds). I suspect though, Europe will need to change some of
>its welfare state to reduce the burden to economic activity.
I agree completely. My argument was with those who want to paint Europe as
going bankrupt and doomed to fail.
cheers, scott
scot...@maine.maine.edu
In article <5ia2q6$p5$2...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, jam...@NOSPAMecheque.com says...
>Any American that can get any EEC passport, (and lots of Americans can
>because of family relationships) can go to Sweden if he chooses. Very
>few do so choose, whereas I run into Swedes all over the place in
>America.
James, your idiocy is amazing. First, few Americans can get EU passports
(BTW, do you know when the EEC ceased to exist?) Second, do you have any
evidence to back this up, or do you just not know too many Americans who go
to Sweden, but you run into Swedes here? Geez. I know three Americans who
moved to Sweden, and one Swede who has moved here. Oh well. Perhaps real
stats and instead of personal claims would be nice.
>What good are these protections when power is concentrated in very few
>hands? I notice you did not attempt to deny the fact that the Swedish
>economy is dominated by a tiny handful of big corporations, that small
>and medium business is insignificant in Sweden.
Most small countries focus on large businesses because of the need to export
and specialize. Read "Small States in World Markets" by Peter Katzenstein.
Sweden is more "liberal" than many democratic corporatist countries, as more
of its property is in private hands (much more than the US). 91% of all
Swedish property is privately owned.
True, Swedish, German, and all European countries have more larger
corporations than small businesses. So what? Your claim was that this meant
bureaucrats could get you fired. I showed you to be lying. Now you
conveniently drop this claim and simply claim their businesses are bigger.
Pathetic, James, pathetic.
>The labor unions and the state are almost indistinguishable.
Ah, no, James. That is not true.
> All negotiation is highly centralized. The negotiations are all done at
>the center and handed down from above. And if your particular
>workshop, your particular union local, does not like the outcome of
>these summit negotiations, between the leadership supposedly
>representing all workers in diverse workshops and diverse trades, and
>the leadership supposedly representing business and government, tough
>cookies.
No James, you continue to lie, lie, lie. James Donald has not posted one
fact, just his own fantasy. He is driven by ideology, nothing more. Swedens
peak organizations negotiate, but they answer to the lower unions, and local
unions have real rights. Sigh. Apparently James believes that if the lie
serves his ideology, it's justified. I find that pathetic.
cheers, scott
James A. Donald
jam...@NOSPAMecheque.com says...
>>I observe that lots of Swedes emigrate, or seek to emigrate, to
>>America, but no Americans emigrate to Sweden, including those you
>>describe as exploited and oppressed.
scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
>Another lie. In fact, Sweden finds it necessary to restrict immigration.
Any American that can get any EEC passport, (and lots of Americans can
because of family relationships) can go to Sweden if he chooses. Very
few do so choose, whereas I run into Swedes all over the place in
America.
Swedish restraints on immigration are against third worlders and
people of the ex communist countries. People from countries with
better levels of economic freedom do not want to live there.
> James, your lies disgust me. [....]
>
> Please post evidence on this, [...]
>
> Remember: look at James' style. He makes brash bold assertions, never with
> evidence, often things that are obvious lies.
(US figures
rounded to nearest 10% because of lack of accuracy) Source US.
Bureau of census, 1992, Euromonitor, 1991)
Average Swede * Poorest fifth of Americans * owns
48% * 60% * VCR
37% * 60% * Microwave
31% * 20% * Dishwasher
18% * 50% * Dryer
> His type use the lack of
> oversight given to the internet to try to push their agenda. Watch out!
Yeah, right.
James A. Donald
> > in Sweden, there are very few small companies. Your
> > only hope of a job is with one of a few big companies with intimate
> > ties to the state. This must surely create a sense of fear,
> > impotence, and powerlessness, a fear that your career could be forever
> > blighted by some capricious whim of someone you have hardly seen and
> > do not know.
scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
> WOW! Another LIE by James Donald. James, the Swedish system has protection
> for workers that go far beyond that of those in the US.
What good are these protections when power is concentrated in very few
hands? I notice you did not attempt to deny the fact that the Swedish
economy is dominated by a tiny handful of big corporations, that small
and medium business is insignificant in Sweden.
> The labor unions
> have real power to make sure that the state or private industry cannot blight
> a career by whim.
The labor unions and the state are almost indistinguishable. All
negotiation is highly centralized. The negotiations are all done at
the center and handed down from above. And if your particular
workshop, your particular union local, does not like the outcome of
these summit negotiations, between the leadership supposedly
representing all workers in diverse workshops and diverse trades, and
the leadership supposedly representing business and government, tough
cookies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com
McQ
scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb) wrote:
>(yawn)
>(yawn)
The extent of anything relevant in your last reply is noted above.
Jeez...and you claim to be an academic?
Keeerist on a pogo-stick. No wonder Johnny can't reason.
Jeffrey N Woodford
On Mon, 07 Apr 1997 01:35:27 -0500 Michael Schneider (mike1@_N_O_S_P_A_M_visi.com) wrote:
: Jesus. How many "gut" courses does one have to take in a life of
: shirking work out in the real world to get a Ph. D. in polysci, of all
: ridiculous, useless "sciences"?
: It's enough to make me run screaming to the nearest local video store
: and hurredly rent out Animal House and PCU.
Mike's just jealous, because Scott has an advanced degree and he does
not.
-Jeff
--
Jeffrey N. Woodford jwoo...@unlgrad1.unl.edu je...@olivier.dementia.org
Homepage: http://olivier.dementia.org/~jeffw/index.html
"Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas!"
McQ
scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
>James told a pack of lies driven by ideology. He apparently believes that
>the bigger the lie, the more the gullible will believe.
After the big pack of ideologically driven half-truths you dropped
on here to start this thing you have the effrontery to call someone
ELSE a liar and an ideologue?
Incredible...
"Shamelessness", thy name is Erb.
Loren Petrich
In article <5icn31$fem$4...@nntp2.ba.best.com>,
James A. Donald <jam...@NOSPAMecheque.com> wrote:
>The correlation is not with country size, but with state power. The
>more the state intervenes in the economy, the more economic power is
>concentrated in fewer hands.
So why does the US have more wealth inequality than many other
industrialized countries (those socialist hellholes :-)?
And what do you think corporations are?
Check http://www.scruznet.com/~kangaroo for more.
Michael.Schneider
Repost:
In article <5i0db9$1e...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, scot...@maine.maine.edu
(Scott D. Erb) wrote:
(Rubbish)
Sweden: The Ideals Are Evil
From: Magnus...@di.epfl.ch (Magnus Kempe)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.afghanistan,alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Sweden's Unemployment Rate was Two% for Years and Years and Years
Message-ID: <1994May...@di.epfl.ch>
[Lots of misleading and/or false information about Sweden deleted.]
I am Swedish. I lived there (but no longer do). Let me say a few things,
and then you may verify the facts about Sweden, and answer if you still
think Sweden is a great country to live in.
I worked in Sweden as an engineer. The money left to me after taxes (i.e.
the money I received) was less than what an alcoholic man I personally
knew received each month; he lived on welfare and never worked in his
whole life (he survived about 45 years until he killed himself).
It was literally impossible to save anything (remember: the state claimed
to take care of everyone from cradle to grave). I was told that my
education was paid for me by the state, and that therefore I owed the
state everything (it was factually false since I hadn't studied in Sweden,
but you see what the common viewpoint on one's relationship to the state
is).
I could afford to go to the restaurant two to three times a month. To the
movies? once or twice a month. After these luxuries I could not afford
anything else (e.g. buying books) unless I skipped meals.
The meat in Sweden is of the lowest quality in Western Europe (got to
protect the farmers) and extremely expensive (three to four times the
price of meat in France, where after-tax wages are higher than in Sweden).
I got my flat on the black market. There was no other possibility, since
rents are controlled and everyone has to stay where he lives in order to
keep his rent low (the guy I rented from rented himself four flats in
Stockholm, to make sure his kids would have something when they would want
to leave their parent's flat). A constant threat was that the State would
discover that he didn't live in the appartments he was renting; in order
to punish the "profiteers", he would have been fined and his lease would
have been invalidated. (And I would have been thrown out for the sake of
someone on a waiting list. Yes, there are waiting-lists managed by a
central bureau of renting.)
Such is the "standard of living" and "easy life" in Sweden. (It seems that
the United Nations statistics for "standard of living" include such
objective criteria as "equality of genders" and "social security.")
Now, on to "low unemployment."
Most of the economy in Sweden is strangled by the state. The bureaucrats
are everywhere. For instance, a drugstore will often have four persons
simultaneously working to serve one customer; one will say hello, please
give me your prescription, the second will look for the bottle of
medicine, the third one will type with two fingers, and the fourth will
read to you what has been typed just in case you thought you could get
away with reading it yourself. That's just one example. Remember, more
than half of the Swedish economy is controlled by the state.
If someone is out of work, what happens? He is "employed" by the state to
go to some school and try to learn something useful. Or he can choose to
get out of the market-place for labor (being on welfare is not counted as
being unemployed); someone over 50 years old will simply be "retired."
That went on for as long as Sweden had the money for it. When things
started to get difficult, the socialists invented "forced savings"; this
was intended to cool down inflation and better control what kind of
activities would be subsidized. It simply reduced my take-home pay by a
few percents with a vague promise to pay later (without accounting for
inflation in the meantime, of course).
How could the Swedish state pay for all these wonderful things?
It borrowed, and still borrows, on the international markets (just as some
third-world countries did in the past, until their economies crashed and
they had to default on their debt; the same will happen to Sweden). Also
Sweden has very low taxes on corporations, which enables them to remain
competitive internationally. Individuals are taxed to death; corporations
are subsidized in order to keep the milk streaming from the cow.
Some of the money went to communist Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, and Red China.
After Czecoslovakia got rid of communism, the Swedish socialists rushed to
tell the Czechs how to set up a welfare state by stealing from the
producers to feed the moochers. (The Czech Finance minister answered that
it couldn't work because there was nothing to redistribute, that wealth
had first to be produced before one could consume it.)
A few years ago, banks advertised, but in a very peculiar way; they used
to say that "borrowing is good, it will allow you to reach your goals" but
nowhere did they encourage their customers to save. Well, of course,
saving was impossible. Instead, the tax system was designed to encourage
loans; for instance, one of my relatives bought a 30-ft. sailing boat with
a loan, thus reducing his taxes, and ended up with more money after
taxes... so in Sweden the welfare system was growing while people thought
the lunch was free. In the meantime, "wagers' funds" were set up, which
basically took some stock from corporations and moved it into the hands of
the unions. The unions would care for the workers, and manage the
companies better than what evil businessmen had done; the union leaders
got to control most of the economy the government wasn't already
controlling; they also played with the stock market, and lost much money.
But there wasn't enough milk. Today, Sweden is broke. Unemployment rate
has soared to 15%. Strong companies leave the country. Asea merged with
Brown-Boveri to form ABB in Switzerland, Tetra-Pak moved to Switzerland,
Ericsson has moved much of its research to Germany, Volvo expanded its
production in Belgium while reducing it in Sweden, Alfa-Laval is getting
out of Sweden, Saab is bankrupt (even though GM has thrown billions of US$
at it), etc.
The Swedish Mind
The Swedish culture has become completely vicious. The national sickness
is envy (some Swedes are even proud of that!). Success is a sign of
anti-social behaviour (and many businessmen stupid enough to stay in
Sweden have gone to jail because they earned too much and tried to keep
some of their wealth instead of giving everything to the State). Tens of
thousands of Swedes, mostly businessmen, fled socialist Sweden in the
60's.
Anyone who dares think independently and assert his ideas vs. the
consensus is told "who do you think you are?". On the other hand,
mindless, emotional statements are strongly encouraged. (In case you
wonder, Sweden adopted the progressive education philosophy of Dewey.)
When I refused to join the union ("So, Magnus, I see you haven't joined
yet, well let's see... just fill out this form..."), I was called
"anti-social" in front of my colleagues and told that my job and salary
would not last long without the support of the union.
The Swedish TV is state-controlled. When satellite dishes started to
appear in the country, the socialists tried to forbid them. Last time I
was there (early 90's), the Swedish news used to be like news on Soviet
TV: grey background, ugly speaker as straight as a screwdriver, comments
about the "American imperialists" and "our friends in Russia," and social
documentaries whining that some young criminals couldn't help it, that
"capitalism made them greedy for material wealth."
Before the free elections in Nicaragua, the Swedish TV asserted regularly
that the communists would win; after, they didn't say anything about it.
Before the free elections in Eastern Germany, the Swedish TV asserted that
the communists and socialists would have an overwhelming majority; after,
they explained that the poor East Germans were tricked into wanting
material wealth, but that they would ultimately realize how evil
capitalism is.
So much for the Swedish model, standard of living, and cultural atmosphere.
I could go on with volumes of observations, but it is not really a
pleasure to describe the vices of Sweden. I'll stop here. You should have
enough too.
(I now live in a much freer country, Switzerland.) --
Magnus Kempe "I know not what course others may take, but as
for me, Magnus...@di.epfl.ch Give me Liberty... or give me Death!" --
Patrick Henry
--
Facts of Socialistic Sweden
From: f92...@dd.chalmers.se (Peter Gustafson) Newsgroups:
alt.philosophy.objectivism Subject: Re: Sweden's Unemployment Rate was
Two% for Years and Years and Years
Regarding the title: in Sweden one differs between 'open' unemployment and
those who are employed through government programs. Saying that the
unemployment rate was two percent for years and years is false.
Today 'open' unemployment is about seven percent and to that, add some
five percent (numbers not exact, but of the correct magnitude), giving us
a nice twelve percent.
Jawaid Bazyar asked the following questions to which I can provide some
rudimentary answers:
1) How many people live in Sweden?. During these years, what was the
population growth in Sweden?
Say about eight and a half to nine million, population growth very small.
2) What was the per-capita Gross National Product?
I can only speak for the last two or three years with some certainty - BNP
growth has been in the negative, one to two percent. Before that it was at
least positive, small but positive. Latest predictions sets it to a plus
two percent this year and a fairly nice progression of positives for the
rest of the decade. We'll need it. We have the largest relative foreign
debt in the western world.
3) What was the rate of invention in Sweden during these years? How many
things were invented by Swedes to improve their standard of living? How
many technological improvements were imported from other countries?
Actually, Swedish engineers are pretty good. As an example, some guys came
up with a (don't know what it's called in English) "thin TV screen"
several years ago. Unable to start production here, they sold it to the
Japanese, and this is not a unique event. Then the state-owned media has
the stomach to whine about "inventions slipping through are fingers".
Laugh or cry?
[ 4) Define "standard of living". ]
5) You claim Sweden has the highest standard of living. How is that
measured? Is that pre-tax or after-tax? (taxes in Sweden average 50%, or
HALF of income).
Subsidies are the keyword. The question "who pays?" mustn't be asked.
Swedish youth has to endure nine years of comprachico-compulsory
schooling, in which the "social aspects" are taken very seriously, another
three to get a high-school equivalent diploma. The result is shown at very
specific dates of the year, namely 30. march, around 6. june (school
ends), midsummer's eve, 13. december, when a large majority of them fills
the streets with vomit and broken bottles (it's a battlefield, you won't
believe it until you see it). This is called "to drink like a wiking" and
is more or less proudly boasted as a national characteristic. It's not so
heroic when the "wikings" are of age 14 or even down to 10 years old.
I remember a local block-buster movie about an average guy who goes on one
of these cheap one week trips to the mediterranean, where liquor is cheap
and the sun always shines. It started with the line, "Swedes don't go
abroad to get abroad, they go to get away from Sweden". Almost all Swedes
can relate to that line with a recognizing grin (it was a block-buster).
Some standard of living.
6) What was the rate of increase of Sweden's standard of living during
this time?
If related to our ability to buy products on our not so very free market -
inflation taken into account - it was during the eighties, decreasing.
The SAP (Socialist Worker's Party) is collectivist, mediocrity-worshipping
to the extreme. One of the top members proudly confesses that "she was
just one of the gang who didn't care too much about school". The man who
will most likely be in control of our country's economy, should they win
this falls elections, has no high-school degree. They are presently
supported by 48 percent of those allowed to vote. Draw your own
conclusions.
Peter Gustafson.
Michael.Schneider
In article <5i9t4c$1h...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
> In article <5i9ajd$cno$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, kke...@best.com says...
> >
> >Billy Beck (ain't...@tno.e-mail) wrote:
>
> >: Snicker all you want, punk. The fact of the matter is that
> >: you don't know *shit* about life on a rock tour, nor what I do out
> >: there, or anything else. And, I know that you wouldn't last two days
> >: under those conditions before you were on your knees screaming for
> >: mommy, and I would personally kick your skinny little ass out into the
> >: parking lot after breakfast, and prior to calculating the length and
> >: load of a rig bridle 90 feet in the air and no net below. Even with a
> >: broken hip and two pounds of steel in it at the age of 41, I would
> >: outperform you physically in realms where you wouldn't dare to go if
> >: Sandra Bullock promised to suck your dick at the end of a head-first
> >: abseil.
> >
> >Oh how cute, a roadie dick size war. Grow up child.
>
> Ah, well, I guess I shouldn't tease Billy about his, er, profession any more.
> He's obviously very sensitive.
>
> No, Billy, there is nothing wrong with being a roadie, though perhaps you
> exaggerate the mathematical expertise needed. You were being quite insulting
> so I made a rather subtle zinger at you.
>
> Yet, by Billy's response -- very long winded and angry -- I see I touched a
> nerve. I have no desire to further hurt Billy's feelings, so I'll cease
> teasing him about his, uh, career.
>
> still chuckling, scott
Put up a web page. Design it yourself.
Really. Do *create* something for once in your life.
Then I'll compare it to Beck's place.
Michael.Schneider
In article <5iav3l$13...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, scot...@maine.maine.edu
(Scott D. Erb) wrote:
> In article <mike1-07049...@192-137.dynamic.visi.com>,
> mike1@_N_O_S_P_A_M_visi.com says...
> >
> > Jesus. How many "gut" courses does one have to take in a life of
> >shirking work out in the real world to get a Ph. D. in polysci, of all
> >ridiculous, useless "sciences"?
>
> Sigh. Some of us have worked in factories (I made kitchen cabinets), worked
> all through college (I averaged over thirty hours a week between two jobs),
> and managed businesses (I as assistant manager for a few restaurants). I
> also did some government work. But I find teaching to be a demanding job,
> very real, and very difficult.
Sure, Scott. You're brain has had a *real* workout there.
> Helping educate and help facilitate critical
> thinking for the mind's of tomorrow is a lot of responsibility which most of
> us take seriously.
> cheers, scott
Forget it. I *know* what kind of students pursue education majors,
because I went to school with them: Those that realize they're going to
fail at everything else.
It's a secular clergy: produce nothing and boss people around.
Wowza.
Michael.Schneider
> In article <3355c0cf...@news-feed2.globalnet.co.uk>,
> ms...@globalnet.co.uk says...
>
> >Good post, James. I haven't been to Sweden but the parts of Europe
> >that I've seen so far do not shout "prosperity," at least not in any
> >measure that would compare to the US.
>
> Really? Hmmm, my friends in Germany and Sweden have computers, VCRs,
> cellular phones, top of the line appliances, stereos, a better TV system than
> our own (cable is multinational and extensive -- that's another lie James
> told, claiming it was all media owned). Most who visit the US think it's OK
> here, but especially Germans are appalled sometimes. Oh well, I guess
> everybody suffers from selective perception.
Gee, Scott, bu-bu-bu-but what about *SWEDEN*????????
> James told a pack of lies driven by ideology. He apparently believes that
> the bigger the lie, the more the gullible will believe.
> cheers, scott
Michael.Schneider
In article <5ic75f$3...@crcnis3.unl.edu>, jwoo...@unlgrad1.unl.edu
(Jeffrey N Woodford) wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Apr 1997 01:35:27 -0500 Michael Schneider
(mike1@_N_O_S_P_A_M_visi.com) wrote:
> : Jesus. How many "gut" courses does one have to take in a life of
> : shirking work out in the real world to get a Ph. D. in polysci, of all
> : ridiculous, useless "sciences"?
>
> : It's enough to make me run screaming to the nearest local video store
> : and hurredly rent out Animal House and PCU.
>
> Mike's just jealous, because Scott has an advanced degree and he does
> not.
Oooooooo......
The market value of that polysci degree is just making me all green.
Think I'll sell a few more PowerPCs. $Kerching!$
Ahhhh!!! That felt better.
Do you love "green" too?
Jeffrey N Woodford
On Tue, 08 Apr 1997 04:21:43 -0500 Michael.Schneider (mike1@N_O_S_P_A_M_visi.com) wrote:
: In article <5ic75f$3...@crcnis3.unl.edu>, jwoo...@unlgrad1.unl.edu
: (Jeffrey N Woodford) wrote:
: > On Mon, 07 Apr 1997 01:35:27 -0500 Michael Schneider
: (mike1@_N_O_S_P_A_M_visi.com) wrote:
: > : Jesus. How many "gut" courses does one have to take in a life of
: > : shirking work out in the real world to get a Ph. D. in polysci, of all
: > : ridiculous, useless "sciences"?
: >
: > : It's enough to make me run screaming to the nearest local video store
: > : and hurredly rent out Animal House and PCU.
: >
: > Mike's just jealous, because Scott has an advanced degree and he does
: > not.
: Oooooooo......
: The market value of that polysci degree is just making me all green.
: Think I'll sell a few more PowerPCs. $Kerching!$
: Ahhhh!!! That felt better.
: Do you love "green" too?
I am not a capitalist prostitute. If I wanted to do nothing more than
make money for the rest of my life, I would have become a chemical
engineer. Instead, I'm in the Ph.D. program in chemistry. For me,
making money is not an end unto itself, it is a side-effect of making
a contribution to science. I cannot speak for Scott, but I suspect
the same is true for most Ph.D. degree holders. I care little for the
"market value" of my degree; it is my contribution to the field of
chemistry that I am concerned about.
Besides, as the saying goes, the love of money is the root of all evil.
Scott D. Erb
In article <5icn31$fem$4...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, jam...@NOSPAMecheque.com says...
>Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Thailand are pretty small, and they do not
>"focus on large businesses".
Thailand is a very bureaucratic authoritarian system with state capitalism,
not free market capitalism. Taiwan is similar. I find it amusing when you
point to these very government controlled economies as examples of business
done right. Hong Kong is a better example for your purpose, though it'll be
interesting to see what happens when it becomes part of China.
>The correlation is not with country size, but with state power. The
>more the state intervenes in the economy, the more economic power is
>concentrated in fewer hands.
Thailand, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore...state intervention is massive in the
economies. I fail to see why you give examples contrary to your point in
order to try to prove your point.
>My claim that was your career could be permanently blighted because of
>some capricious bureaucratic whim.
A bizarre and unsupported claim on your part.
cheers, scott
Scott D. Erb
In article <5icn2g$fem$3...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, jam...@NOSPAMecheque.com says...
>
>This reminds of the people who go to Cuba and see paradise where I saw
>servility and fear.
>
>Now Sweden is not Cuba,
Yes, but James would rather talk about Cuba. I haven't talked to anyone who
has been to Cuba and sees it as a paradise, nor would I claim it is.
No, I know you're getting the **** kicked out of you in this argument, but
that's hardly an excuse to try to change topics.
cheers, scott
Scott D. Erb
In article <5icn21$fem$2...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, jam...@NOSPAMecheque.com says...>> That really isn't a persuasive causal statement. High growth in Thailand,
>> massive state involvement in the economies.
>
>involvement was South Korea.
Another lie. It's amazing and sad how James asserts such obvious lies just
because they advance his ideological bias.
For info on the policies of the NICs:
Thomas Laison and David Skidmore, (esp. chapter and southern trade and
development), 2nd Edition, "International Political Economy," Harcourt Brace,
1996.
See also, "The Politics of Developing Countries," by Diamont, Linz, Lipset,
et al., 1995.
The chapter by Takashi Inoguichi, "A View from Pacific Asia," in *Whose World
Order* by Hans-henrik HOlm and Georg Sorensen is helpful.
For very basic info, see the section on third world development in
"International Relations" by Joshua Goldstein, or "Politics on the World
Stage," by John Rourke.
cheers, scott
Stan Bailes
Dennis Wallick wrote:
>
> In article <5idpb0$aiv$4...@nntp2.ba.best.com>,
> James A. Donald <jam...@NOSPAMecheque.com> wrote:
> >
> >48% * 60% * VCR
> >37% * 60% * Microwave
>
> boob-tube and prefers homemade food to the fast-nuked crap a microwave
> makes.
Maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.
Since we're speculating....
Stan
Harold Brashears
On Mon, 07 Apr 97 19:03:11 EST, scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
>In article <334a4fca....@nntp.st.usm.edu>, brsh...@whale.st.usm.edu
>says...
>
>>That's OK, I don't mind. To what though do you attribute the slowdown
>>in the last three years in Europe?
>
>Normal business cycle, and a need to reform the welfare systems and privatize
>some major industries in many of the continental countries. You see, I'm
>definitely not anti-capitalist. After all, even John Major said "I am a
>child of the welfare state, and I want to be sure that my children and
>Grandchildren are as well."
John Major is a conservative, he is unwilling to change what he has
now. This is characteristic of conservatives. I do not always agree.
>>Have you looked at Korea lately? See last week's Business Week.
>>Korea is very shaky at this time, and for the precise reasons you seem
>>to have labeled as beneficial.
>
>Well, Korea's problems are political as well, but ALL the NICs (Southeast
>Asian states) except Hong Kong used massive state intervention and state
>planning to get their high growth rates. Not just Korea.
I know, and they are all in substantial trouble, or at the minimum
worried about substantial trouble. Business Week calls it the
"Japanese disease". That's really funny, in a way. If you have read
Business Week you would know that they have been to some extent
admirers of the state intervention, and to see them use that phrase
was funny.
I have not been an admirer of state intervention (on the scale of
Japan or Korea, anyway). I am gratified to see that the concepts I
valued, free trade and free markets, are now proving their worth.
[edited]
>Perhaps. But the European system tends to be based more on large businesses
>than small ones. That has advantages and disadvantages. Germany is making
>it easier for mid-size and small businesses to develop, which I think is a
>good idea. France has traditionally been very state centered (though under
>Mitterrand they started decentralizing, a trend which I think should
>continue). I think French reforms need to continue.
I was just going to erase the remainder of your message, when I noted
the paragraph above. Fukuyama (of "End of History" fame) has a new
book out named "Trust". You may be interested in reading it, given
your statements above.
[edited]
Regards, Harold
-------
"Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let
him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring
that his own shall be safe from violence when built."
--Abraham Lincoln, Speech, 21 March 1864, in reply to committee
from the New York Workingmen's Association.
Dennis Wallick
In article <5idpb0$aiv$4...@nntp2.ba.best.com>,
James A. Donald <jam...@NOSPAMecheque.com> wrote:
>
>Average Swede * Poorest fifth of Americans * owns
> * *
>48% * 60% * VCR
>37% * 60% * Microwave
Maybe the average Swede doesn't waste his time in front of the
boob-tube and prefers homemade food to the fast-nuked crap a microwave
makes.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Wallick dwal...@access.digex.net
http://www.access.digex.net/~dwallick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
scot...@maine.maine.edu
In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com says...
>Erbie-poo claims to place great stock in statistics.
It is usually telling when a participant joins the discussion by trying to
deride the other side. It is not very impressive.
In this case, Mr. Starr was apparently trying to hide the fact his post was
dishonest. He claimed that I replied to statitics from James with
anctedotes. James, however, is the one who posted mostly lies and
conjecture. The one stat he gave, that being that in three or four consumer
goods, Swedes own fewer than Americans, I respodned to. Mr. Starr also
claims I only gave anctedotes. However I posted an entire post with
statistics, to which James was responding.
I believe that when a poster enters a discussion with the rudeness of Mr.
Starr, it's very likely their post is dishonest. This case was no exception.
cheers, scott
William R. Discipio Jr
scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
: Mike, is there any reason for putting my name in the subject heading? Such
: behavior is usually considered in bad taste for real discussions, it belongs
: more in "alt.flame."
Readers should recognize that Dr. Orwell engages in the tactic he's
complaining about.
--
Why does Gail Thaler think liking Botswana is akin to supporting Apartheid?
"Are you knowingly telling lies, like your pal, William, who attacks Morris
Dees and praises the "government" of Batswana[sic]...
Like Dippy's favorite places? Aparthied South Africa, Botswana?"
Loren Petrich
In article <334f4be8....@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
Harold Brashears <brsh...@whale.st.usm.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Apr 97 19:03:11 EST, scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
... After all, even John Major said "I am a
>>child of the welfare state, and I want to be sure that my children and
>>Grandchildren are as well."
>John Major is a conservative, he is unwilling to change what he has
>now. This is characteristic of conservatives. I do not always agree.
It is not my problem if he does not want to implement a
free-for-all of dog-eat-dog capitalism. Is Albania worth imitating?
>>Well, Korea's problems are political as well, but ALL the NICs (Southeast
>>Asian states) except Hong Kong used massive state intervention and state
>>planning to get their high growth rates. Not just Korea.
>I know, and they are all in substantial trouble, or at the minimum
>worried about substantial trouble. Business Week calls it the
>"Japanese disease".
However, Japan has had impressive economic growth since the end of
WWII, when they decided to win economically after losing militarily.
Protectionism, dumping, pinching one's citizens to finance imports -- all
with rates of pay for corporate leaders that Mr. Brashears, Mr.
Blaskowski, Mr. Donald, Mr. Sam, Mr. Williams, Ms. Knadler, and others
would consider appallingly low -- only about 20*(worker average). I
wonder if they will take up a collection for poor underpaid Japanese CEO's :-)
However, the real reason for this "disease" is that some old
styles of organization are outliving their usefulness, and that new ones
are needed; that explains why it is only a recent phenomenon.
>"Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let
>him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring
>that his own shall be safe from violence when built."
> --Abraham Lincoln, Speech, 21 March 1864, in reply to committee
> from the New York Workingmen's Association.
And Abraham Lincoln stated something interesting about labor
being prior to capital, capital only being a byproduct of labor, and how
labor deserves the greater consideration.
scot...@maine.maine.edu
In article <5ied50$259$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, jam...@NOSPAMecheque.com says...
>The implication being that when that European goes to an interview, he
>would never dare ask such rude questions or make such shocking
>demands. He humbly lets his potential master know he will take
>whatever he is given and be humbly grateful.
This is one of James Donald's typical lies. James has amazed me with his
lies, usually assertions that are false about Europe, designed to simply
further his own ideological bias. Apparently be is one of those relativists
who believes that as long as it serves his needs, any means is permissible.
James' lie here is laughable. Europeans basically have the same sort of job
interviews Americans have. Not only that, but workers have even more rights
vis-a-vis their bosses than Americans; if anyone has to act humbly grateful,
it is American workers in comparison to European ones.
Now James, stop your lies. Accept the fact that both the European and
American systems work rather well, each has advantages and disadvantages, and
each could potentially be reformed. If you could honestly discuss strengths
and weaknesses without believing you have to lie and demonize the "other
side" to make it look like a caricature, you'd be more effective.
I think you and a few other people haven't learned yet that the net has grown
up since the early days when such behavior was effective. More people are
on, with different views, who take a critical eye to such debates. Your
tactics are obsolete. The lies, shocking and crude flames, etc., that were
effective on the net in 1994 are now passee. Perhaps you should rethink your
tactics.
cheers, scott
scot...@maine.maine.edu
>No, you just haven't answered the central questions, such as:
I tell you what, Tim, if you want to join in the discussion, it would be more
helpful if you would post stats rather than ask me a bunch of questions about
economic statistics. I quite frankly have other things to do than research
answers to questions you might be curious about. If you do the legwork and
post some stats, I'll deal with them at that point.
cheers, scott
scot...@maine.maine.edu
In article <5iet48$k...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, mcq...@iix.netcom.com
says...
> And Sweden is not Germany. You'd rather talk about the later,
>wouldn't you?
Perhaps if you had followed this thread, you'd have noticed that my entry
came in response to a claim that European welfare systems like Sweden and
Germany's are going bankrupt. Germany was a topic of this discussion from
the beginning (and my expertise in German politics and economics is much
greater than for any other state). I posted a number of stats on Sweden, so
most of the replies have focused on Sweden.
But Germany was in the discussion from the start. James' attempt to bring
Cuba in seems simply an attempt to distract.
cheers, scott
Scott D. Erb
In article <5idpb0$aiv$4...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, jam...@NOSPAMecheque.com says...
(six year old data trying to compare top 50% to top 80% in ownership of
selected items deleted -- I don't think it says very much at all about the
issues being discussed. Due to more free trade with Japan, the US does have
higher rates of ownership of electronics; I've argued with EU friends quite
a bit about how I think they should be more open to trade. Recently they've
been going that way. In Germany VCR ownership has increased dramatically
since 1992 to the point where it's catching up to the US. I believe Sweden
is similar. Europeans don't like dryers for some reason. Even a wealthy
Swede I visited didn't have one, though she could have definitely afforded
on. In Germany the same thing...)
>I did not say that "it was all media owned" whatever that may mean. I
>said that all mass media were owned or directly controlled by
>political parties of diverse, but not all that diverse, political
>views.
That's simply not true.
>If a state enterprise shows selected international national shows, so
>did the Soviet Union. That is hardly a sign of liberty.
That is hardly the case, you are simply wrong.
>free than Cubans were. The fact that they tend to receive a heavily
>filtered account of their own nation and the world unless they make
>some modest effort to remedy it, means that they are less free than
>Americans and most other Europeans.
You idiot, Swedes get private TV as well as unfiltered TV from other
countries. You are making this up as you go. Geez.
cheers, scott
Scott D. Erb
In article <5idpri$aiv$5...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, jam...@NOSPAMecheque.com says...
>For example when I wrote that people in Sweden can have their careers
>blighted arbitrarily, because all employment is in the hands of a tiny
>number of giant companies with close ties to the state, you claimed
>that I wrote that they can be sacked arbitrarily,
(yawn)
They can't have their careers blighted arbitrarily as often as people can
have their careers blighted arbitrarily in the US. There are real
protections in Sweden. In the US there are few.
In any event, your claim was a lie, whether the word "blighted" or "sacked"
is used. Give it up, James. Your lies designed to support your ideological
bias have been debunked. So far, only one stat seems even remotely valid,
that concerns ownership of select appliances by the top 50% of Swedes
compared to the top 80% of Americans. But even that stat is old and of
limited value. The rest of what you've written has been fantasy.
cheers, scott
Tim Starr
In article <5ibte9$d...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>In article <3355c0cf...@news-feed2.globalnet.co.uk>,
>ms...@globalnet.co.uk says...
>
>>Good post, James. I haven't been to Sweden but the parts of Europe
>>that I've seen so far do not shout "prosperity," at least not in any
>>measure that would compare to the US.
>
>Really? Hmmm, my friends in Germany and Sweden have computers, VCRs,
>cellular phones, top of the line appliances, stereos, a better TV system than
>our own (cable is multinational and extensive -- that's another lie James
>told, claiming it was all media owned). Most who visit the US think it's OK
>here, but especially Germans are appalled sometimes. Oh well, I guess
>everybody suffers from selective perception.
Erbie-poo claims to place great stock in statistics. James Donald posted some
statistics about what durable consumer goods the average Swedes have, compared
to those owned by the poorest fifth of all Americans. It seems that the
poorest Americans have more of most durable consumer goods than the average
Swede.
Erbie-poo then replies with anecdotal evidence ("...my friends in Germany and
Sweden..."), which he dismisses whenever he gets anecdotal evidence that
conflicts with his own prejudices, claiming that he prefers statistics.
Then he accuses james Donald of telling "a pack of lies driven by ideology,"
when all he did was quote statistics on how many of the poorest Americans have
certain durable consumer goods as compared to how many of the average Swedes
own them.
If this is indicative of the quality of his thinking, I shudder to think of the
poor students who have to study under Assistant Professor Erbie-poo.
*******************************************************************************
"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the
symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there!" - George
Orwell, 1940, in the democratic socialist weekly "Tribune," quoted in "Orwell:
The Authorized Biography," by Michael Shelden
"Yes, I am." - "Saint" Anne Pearston, organizer of the British "Snowdrop" Victim
Disarmament petition, when asked if she was in favor of making the UK into a
slave state on the Jim Hawkins BBC-radio show, 5/17/96, by Sean Gabb, editor of
Free Life, the journal of the libertarian Alliance.
*******************************************************************************
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; is...@isil.org, http://www.isil.org/
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Tim Starr
In article <5ibgaj$t...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
Scott D. Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>In article <5iav76$i...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>, mcq...@iix.netcom.com
>says...
>
>> Ah...now we're down to "relatively" successful and only if Germany
>>is lumped in there.
>
>"Down to"? Remember, my response was to someone who said these systems were
>going bankrupt. We're "up to" arguing whether or not they are "relatively
>effective." I think everyone has dropped the original cause of the debate.
No, you just haven't answered the central questions, such as:
1) What's Sweden's foreign debt per-capita, as compared to the rest of Western
Europe, the USA, & Canada?
2) What's the interest on Sweden's national debt?
3) What's the amount of revenue brought in each year by Sweden's taxes?
4) What's the annual rate of growth of State spending in Sweden? Also tell us
what the growth rates are for the national debt & revenues.
I can name one Western-style welfare state that already HAS gone bankrupt, or
nearly so: New Zealand. The UK had to get bailed out by an IMF loan back in
the mid-1970s. Sweden has had to get bailed out by IMF loans more than once,
I hear.
How much closer would it have to get before you'd be willing to call it
bankruptcy?
John Q. Public
>
> helpful if you would post stats rather than ask me a bunch of questions about
> economic statistics. I quite frankly have other things to do than research
> answers to questions you might be curious about. If you do the legwork and
> post some stats, I'll deal with them at that point.
> cheers, scott
Headers trimmed
John Q. Public
Headers trimmed.
John Q. Public
Headers trimmed.
Tim Starr wrote:
>
> In article <5ieqg8$1q...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
> >In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com says...
> >
> >>Erbie-poo claims to place great stock in statistics.
> >
> >It is usually telling when a participant joins the discussion by trying to
> >deride the other side. It is not very impressive.
> >
> >In this case, Mr. Starr was apparently trying to hide the fact his post was
> >dishonest. He claimed that I replied to statitics from James with
> >anctedotes.
>
> That's exactly what you did. You said you wanted statistics. James, McQuain,
> & others gave you some. You then denied these by citing unnamed "friends" in
> Sweden & Germany - the very same anecdotal evidence you derided when it
> conflicted with your prejudices.
>
> >James, however, is the one who posted mostly lies and conjecture. The one
> >stat he gave, that being that in three or four consumer goods, Swedes own
> >fewer than Americans, I respodned to.
>
> With anecdotal evdence. "My friends in Germany & Sweden..."
>
> >Mr. Starr also claims I only gave anctedotes.
>
> In reply to the statistics which conflicted with your prejudices, yes, you
> only gave anecdotes.
>
> Erbie-poo's pattern: trot out some stats about macroeconomic performance, but
> always ones that are vague enough to be interpreted any way one wants; accuse
> anyone who points out that they can be interpreted against Erbie-poo of using
> "anecdotal evidence," & demand stats; when presented with stats contrary to
> Erbie-poo's prejudice, reply with anecdotal evidence & deny the value of all
> stats & studies altogether.
>
> It must be nice to be always right no matter what facts or logic you run into.
> How do you do it?
James A. Donald
scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb) wrote:
> That really isn't a persuasive causal statement. High growth in Thailand,
> Korea, and the so called "NICs" has been spurred by state capitalism, with
> massive state involvement in the economies.
This is shear fantasy: The only NIC that had massive state
involvement was South Korea. Hong Kong, Thailand, Singapore, etc, are
reasonably low by Western European standards, and extraordinarily low
by Asian standards. And as for South Korea -- let us compare the
levels of state involvement in North and South Korea.
And once again, let me point out that a couple of decades ago, you lot
were not proclaiming South Korea as a glowing success story of the
success of a state managed economy, but as an example of the evils of
raw unbridled uncontrolled capitalism. Indeed I still run into people
singing that song, though less of them than a few years ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com
James A. Donald
jam...@NOSPAMecheque.com says...
> > What good are these protections when power is concentrated in very few
> > hands? I notice you did not attempt to deny the fact that the Swedish
> > economy is dominated by a tiny handful of big corporations, that small
> > and medium business is insignificant in Sweden.
scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
> Most small countries focus on large businesses because of the need to export
> and specialize.
Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Thailand are pretty small, and they do not
"focus on large businesses".
They let businessmen focus on their businesses, which are generally
quite small.
The correlation is not with country size, but with state power. The
more the state intervenes in the economy, the more economic power is
concentrated in fewer hands.
> True, Swedish, German, and all European countries have more larger
> corporations than small businesses. So what? Your claim was that this meant
> bureaucrats could get you fired.
My claim that was your career could be permanently blighted because of
some capricious bureaucratic whim.
> I showed you to be lying.
You lied then, and you just lied again five lines above.
James A. Donald
> clean, modern cities, a high standard of living, a growing economy...
This reminds of the people who go to Cuba and see paradise where I saw
servility and fear.
Now Sweden is not Cuba, but they have a little bit of the same disease
that Cuba has in vastly more serious form.
In Cuba people were theoretically almost perfectly equal in material
goods, but to ensure this equality they had terrifying and extreme
inequality of power, and needless to say, the powerful, one way or
another, managed to get more stuff than the powerless and frightened.
Of course the inequality of power in Sweden is not nearly so extreme
as it was in Cuba, but it is still plain enough for anyone to see.
James A. Donald
scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
> Really? Hmmm, my friends in Germany and Sweden have computers, VCRs,
> cellular phones, top of the line appliances, stereos, a better TV system than
> our own (cable is multinational and extensive -- that's another lie James
> told, claiming it was all media owned).
Once again:
(US figures
rounded to nearest 10% because of lack of accuracy) Source US.
Bureau of census, 1992, Euromonitor, 1991)
Average Swede * Poorest fifth of Americans * owns
* *
48% * 60% * VCR
37% * 60% * Microwave
31% * 20% * Dishwasher
18% * 50% * Dryer
I did not say that "it was all media owned" whatever that may mean. I
said that all mass media were owned or directly controlled by
political parties of diverse, but not all that diverse, political
views.
If a state enterprise shows selected international national shows, so
did the Soviet Union. That is hardly a sign of liberty. The fact
that Swedes are free to buy "The Economist" means that they are more
free than Cubans were. The fact that they tend to receive a heavily
filtered account of their own nation and the world unless they make
some modest effort to remedy it, means that they are less free than
Americans and most other Europeans.
James A. Donald
scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
> James told a pack of lies driven by ideology. He apparently believes that
> the bigger the lie, the more the gullible will believe.
I cited statistics. You not only lied about Sweden, you also lied
about what I said in my posts, as anyone can easily check.
For example when I wrote that people in Sweden can have their careers
blighted arbitrarily, because all employment is in the hands of a tiny
number of giant companies with close ties to the state, you claimed
that I wrote that they can be sacked arbitrarily,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
James A. Donald
pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
> So why does the US have more wealth inequality than many other
> industrialized countries (those socialist hellholes :-)?
My claim referred to inequality of power, not inequality of wealth.
In a previous usenet argument, somebody argued that when you negotiate
with your employer, you are basically equal. Someone from Europe
ridiculed that idea. He said "Next time you apply for a job, how
about asking your employer the following questions ...."
And he issued a list of (for the most part) perfectly reasonable
questions which everyone in America asks when they go to an interview,
and demands that most people make, such as "I am looking for a salary
of X"
The implication being that when that European goes to an interview, he
would never dare ask such rude questions or make such shocking
demands. He humbly lets his potential master know he will take
whatever he is given and be humbly grateful.
Similarly let us compare US anti corporate humor ("Dilbert") with
british anti corporate humor ("Are you being served") The characters
in "Dilbert" are dramatically less subservient, though the bosses are
equally deranged.
McQ
>>This reminds of the people who go to Cuba and see paradise where I saw
>>servility and fear.
>>
>>Now Sweden is not Cuba,
>Yes, but James would rather talk about Cuba.
And Sweden is not Germany. You'd rather talk about the later,
wouldn't you?
I imagine that's because you finally did some REAL research and
found your half-truths to be exactly that.
McQ
___________________________________
Everything I have learned about life can be summed up in
three small words...it goes on. - Robert Frost
Remove one of the "i's" from "iix" and email away.
McQ
dwal...@access1.digex.net (Dennis Wallick) wrote:
>In article <5idpb0$aiv$4...@nntp2.ba.best.com>,
>James A. Donald <jam...@NOSPAMecheque.com> wrote:
>>
>>Average Swede * Poorest fifth of Americans * owns
>> * *
>>48% * 60% * VCR
>>37% * 60% * Microwave
> Maybe the average Swede doesn't waste his time in front of the
>boob-tube and prefers homemade food to the fast-nuked crap a microwave
>makes.
Which has ZIP to do with the claim about durable goods....
McQ
jwoo...@unlgrad1.unl.edu (Jeffrey N Woodford) wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Apr 1997 01:35:27 -0500 Michael Schneider (mike1@_N_O_S_P_A_M_visi.com) wrote:
>: Jesus. How many "gut" courses does one have to take in a life of
>: shirking work out in the real world to get a Ph. D. in polysci, of all
>: ridiculous, useless "sciences"?
>: It's enough to make me run screaming to the nearest local video store
>: and hurredly rent out Animal House and PCU.
>Mike's just jealous, because Scott has an advanced degree and he does
>not.
Heh...you can buy an advanced degree on the net fer chrissake.