WWII, Nazis Communists and other stuff

[BabaYaga 15300]

45 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah, the "ridiculous amount of natural resources" thing is puzzling -- Sweden ain't Norway.  They don't have Statoil (which, by the way, is STATE-OWNED, and has fed a massive sovereign wealth fund to benefit ALL of the citizens of Norway).  They pretty much don't have ANY oil.  Sure, they have some resources - mining, timber, etc.  But they aren't a huge resource economy.  So, that's another miss.

Not a huge resource economy?  Hmmm....arsenic, copper, gold, iron ore, lead, silver, uranium, zinc, tungsten, and feldspar.  Mining of metal ores contributes largely to the GDP of Sweden as the country is among the largest iron and steel producers in the world

Yes.  You are fucking retarded...

[Dahobbs 17597]

11 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Because you can cite and directly attribute proven free market ideas that were used, and have been used by other nations and states as examples.  This isn't hard.  The other "parts" predate these changes.  Sweden succeeded in spite of these, not because of them.  They didn't cut their debt to GDP because of child care.  They cut it through austerity measures, embracing free-market ideas, reduced taxes, and reduced spending.  The rise in revenue allowed these ancillary welfare measure to be maintained. 

I see, so you're relying on the very scientific "because I say so" method. Interesting. Sweden embraced free market ideas other than the things you say aren't free market ideas (including double the tax rate of the United States). And all of those non-free market ideas would have been economic killers for them, but Sweden is somehow unique so it worked out fine. So, list of unique countries at this point includes pretty much all of Europe, South Korea, Japan, Canada, and a pretty much who's who of successful economies, am I right on that? All of those countries are just lucky that their terrible policies are outweighed by the good "capitalist" policies they have also enacted?

I mean, honestly, if you're looking to identify the two countries that most resemble your version of capitalism, the answers are the US and China. Every other successful country is markedly different. Maybe there is more than one way to skin a cat (why is that a saying?). And maybe, just maybe, some of those other other countries had good ideas that have contributed to their success. 

Edited August 11, 2020 by Dahobbs

[Brisketexan 105154]

4 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

They didn't cut their debt to GDP because of child care.  They cut it through austerity measures, embracing free-market ideas, reduced taxes, and reduced spending. 

Incorrect.  They did it through BOTH.  Market-based reforms surely had a role.  And child care -- which allows the work force freedom to participate in the market and contribute to wealth and growth - also helped.  As does health care that keeps the work force healthy.  As does education which helps create a skilled work force.  All of those things contribute to increased GDP as well.  Yet you want to look at one category only, to the exclusion of the others, when we have example after example of those sort of things actually contributing to GDP.

I think it's pretty common-sense to conclude that our GDP would improve if our lower and middle class had access to quality, paid or very low cost education (including college), child care so they could work/work without spending 2/3 of what they make on childcare, and health care to ensure that their kids don't miss school and they don't miss work.  If you simply look at those sort of things as a "nation investing in its citizens," the investment pays off.  It is actually -- follow me here -- PRO capitalism.

[wildcat09 29355]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yet those things REMAIN a huge part of the overall package.  And you want to discount them completely.  I truly find that a fascinating take.  "If you completely discount all of the measures that Sweden has in place to foster the interest of all the people, funded by a 60%+ tax rate and a 25% consumption tax, it's PURE ANARCHO CAPITALISM, BABY!"  And if you discount the law of gravity, we would all float into space.  Pretty big "if" there.

The collective ethos is definitely a real thing.  We don't have it.  Do you think that's because we have black people and Catholics, or because our culture has been utterly manipulated by the people in power to pit us against each other, and consistently degrade any notion of the common good?  

Germans and French are different, as are the Italians and the Dutch.....yet every one of those societies has a greater ethos in favor of the common good than we have.  And it shows.

No no no, the only intellectually rigorous and honest analysis is the one that only analyzes a sliver of the whole picture so that it confirms all of his priors. Because reasons.

[BabaYaga 15300]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Incorrect.  They did it through BOTH.  Market-based reforms surely had a role.  And child care -- which allows the work force freedom to participate in the market and contribute to wealth and growth - also helped.  As does health care that keeps the work force healthy.  As does education which helps create a skilled work force.  All of those things contribute to increased GDP as well.  Yet you want to look at one category only, to the exclusion of the others, when we have example after example of those sort of things actually contributing to GDP.

I think it's pretty common-sense to conclude that our GDP would improve if our lower and middle class had access to quality, paid or very low cost education (including college), child care so they could work/work without spending 2/3 of what they make on childcare, and health care to ensure that their kids don't miss school and they don't miss work.  If you simply look at those sort of things as a "nation investing in its citizens," the investment pays off.  It is actually -- follow me here -- PRO capitalism.

Yet they had one constant.  As you mention.  Then they introduced a variable.  A number of variables in fact as I already mentioned that brought back their stagnant economy into what it is today.  They succeeded in spite of these welfare items, not because of them.  As mentioned, the first cuts made were to HC.  

[Brisketexan 105154]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Not a huge resource economy?  Hmmm....arsenic, copper, gold, iron ore, lead, silver, uranium, zinc, tungsten, and feldspar.  Mining of metal ores contributes largely to the GDP of Sweden as the country is among the largest iron and steel producers in the world

Yes.  You are fucking retarded...

Jesus.  H. Christ.  Could you stop owning yourself for, say, one single second?

Quote

Sweden: Income from natural resources, percent of GDP

: For that indicator, we provide data for Sweden from 1970 to 2017. The average value for Sweden during that period was 0.57 percent with a minimum of 0.23 percent in 1999 and a maximum of 1.14 percent in 1974. The latest value from 2017 is 0.54 percent. For comparison, the world average in 2017 based on 187 countries is 6.56 percent.

In terms of percentage of its economy based on resources, where does Sweden rank, out of 187 countries measured?

133.

Please, continue.  But perhaps slow down.  You're only embarrassing yourself by doing a quick google search of a single term "does Sweden have natural resources?" and not bothering to examine the actual question of whether Sweden is a resource-based economy.  It's not.  Like, not even close.

[Brisketexan 105154]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

They succeeded in spite of these welfare items, not because of them.  As mentioned, the first cuts made were to HC.  

Yet they still have a robust single-payer HC system.

You have a thesis statement that Sweden is successful today IN SPITE of all of the systems we've been discussing.  Yet your analysis (what little of it there is) doesn't even include an "in spite of" element.  It includes a "retained, with some of them reduced in scope and cost" element.  Which matches up PERFECTLY with my thesis, which is an economy that properly balances free-market activity with mechanisms to provide for common and mutual benefit does best.  And, confession: my thesis isn't a radical one.  I'm actually stealing it from history, leaning on cheeky ideas like "the tragedy of the commons" and such.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

Yet they had one constant.  As you mention.  Then they introduced a variable.  A number of variables in fact as I already mentioned that brought back their stagnant economy into what it is today.  They succeeded in spite of these welfare items, not because of them.  As mentioned, the first cuts made were to HC.  

And that is the issue. They would not have the quality programs that have today were it not for the swerve back to a more capital friendly economic model. The success of those programsadd their present standard of living is directly attributable to the economic decisions they made, not the other way around.  Those programs are the end result of the economy being given a more free reign.  

If you can afford those programs great,  but having them doesn't in any way make for a more successful future, if the cost of those programs stagnates your economy.

This isn't which came first, chicken or egg talk.

[Brisketexan 105154]

Just now, BurntEyes said:

Hmm Brisket, sounds almost as if you're accusing him of being racist, but surely you aren't doing that right?

Does racial homogeneity provide prosperity?  Because that's the embedded thesis there.  Just asking questions.

[BabaYaga 15300]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

whether Sweden is a resource-based economy

Where the fuck did I say they were a resource based economy.  I stated they have a significant number of resources.  And they do.  But please, carry on about lumber and child care.  

[BabaYaga 15300]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Does racial homogeneity provide prosperity?  Because that's the embedded thesis there.  Just asking questions.

Cute.  Again, Brisket and his preconceived notions clouding his judgement.  Nah, that never fucking happens.  I even clarified it in the context of their collective decision making.  But sure.  racism....

[Dahobbs 17597]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

And that is the issue. They would not have the quality programs that have today were it not for the swerve back to a more capital friendly economic model. The success of those programsadd their present standard of living is directly attributable to the economic decisions they made, not the other way around.  Those programs are the end result of the economy being given a more free reign.  

If you can afford those programs great,  but having them doesn't in any way make for a more successful future, if the cost of those programs stagnates your economy.

This isn't which came first, chicken or egg talk.

Having healthcare and education doesn't in any way make for a more successful future? Seriously? Is that your argument? 

[Brisketexan 105154]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

but having them doesn't in any way make for a more successful future, if the cost of those programs stagnates your economy.

Agreed on the "if."  But likewise, we can see in real-world observation that NOT having programs like that leads to a skewed economic model that ends up eating itself.  So, having (retaining) those sort of things DOES make for a more successful future, because that's literally the choice that Sweden made: "let's dial back on -- but not eliminate -- these important measures, while also implementing market-based reforms."

Balance.  It's all about balance.  Economically, in total, we would be better off as a nation if we devoted more effort and dollars to education, true universal health care, etc.

We also spend a shitload more of our GDP on bombs and shit than Sweden does.....there MAY be some connection there, too.

[Dahobbs 17597]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

Cute.  Again, Brisket and his preconceived notions clouding his judgement.  Nah, that never fucking happens.  I even clarified it in the context of their collective decision making.  But sure.  racism....

Dude, you're just one big preconceived notion. You've constructed circular arguments within circular arguments. 

[BabaYaga 15300]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The success of those programsadd their present standard of living is directly attributable to the economic decisions they made, not the other way around.  Those programs are the end result of the economy being given a more free reign.  

It's the same stupid argument the left regurgitates post-WWII and the unbridled success being attributed to unions and collective bargaining and not the unbridled engine of capitalism, expansion, oh, and the rest of the manufacturing world having been bombed into ashes.  

[BabaYaga 15300]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Dude, you're just one big preconceived notion. You've constructed circular arguments within circular arguments. 

What are those then?  Please clarify?  

[Brisketexan 105154]

7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Where the fuck did I say they were a resource based economy.  I stated they have a significant number of resources.  And they do.  But please, carry on about lumber and child care.  

Quote

For starters, lets take a land mass the size of a few large states, sitting atop a ridiculous amount of natural resources with a population of only a few million, is ethnically and religiously homogeneous with a strong Lutheran work ethic combined with a powerful sense of probity and experiences almost no mass immigration of any kind. 

I mean, unless your specific mention of "a ridiculous amount of natural resources" was just superfluous.

Maybe it was.  What other elements of Sweden's success that you pointed to are superfluous?  Low population?  Ethnic and religious homegeneity?  No mass immigration?  Help us sort these things.  Maybe rank them in order or something.  Or, just continue being full of shit.  Either way, cool, cool.

[Brisketexan 105154]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

It's the same stupid argument the left regurgitates post-WWII and the unbridled success being attributed to unions and collective bargaining and not the unbridled engine of capitalism, expansion, oh, and the rest of the manufacturing world having been bombed into ashes.  

Straw man.

You continue to exist in a world where one must exist to the absolute exclusion of the other.  We're arguing against that.  Interestingly, we would also argue against it in SUPPORT of capitalism -- a purely collectivist economy would be shit, we all seem to agree.  Collectivism to the exclusion of capitalist incentives and activities would reach a shitty end.  We're just taking the not-terribly radical approach that pure growth-focused capitalism, without any material notion of or service to the common good, ALSO reaches a shitty end.

And finally, as to your worship at the altar of  "unbridled capitalism," see the charts showing the payoff in terms of productivity benefiting actual people.  Something seemed to work pretty well to do both -- provide growth, and provide benefit to the nation as a whole -- until the mid 70s or so.  And then, the lines diverge like a motherfucker.

[Brisketexan 105154]

5 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

The original poster already responded to your question.

But what I can tell you is this country can't fucking even agree on whether or not we should wear masks and I'm getting hammered for try to provide a collaborative approach to solving police issues in this very thread by people who I largely respect and like as people and posters that agree something needs to be done to foster change.

So, agreement on economic approach, regardless of causality seems unlikely.

I agree.

Thus, my long-tenured position on The Ledge.  Perhaps you'd care to join me there?  Because my hope for this country ever getting its shit together and deciding to follow a single path on ANYTHING because it's good for everyone remains pegged at zero.  We have chosen to make this country a zero-sum game -- for one to prosper, another must lose.  And we're living out that approach and seeing the results.

Scotch is nice on the ledge.  But I ain't sharing the good stuff.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Does racial homogeneity provide prosperity?  Because that's the embedded thesis there.  Just asking questions.

No that is not the thesis.  The concept of similar minded folks bound together thru homogeny is not racist (certainly can be construed as racial because of each groups unique traits), and is grounded in human nature.   Englishmen in Kent England are going to have a core of generally similar beliefs, and ethics, just as ethnic Mexicans living in Mexico City, or Maasei in Kenya will within their culture.  Getting like minded folks to choose a way to govern is an easier proposition.  Getting those same folks to admit they were wrong, and correct the course so successfully also points to the importance/ success of culturally, homogenous decision making.  That's all it's meant to illustrate . People trying to say America can operate like Sweden want to leave out that factor.  I don't believe you can.  

We're 330,000,000 citizens of multiple, and varied ethnic, regional (geographic), and religious groups. Getting a consensus among so many diverse groups is tougher to do than in a smaller, homogeneous country. That's the thesis, not some racist, boogeyman, conspiracy. 

[Brisketexan 105154]

4 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I don't drink, and I'd rather go Hobbit than stand on a ledge, unless I'm on snow skiis or strapped to a bungee.

But thanks for the offer. 

Maybe come to my Hobbit house in TN, try some TN weed along with some spicy Mango and your perspective will align with mine. 

It's lonely on The Ledge but it's warm and comfortable in The Hole.

I've got a better view of the apocalypse from here.  It's pretty action-packed.  We've even got a volcano going off now.

And it ain't very mexican of me, but I prefer my mango plain, without the chili powder.  I like that on my elotes, though.

[CORN 89]

41 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Not a huge resource economy?  Hmmm....arsenic, copper, gold, iron ore, lead, silver, uranium, zinc, tungsten, and feldspar.  Mining of metal ores contributes largely to the GDP of Sweden as the country is among the largest iron and steel producers in the world

Yes.  You are fucking retarded...

Do you know what Sweden doesn't produce in bulk? 

Corn!

Last year, Sweden ranked 34th in the world for exports of sweet corn. That's only around $700,000 in exports!

 

[Brisketexan 105154]

9 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

No that is not the thesis.  The concept of similar minded folks bound together thru homogeny is not racist (certainly can be construed as racial because of each groups unique traits), and is grounded in human nature.   Englishmen in Kent England are going to have a core of generally similar beliefs, and ethics, just as ethnic Mexicans living in Mexico City, or Maasei in Kenya will within their culture.  Getting like minded folks to choose a way to govern is an easier proposition.  Getting those same folks to admit they were wrong, and correct the course so successfully also points to the importance/ success of culturally, homogenous decision making.  That's all it's meant to illustrate . People trying to say America can operate like Sweden want to leave out that factor.  I don't believe you can.  

We're 330,000,000 citizens of multiple, and varied ethnic, regional (geographic), and religious groups. Getting a consensus among so many diverse groups is tougher to do than in a smaller, homogeneous country. That's the thesis, not some racist, boogeyman, conspiracy. 

But we've chosen a way to govern.  And it's not broken down by racial, cultural, religious, or ethnic grouping.  The core breakdown is between the richest and powerful, and everyone else.  That's it.  That's the breakdown.  Now, those in power DO use those groupings to divide us and spend the bulk of our time fighting each other instead of working in our actual shared interest.

Again, the most brilliant piece of political and cultural commentary in the past several years is this "Black Jeopardy" skit:

 

Doug and Shanice are politically and culturally aligned on 95% of the issues.  Yet in our country, they are aligned with completely opposed political movements.  And it's not because Doug is white and Shanice is black.  It's because a group with a vested interest in keeping Doug and Shanice divided is very, very good at doing so.

Doug and Shanice would both benefit greatly from a Sweden-type system.

 

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Agreed on the "if."  But likewise, we can see in real-world observation that NOT having programs like that leads to a skewed economic model that ends up eating itself.  So, having (retaining) those sort of things DOES make for a more successful future, because that's literally the choice that Sweden made: "let's dial back on -- but not eliminate -- these important measures, while also implementing market-based reforms."

Balance.  It's all about balance.  Economically, in total, we would be better off as a nation if we devoted more effort and dollars to education, true universal health care, etc.

We also spend a shitload more of our GDP on bombs and shit than Sweden does.....there MAY be some connection there, too.

We agree again.  So which of those caused the 180 degree return to a more successful economy ?  Having those programs or having the funds/economic productivity to be able to provide those programs ?

We do have more bombs, cause we're the world police (for better or worse), we're the Roman Empire of the 20th and 21st c. (again, for better and for worse).  Without the US as a (THE) world power do you think the world would be more or less stable ?  Being the world power often creates economic opportunities other countries that aren't super powers don't have in my opinion.

[Brisketexan 105154]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

 Being the world power often creates economic opportunities other countries that aren't super powers don't have in my opinion.

Maybe it does.  But like all investors, I look at yields.  In the last 40 years, our yields for the American people as a whole have turned shitty.

It's akin to a company having skyrocketing productivity ("we're selling 254% of the product that we were before!").....and the investors seeing their share value and dividends stay stagnant while the CEO saw his pay go from $3 million to $30 million.  As shareholders, that would be a shitty outcome.

We are all shareholders in USA Inc.  Most of us are getting a shitty return on our incredibly increased productivity since 1975 or so.  Since you are so focused on pivotal moments in changed economic performance -- say, Sweden's improvements once they introduces market-based reforms -- you might want to track our shitty performance pivot after 1975.  It's a big problem.

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Maybe it does.  But like all investors, I look at yields.  In the last 40 years, our yields for the American people as a whole have turned shitty.

It's akin to a company having skyrocketing productivity ("we're selling 254% of the product that we were before!").....and the investors seeing their share value and dividends stay stagnant while the CEO saw his pay go from $3 million to $30 million.  As shareholders, that would be a shitty outcome.

We are all shareholders in USA Inc.  Most of us are getting a shitty return on our incredibly increased productivity since 1975 or so.  Since you are so focused on pivotal moments in changed economic performance -- say, Sweden's improvements once they introduces market-based reforms -- you might want to track our shitty performance pivot after 1975.  It's a big problem.

 

I'm not saying wage stagnation isn't going on, or that the top %ers aren't holding most of the wealth.  They do, and the dollars need to be better dispersed, which in turn would fuel more consumer spending.

Edited August 11, 2020 by Onboard 2.0

[Brisketexan 105154]

6 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm not saying wage stagnation isn't going on, or that the top %ers aren't holding most of the wealth.  It does, and the dollars need to be better dispersed, which turn would fuel more consumer spending.

Alright, we're getting somewhere.

What if those dollars weren't all dispersed immediately to just burn through the economy as consumer spending TODAY,  but instead were invested into mechanisms that would yield both increased productivity and increased consumer spending in the long term?  If we had a better-educated, healthier workforce, that was more mobile (not tied to a job because of health insurance).  If we had a work force that had safe and reliable child care, so they could take any job they were qualified for.  Those people would increase our productivity.  And they would have more income to spend on consumer items.  And they would be happier, healthier, and better citizens in general.

Are our citizens and their income an annual harvest to be consumed, or are they long-term plantings (trees) that can produce increasing yields for a long period of time?  I suspect that you agree that we're a long-term thing.  So, once we agree on that, we should be able to refashion our political and economic systems to provide that outcome.  You know, a pivot towards a better path -- like Sweden did.

Edited August 11, 2020 by Brisketexan

[bad_teammate 13211]

The beatings will continue until ethnic cohesion improves.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Alright, we're getting somewhere.

What if those dollars weren't all dispersed immediately to just burn through the economy as consumer spending TODAY,  but instead were invested into mechanisms that would yield both increased productivity and increased consumer spending in the long term?  If we had a better-educated, healthier workforce, that was more mobile (not tied to a job because of health insurance).  If we had a work force that had safe and reliable child care, so they could take any job they were qualified for.  Those people would increase our productivity.  And they would have more income to spend on consumer items.  And they would be happier, healthier, and better citizens in general.

Are our citizens and their income an annual harvest to be consumed, or are they long-term plantings (trees) that can produce increasing yields for a long period of time?  I suspect that you agree that we're a long-term thing.  So, once we agree on that, we should be able to refashion our political and economic systems to provide that outcome.  You know, a pivot towards a better path -- like Sweden did.

I have no issue with any of that. However if we're just going to throw dollars at the current failing institutions then I'm not onboard.  If the end result is we get more women looking Swedish I'm in.  

The size of our systems makes efficiency terrible, un responsive so more local level spending appeals to me more.

[Brisketexan 105154]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I have no issue with any of that. However if we're just going to throw dollars at the current failing institutions then I'm not onboard.  If the end result is we get more women looking Swedish I'm in.  

The size of our systems makes efficiency terrible, un responsive so more local level spending appeals to me more.

I don't disagree with the bolded.  Having some of this happen on the state level certainly makes some sense (UT and other state universities should get greater public support -- and it goes without saying that how we structure and deliver higher education needs re-examination as well -- we can learn a lot from other countries).  And another thing that we saw out of the COVID response also makes sense -- states grouping together in "pods" for efficiency and shared outcomes.  Maybe the NE states group together, the mountain states do as well, etc.  

Some things do need to be national (at least in large part), to ensure true mobility of a workforce -- healthcare, childcare, etc.  Educated worker X should be able to move from Illinois to South Carolina without losing any of his/her healthcare benefits, knowing that childcare is there and is paid for, etc.  That's economically good for the entire system.

Oh, and some of our institutions are failing because we (the folks with an interest in the outcomes, that is) have designed and funded them to fail.  That doesn't mean that they don't need to be revisited and revised, but it also means we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

There are lots of good discussions and proposals that are already out there on a lot of these things, including how they are both compatible with and actually BENEFIT a capitalist system -- we don't even need to reinvent the wheel.  We just need to abandon our dogma.  If you lean left, everything that "increases profitability" isn't bad.  And if you lean right, everything that "improves the common good" isn't bad. In fact, done right....increased profitability improves the common good.  And improving the common good can increase GDP.

[BabaYaga 15300]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

You continue to exist in a world where one must exist to the absolute exclusion of the other. 

Strawman2.0  Never said that.  You continue to misrepresent and push back on a point never made.  I stated there were a clear set of introduced free-market

steps taken by the nation that facilitated growth and expansion.  Don't believe me?  How about the Oxford Academic.

What drove the Swedish turnaround

 

Quote

This paper will argue that the Swedish experience in the 1970s and 1980s is an illustrative example of how a dysfunctional system of microeconomic regulations can lead to a severe macroeconomic crisis. However, we will also show how microeconomic reforms can play an important role in turning the trajectory of the economy towards growth and prosperity.

Nowhere mentioned are child care and vacation time.  As I already posted, deregulation, free trade, austerity measures.  The elimination of the MW.  Spending cuts.  Tax cuts and code simplification.

Or maybe McKinsey.  There are dozens and dozens more.

But...but...child care and vacation time.....

Quote

Deregulation and increased competition. The 1980s and 1990s were periods of deregulation and lowering of trade barriers, partly as a result of Sweden’s accession to the EU. This resulted in increased competition and significant productivity gains, notably in the retail, telecom and banking industries. In 2010, the OECD stated that this round of deregulation may have added as much as 0.4 percentage points to the annual productivity growth over the period 1994-2003 (in the business sector as a whole)5 . As other countries also deregulated during the same time period, the current Swedish economy is only marginally less regulated than the OECD average (according to OECD rankings).

 

[Brisketexan 105154]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

Strawman2.0  Never said that.  You continue to misrepresent and push back on a point never made.  I stated there were a clear set of introduced free-market

steps taken by the nation that facilitated growth and expansion.  Don't believe me?  How about the Oxford Academic.

What drove the Swedish turnaround

 

Nowhere mentioned are child care and vacation time.  As I already posted, deregulation, free trade, austerity measures.  The elimination of the MW.  Spending cuts.  Tax cuts and code simplification.

Or maybe McKinsey.  There are dozens and dozens more.

But...but...child care and vacation time.....

 

Correct.  All of those pieces analyze the changed factors.  Not one of them analyzed 1) the changed factors with 2) the removal of publicly funded healthcare, education, etc.  INSTEAD, they analyzed 1) the changed factors with 2) streamlined, but still very robust, publicly funded healthcare, education, etc.

What you don't seem to understand is that you are repeatedly making an EXCELLENT case for a balanced system.  System 1 (heavy on social welfare, restrictive on market-based items) was out-of-balance.  System 2 (maintaining robust but streamlined social welfare, adding in market-based changes) is balanced, and produces excellent results.  Those data points do NOT support a case of "therefore, going full-on free market, and effectively eliminating social welfare systems, means society will be even BETTER OFF!"

Course corrections are important.  Oversteers are stupid.  If you are drifting onto the left shoulder and losing control, the data point of "I steered more to the right, and ended up back in my lane making good time" does not support a next step of "yank the wheel hard to the right, and we'll drive even better!"

[BabaYaga 15300]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Some things do need to be national (at least in large part), to ensure true mobility of a workforce -- healthcare, childcare, etc.  Educated worker X should be able to move from Illinois to South Carolina without losing any of his/her healthcare benefits, knowing that childcare is there and is paid for, etc.  That's economically good for the entire system.

Nobody is disagreeing with this.  The disagreement is the method.  A top-down, one size fits all, centralized model or a free market model that facilitates competition.  Take education.  Sweden engendered a MASSIVE expansion via vouchers allowing parents the choice of the best options for their families.  

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, and some of our institutions are failing because we (the folks with an interest in the outcomes, that is) have designed and funded them to fail.  That doesn't mean that they don't need to be revisited and revised, but it also means we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And some NEED to fail.  This antagonistic idea against market destruction hurts many more than it helps.  Failure is a signal.  GM should have been allowed to enter BK as Saab did.  Same with so many other companies bailed out.  

[Brisketexan 105154]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

A top-down, one size fits all, centralized model or a free market model that facilitates competition.  Take education.  Sweden engendered a MASSIVE expansion via vouchers allowing parents the choice of the best options for their families.   

Yes and no, because oversimplified.  Choice makes sense when there's already a foundation of good choices -- build a robust system, and educational choice makes sense.  But the end goal remained one of having good educational opportunities available for all.  If the system offers choice, but doesn't provide good opportunities for all, then it fails.  And even I'm oversimplifying that -- read up on Sweden's system through time, and it makes a lot more sense.

Quote

And some NEED to fail.  This antagonistic idea against market destruction hurts many more than it helps.  Failure is a signal.  GM should have been allowed to enter BK as Saab did.  Same with so many other companies bailed out.  

Well, if we're talking private sector, now you're on board with the criticism a lot of us have with the US -- stop defending our system as a "capitalist' system, because it ain't.  You and I?  We are free to fail -- THE FREE MARKET, baby!  But those enterprises that have bought favor with the government and tailored protections?  Not capitalist at all.

As for public enterprises, some may need to fail.  But it hurts all of us if, say, the school system in Houston "fails."  Because there are thousands of kids whose outcomes depend on a functioning system.  We can't afford for HISD to fail.  We have to make it succeed.  So, for some things, failure indeed is not an option.

[BabaYaga 15300]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

All of those pieces analyze the changed factors.

Which is the point I have posted again and again.  What changed?  What new variables were introduced. What new regulations were introduced.  Removed?  Changed?  That's why you have fiscal and monetary policies, as these policies can and do change over time.  Yielding positive and negative results. 

They didn't analyze the removal of the entire HC system because that would be fantastically fucking stupid and a complete waste of time.  

The point?  These are not new changes.  We have seen them here.  At the state and national levels.  Engender a favorable economic and business-friendly landscape to spur growth.  Every country has their own baseline.  If you read the Oxford study, you would see this very point.  As an example of steps developed & developing countries can take to foster their own growth.  

[Brisketexan 105154]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Which is the point I have posted again and again.  What changed?  What new variables were introduced. What new regulations were introduced.  Removed?  Changed?  That's why you have fiscal and monetary policies, as these policies can and do change over time.  Yielding positive and negative results. 

They didn't analyze the removal of the entire HC system because that would be fantastically fucking stupid and a complete waste of time.  

The point?  These are not new changes.  We have seen them here.  At the state and national levels.  Engender a favorable economic and business-friendly landscape to spur growth.  Every country has their own baseline.  If you read the Oxford study, you would see this very point.  As an example of steps developed & developing countries can take to foster their own growth.  

.....with a baseline assumption of some pretty robust broadly beneficial measures that we do not have in place.  That remains incredibly important and relevant.

The data supports course correction, not oversteer.  Our problem in the US isn't that we aren't "capitalist" enough - it's that we don't have sufficient mechanisms in place to stabilize the system and provide balance (rule of law, protection of and service to the common good).

For a good example of "oversteer" on an American system, see Kansas.  

Unfettered free market systems (oversteer) also turn into shitshows, because the rule of law inevitably succumbs to "market forces" (corruption).  Service of the singular ideal of "growth" at the expense of all else isn't just crappy, it's actually counter-productive in the long term.

[BabaYaga 15300]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

For a good example of "oversteer" on an American system, see Kansas.  

Horrible example.  They cut taxes without cutting spending.  For an example of this done properly....See Sweden.

[Brisketexan 105154]

7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Horrible example.  They cut taxes without cutting spending.  For an example of this done properly....See Sweden.

Yet they still have much higher taxes than we do, and much greater provision of key services.  So, for great capitalist success without such basic functioning systems providing for a great standard of living by the bulk of the people.....see nowhere.

[BabaYaga 15300]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Yet they still have much higher taxes than we do, and much greater provision of key services.  So, for great capitalist success without such basic functioning systems providing for a great standard of living by the bulk of the people.....see nowhere.

Fix your goddamn sarcasm meter 

[Dahobbs 17597]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I have no issue with any of that. However if we're just going to throw dollars at the current failing institutions then I'm not onboard.  If the end result is we get more women looking Swedish I'm in.  

The size of our systems makes efficiency terrible, un responsive so more local level spending appeals to me more.

I like this discussion with the give and take. It almost feels like progress! Seriously, I agree that sometimes you have to cut your losses and start over. And I absolutely agree that, in many cases, allocating resources locally is more efficient as you can end up with market distortions with nationwide policies. But I don't think you can have a bright line rule; it requires a more case-by-case determination to see which is better/more efficient. 

P.S. Does not throwing more dollars at failing institutions also apply to failing police departments? (sorry, had to do it).

Edited August 11, 2020 by Dahobbs

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

29 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I like this discussion with the give and take. It almost feels like progress! Seriously, I agree that sometimes you have to cut your losses and start over. And I absolutely agree that, in many cases, allocating resources locally is more efficient as you can end up with market distortions with nationwide policies. But I don't think you can have a bright line rule; it requires a more case-by-case determination to see which is better/more efficient. 

P.S. Does not throwing more dollars at failing institutions also apply to failing police departments? (sorry, had to do it).

Every  institution should be in play.  This country makes itself over every few generations. If we forget how we got here,

(thru capitalism) and abandon that for heavy socialism we'll feel the same effects Sweden did and on a much larger run away scale.  There are many folks who want just that.

[Armybrat 40850]

Bread and circuses aren’t enough for America’s have nots.

[Armybrat 40850]

34 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I like this discussion with the give and take. It almost feels like progress! Seriously, I agree that sometimes you have to cut your losses and start over. And I absolutely agree that, in many cases, allocating resources locally is more efficient as you can end up with market distortions with nationwide policies. But I don't think you can have a bright line rule; it requires a more case-by-case determination to see which is better/more efficient. 

P.S. Does not throwing more dollars at failing institutions also apply to failing police departments? (sorry, had to do it).

Many cop shops sorely need restructuring, that is for sure.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Armybrat said:

Bread and circuses aren’t enough for America’s have nots.

And big screen TV's and free cell phones, and pre loaded credit cards.....  Shoot a feller could have a pretty good time in Vegas with all that stuff

[Brisketexan 105154]

5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Every  institution should be in play.  This country makes itself over every few generations. If we forget how we got here,

(thru capitalism) and abandon that for heavy socialism we'll feel the same effects Sweden did and on a much larger run away scale.  There are many folks who want just that.

I agree that if we overcorrect, we will not be better for it.

But we are on the shoulder of the road now, shimmying in the gravel.  And we have been here before - the slave trade was super-capitalism, zero humanity.  The robber baron era was similar.  And here we are again.

One of our detours from balance took a war to correct (and we never fully corrected that issue, actually).  Another of our detours was actually corrected by public and social action and response, and reform (end of the robber baron era).  I'd prefer we follow that path this time.

And as for the people who want "heavy socialism," I'd suggest that a reason they are lobbying for what you and I might call an overcorrection is that they are increasingly frustrated by our intentional drift further and further on to the shoulder.  If we want to ensure a vital and robust relatively capitalist economy, it is in our interest to take steps to make sure that it works (or at least has a really good chance at working) for everyone.  And as a bonus, that kind of economy actually creates more stability and peace, and sees steady GDP growth.

It's good for our economy to have a healthy, educated, mobile population that can contribute to the economy and our growth.

It's good for our society to not see our neighbors bankrupted by medical debt, working multiple jobs to get by, only able to afford a home in a crappy area with crappy schools, leading to a school-to-prison pipeline, despair, frustration, anger, and eventually, violence.  

We can win across the board.  We just have to work for it.

[Brisketexan 105154]

8 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

And big screen TV's and free cell phones, and pre loaded credit cards.....  Shoot a feller could have a pretty good time in Vegas with all that stuff

Those aren't what people want and need -- they are actually a poor substitute for what we need.  It's akin to pointing at a bucket of candy and saying "what, you have plenty of food!"  I mean, we enjoy it (love me some peanut M&Ms), and they give us momentary happiness....but what we really want and need is decent, regular square meals.  

Indeed, those sort of cheap consumer goods are bread and circus stuff, heavy on the circus, light on the bread.  

Sweden isn't happy because they have cell phones and TVs.  They are happy because they have safety and security that comes with balanced prosperity.  They can eat some pickled herring with their friends on vacation.  They can enjoy a fire at a cabin on a winter vacation.  They can get a decent education so they can get a decent job so they can have their herring and their fire.  These are good things.  We too should have such things.  I mean, I know not that many Americans dig on herring, but it's actually pretty good.

[bad_teammate 13211]

Childhood poverty is the root of most other evils in our society. Eliminate childhood poverty and we eliminate so many other problems at the exact same time.

[washparkhorn 9939]

On 8/10/2020 at 6:33 PM, Judge Roybeanbag said:

On 8/11/2020 at 1:29 PM, Brisketexan said:

They can get a decent education so they can get a decent job so they can have their herring and their fire.  These are good things.  We too should have such things

Amen.

A lot of people took shitty jobs so the future would be better. It's the future. 

 

[bad_teammate 13211]

@Anastasis

Here you go.

What is "the dead end of Bolshevism"?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

@Anastasis

Here you go.

What is "the dead end of Bolshevism"?

Bolshevism itself. How do you not get that ? Show me a single Bolshevist state that is succeeding economically, socially, etc.