Socialsim built the middle class in America

[Tamas]

I have argued before that social democracy can only be successful in small, homogenous countries, like Scandistan.

I've heard that from many a libertarian, but I don't why it can only work there.

You guys.... The country you live in and what you believe has not had enough socialism still is the most advanced of the world. All the countries that have had the kind of socialism you desire have failed to have less problems than evilcapitalistUSA (except maybe Scandistan), and the countries that have had more socialism than that have failed utterly.

Yet you cannot stop the "we need more socialism" mantra. Lame.

[Eddie Teach]

All the countries that have had the kind of socialism you desire

Which countries are those? Certainly not Hungary.

[Ideologue]

"Except Scandinavia."  AND CANADA.

And up until the past couple of years, Great Britain, until they decided to be even more retarded than we've been in the face of the Great Recession.

[Tamas]

All the countries that have had the kind of socialism you desire

Which countries are those? Certainly not Hungary.

western Europe. The post-soviet countries like Hungary et all are the "even more socialism" category.

[Tamas]

"Except Scandinavia."  AND CANADA.

And up until the past couple of years, Great Britain, until they decided to be even more retarded than we've been in the face of the Great Recession.

Yeah, the UK is fucked. AFAIK they have one of the most positive outlook for constant growth in the EU. If only they could have went on the route of France's Hollande, creating more social problems with serious overspending than they had to solve.

[Eddie Teach]

I just think it'd be neat if our government was paying some of those brainy folks designing new bombs to be doctors instead. 

[Ideologue]

"Except Scandinavia."  AND CANADA.

And up until the past couple of years, Great Britain, until they decided to be even more retarded than we've been in the face of the Great Recession.

Yeah, the UK is fucked. AFAIK they have one of the most positive outlook for constant growth in the EU. If only they could have went on the route of France's Hollande, creating more social problems with serious overspending than they had to solve.

France, and until the Riksbank fucked up, Scandinavia, have been doing better than the UK (and the US).  Certainly, there has been less misery.

[Tamas]

Even if you ARE right, what you are essentially saying is that France was better off until it had reserves to burn. Big deal. I could live like a king until my savings and credit card limit ran out. Would not make that the ideal long term lifestyle choice.

[PJL]

Socialism only failed in certrain countries because it was over centralised. It's that, not the socialism that's the problem. Devolution and redistribution is the answer. Even Friedman would agree.

[Tamas]

Socialism only failed in certrain countries because it was over centralised. It's that, not the socialism that's the problem. Devolution and redistribution is the answer. Even Friedman would agree.

Redistribution is an other word for robbery.

[Ideologue]

Even if you ARE right, what you are essentially saying is that France was better off until it had reserves to burn. Big deal. I could live like a king until my savings and credit card limit ran out. Would not make that the ideal long term lifestyle choice.

I'm pretty sure the recession was a failure of aggregate demand, not the result of borrowing money (mostly from ourselves) and not paying it back (mostly to ourselves).  The debt issue--in real economies, like America, the UK, and France--is not important in the short-term; its very prominence is the result of bought-and-paid-for merc economists who demand higher interest rates and dismantled tax regimes on behalf of their benefactors (well, merc economists and crazy people who think that recessions and depressions create value by teaching lessons, rather than hollowing out whole generations of humans).

Any sane economist realizes, and realized in 2008, that demand had to be restored.  Safety nets are good way of keeping demand up and re-starting the economy.

Austerity has probably not just caused misery, it's reduced growth.

[Ideologue]

Socialism only failed in certrain countries because it was over centralised. It's that, not the socialism that's the problem. Devolution and redistribution is the answer. Even Friedman would agree.

Redistribution is an other word for robbery.

Sure, but private property is an inherent right.  Why?  'Cause.

[Tamas]

Even if you ARE right, what you are essentially saying is that France was better off until it had reserves to burn. Big deal. I could live like a king until my savings and credit card limit ran out. Would not make that the ideal long term lifestyle choice.

I'm pretty sure the recession was a failure of aggregate demand, not the result of borrowing money (mostly from ourselves) and not paying it back (mostly to ourselves).  The debt issue--in real economies, like America, the UK, and France--is not important in the short-term; its very prominence is the result of bought-and-paid-for merc economists who demand higher interest rates and dismantled tax regimes on behalf of their benefactors (well, merc economists and crazy people who think that recessions and depressions create value by teaching lessons, rather than hollowing out whole generations of humans).

Any sane economist realizes, and realized in 2008, that demand had to be restored.  Safety nets are good way of keeping demand up and re-starting the economy.

Austerity has probably not just caused misery, it's reduced growth.

As I said, France has been going with what you advocate. Case closed.

[Tamas]

Socialism only failed in certrain countries because it was over centralised. It's that, not the socialism that's the problem. Devolution and redistribution is the answer. Even Friedman would agree.

Redistribution is an other word for robbery.

Sure, but private property is an inherent right.  Why?  'Cause.

Why? Because that is what makes it worthwile for humans to invest energy into bettering the lot of themselves and by turn others. Because at the end of the day, everything ends up as somebody's de facto property. The only difference is that in some unfortunate cultures these owners are called kings, sultans, presidents, or premieres.
And the degree your livelihood and existence depends on the goodwill and handouts of others  (private or state), is also the degree your freedom is restricted.

[Syt]