Sweden Opts for Shift

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Anyways, back to QoL index, would you agree there are determinates other than degree of wealth redistribution? [/quote]

Of course. GDP does.

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Clearly, we far out ranked numerous countries–France, for instance–who redistribute wealth to a far greater degree. [/quote]

… but have lower GDP.

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Ireland, number 1, isn’t exactly a social democrat’s wet dream. In fact, compare Ireland to the US. In areas such as health and gender equality it scored lower than the US. Political freedom?–equal. Community life?–equal. The main difference between the two countries: family life, political stability, and job security. How do you explain that?[/quote]

You don’t think job security and family life are some of the fundamental parts of social democracy, quite possible THE most fundamental parts? You don’t think Ireland’s government is social democratic at its core, especially when contrasted to the US?

Well, they are.

Having said that, Ireland is sacrificing some social principles than eventually WILL come to bite them, in the form of inflation, so I have the sneaky feeling that their position in the first place may be in jeopardy.

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Furthermore, the UN’s quality of life index (generally deemed a better measure) for the same year, ranked the US above France, Denmark, Finland, Austria, Italy, Germany…certainly our lack of wealth redistribution doesn’t explain things…[/quote]

Our GDP is outrageously high, and it has been so since FDR. Now, the reason for that is one of those areas of discussion that also ends almost invariably badly, because the GDP is dependent on so many factors that you can anybody can take credit for our GDP, from the far left to the far right…

Heck, we can’t even agree for long on the best way to measure it – much less agree on why it is what it is…

I have my theory, of course, but you’re not going to like it… :slight_smile:

42

[quote]hspder wrote:
The Mage wrote:
If you look at the score for America, it says that last year we were #2.

No it doesn’t. You misread it. Or, rather, you read what you wanted to read.

What it says is that we are #2 in GDP per capita, and that the delta between our rank in QoL and GDP per capita rank is -11. We never were #2 in Quality of Life, but yes, we are #2 in GDP per capita.

The reason we are not #2 also in QoL-- although we have enough money that we should be – is simple: the US has the biggest gap between rich and poor in the developed World. By far. And the high quality of life of the rich Americans doesn’t compensate for the low quality of life of the poor Americans, because of the law of diminishing returns: the moment you are over a certain income, your quality of life doesn’t increase proportionally.

Or, to put it another way, somebody making $100k extra over their $500k a year income doesn’t increase their quality of life as much as those $100k would increase the quality of life of somebody making, say, $30k.

That is way distributing wealth more evenly increases the total QoL… Very simple.

Again, don’t assume I’m making a morality play here: I am simply explaining the mechanics of it, either you like them or not. [/quote]

I suspect that if Sweden had the ethnic diversity of the US and millions of poor Mexicans streaming into their country their economic system would collapse producing and even bigger gap between the rich and poor.

43

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I suspect that if Sweden had the ethnic diversity of the US and millions of poor Mexicans streaming into their country their economic system would collapse producing and even bigger gap between the rich and poor.[/quote]

Pat Buchanan, is that you? :wink:

Poor Mexicans are not counted in the QoL stats – and they’re not counted as population, so they actually inflate the GDP per capita.

Ethnic diversity is, by far, the greatest strength this country has and absolutely necessary for it to have a future; ethnic diversity avoids a myriad of problems that Europe has to cope with and we don’t. If the steady stream of ethnically diverse but mostly non-Muslim immigrants we have was diverted to Europe, Europe would flourish.

I personally feel very strongly against illegal immigration, but not at all because of the reasons you state – however I’ve covered them extensively in previous threads and I’m not going to repeat myself.

44

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

I suspect that if Sweden had the ethnic diversity of the US and millions of poor Mexicans streaming into their country their economic system would collapse producing and even bigger gap between the rich and poor.

[/quote]
I think that one in nine Swedes is considered an immigrant in the statistics. Granted, the definition is that you, or at least one of your parents, were born abroad.

This translates into access to school support in your “home language”, the concept being that kids who speak one language at home but does not master it, will also have difficulties in Swedish as a lot of the underlying logic is similar between languages.

This can sometimes have comic effects, such as when my “immigrant daughter”, (my wife being American)who was born in Madrid, was asked whether she wanted support in English or Spanish.

For us there was no need for support but, for the kids of a Sudanese refugee, I will be happy to pay.

Disclaimer: As I no longer live in Sweden, I do not pay taxes there and can spout well-meaning cliches all-day without having to cough up the money.

45

[quote]hspder wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Anyways, back to QoL index, would you agree there are determinates other than degree of wealth redistribution?

Of course. GDP does.

LBRTRN wrote:
Clearly, we far out ranked numerous countries–France, for instance–who redistribute wealth to a far greater degree.

… but have lower GDP.
[/quote]

Ah, I see. GDP per capita, correct? Given that, am I to assume that Norway’s #1 position can be attributed to its very high GDP? Its GDP per captia is much higher than ours…in fact, it is higher than our to almost the exact same degree that ours is higher than France’s, Germany’s, Austria’s, etc. (per the UN report)

46

[quote]karva wrote:

If you are satisfied with the bare minimum - shelter, food and second-hand clothes - yes you can live like that.

[/quote]

Right around the main parliament building in Stockholm are a series of hedges. There are more homeless bums and destitutes populating those bushes than any other city I have ever visited, besides maybe some of the Californian cities. I wonder what they do in the winter?

47

[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
karva wrote:

If you are satisfied with the bare minimum - shelter, food and second-hand clothes - yes you can live like that.

Right around the main parliament building in Stockholm are a series of hedges. There are more homeless bums and destitutes populating those bushes than any other city I have ever visited, besides maybe some of the Californian cities. I wonder what they do in the winter?[/quote]

Oh, they are mostly winos and junkies. Many of them are finns. They have other uses for their money than buy food and pay the rent.

48

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Ah, I see. GDP per capita, correct? Given that, am I to assume that Norway’s #1 position can be attributed to its very high GDP? Its GDP per captia is much higher than ours…in fact, it is higher than our to almost the exact same degree that ours is higher than France’s, Germany’s, Austria’s, etc. (per the UN report)
[/quote]

And your point is…? You’re agreeing with me, right? That the US is in a lower position in QoL than it should be considering its GDP?

Why do you think that the Economist put that column (the one The Mage “conveniently” misinterpreted) with the delta between GDP rank and QoL rank?

Oh, and can you guess what Norway and the US have in common that enables them to have such high GDPs?

(no, the answer is not “oil”)

Seriously.

Look, I have many libertarian friends and, to be honest, I think the GOP needs more of them. If the GOP switched to being essentially the libertarian party, I think politics in the US would be much more honest and interesting than they are right now – I do believe the GOP represents the worst of both worlds (economically and socially conservative) and that it’s sad that a country like the US – funded on socially liberal principles – has a socially conservative party in power. We should never have revived social conservatism, it belongs dead and buried in the Old Country. I was very sad when I heard the other day somebody say that there are very few libertarians left in the GOP.

Basically, if I had to decide between libertarian and conservative I’d pick libertarian any day.

Having said that, since the 18th century we learnt a lot about Economics – and if there is one thing we must all agree on, is that Economics is far from being as simple as many make it out to be, especially libertarians. Many Economists use Ayn Rand’s work as what we call
“elementary school economics” – it’s that over-simplified. It’s like when some teachers tell small kids that an atom is like a solar system, with electrons judiciously orbiting the nucleus in a consistent path.

The problem is that one thing I did learn by arguing with my friend Tom Sowell, is that once you turn libertarian, you never go back: not even 50 years of people shouting at him that he is too old and too educated to oversimplify Economics as much as he does (as a libertarian) will change his mind. It’s like telling an old physicist that Newton was wrong about gravity (which he was, by the way). Or, worse, trying to explain to people that Quantum Mechanics abandons the concept of cause and effect – that stuff happens for absolutely no reason – no cause whatsoever – at the subatomic level.

They just look at you like you’re on acid or something.

That doesn’t mean Tom is stupid – he’s probably smarter than I am. Just confused… :wink:

So I believe it’s best that we just agree to disagree and move on – and maybe focus on what we do agree on, which is social liberalism. Deal?

(that’s what I agreed on with Tom, so now we basically spend most of our time trying to deal with his homophobia…)

49

[quote]hspder wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I suspect that if Sweden had the ethnic diversity of the US and millions of poor Mexicans streaming into their country their economic system would collapse producing and even bigger gap between the rich and poor.

Pat Buchanan, is that you? :wink:

Poor Mexicans are not counted in the QoL stats – and they’re not counted as population, so they actually inflate the GDP per capita.

Ethnic diversity is, by far, the greatest strength this country has and absolutely necessary for it to have a future; ethnic diversity avoids a myriad of problems that Europe has to cope with and we don’t. If the steady stream of ethnically diverse but mostly non-Muslim immigrants we have was diverted to Europe, Europe would flourish.

I personally feel very strongly against illegal immigration, but not at all because of the reasons you state – however I’ve covered them extensively in previous threads and I’m not going to repeat myself.
[/quote]

I have nothing against immigration or ethnic diversity but the fact remains that many/most of the poor people in this country are immigrants or minority status.

It is kind of hard to expect that an ethnic group that was still held in slavery 150 years ago will have all the financial advantages that others have.

To compare the economic systems without taking these factors into account is a waste of time.

Any metric you quote that excludes illegal immigrants is useless to the discussion.

50

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It is kind of hard to expect that an ethnic group that was still held in slavery 150 years ago will have all the financial advantages that others have.[/quote]

I take it you’re for affirmative action then?

If, indeed, the problem is lack of integration and racism, who do you think should be working on making these problems go away? The Pope?

You don’t see a slight problem with your logic? I mean, is the government simply a victim of the circumstances, or should the government be dealing with the cards they were given and making the best of them? How would you respond if the French prime-minister came out tomorrow and said “our economy sucks because we… have no oil! It’s not our fault, it’s all that oil we don’t have!”?

This country is bursting at the seams with resources. Our government has no excuse for us not being at least #2 in QoL. None.

51

[quote]hspder wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It is kind of hard to expect that an ethnic group that was still held in slavery 150 years ago will have all the financial advantages that others have.

I take it you’re for affirmative action then?
[/quote]
I understand the thoughts behind it but I think we should minimize it. It only gives certain individuals unfair advantages thus I think it has a big downside.

[quote]

If, indeed, the problem is lack of integration and racism, who do you think should be working on making these problems go away? The Pope?

You don’t see a slight problem with your logic? I mean, is the government simply a victim of the circumstances, or should the government be dealing with the cards they were given and making the best of them? How would you respond if the French prime-minister came out tomorrow and said “our economy sucks because we… have no oil! It’s not our fault, it’s all that oil we don’t have!”?

This country is bursting at the seams with resources. Our government has no excuse for us not being at least #2 in QoL. None.[/quote]

This is silly. There are plenty of reasons. I listed some obvious ones and you blow them off.

52

[quote]hspder wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Ah, I see. GDP per capita, correct? Given that, am I to assume that Norway’s #1 position can be attributed to its very high GDP? Its GDP per captia is much higher than ours…in fact, it is higher than our to almost the exact same degree that ours is higher than France’s, Germany’s, Austria’s, etc. (per the UN report)

And your point is…? You’re agreeing with me, right? That the US is in a lower position in QoL than it should be considering its GDP?[/quote]

Or, to put it another way, Norway is ranked high because of its GDP, not because of its extremely socialized enconomy. But in any case, as per your question, what do Norway and the US have in common that creates such a high GDP?–seriously, I really don’t know.

Sure, if that’s what you prefer. However, know that if I sound like I’m inflexible or playing some gotcha game, I’m not–tone often gets lost over the internet. My mind is far from made up on this issue and I treat the back and forth as a learning experience. I’m only 22 and in the last 5 years, my politics have gone from far Left, to far Right, to Libertarian, to libertarian–you get my point.

Furthermore, my economic outlook is actually a by-product of my belief in social libralism: I have a fear of large government and of the danger it presents, and a sense that if one side of the coin gets too powerful (economic for instance), so will the other (social). If that sense is wrong, that’s fine; however, I haven’t yet been convinced.

p.s. That’s pretty cool you know Tom Sowell (although it makes sense). It must irritate you to no end when he subs for Rush! :wink:

53

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Or, to put it another way, Norway is ranked high because of its GDP, not because of its extremely socialized enconomy.[/quote]

I wouldn’t be too quick to call their economy “extremely socialized”… and it’s not that simple anyway, because you have to take into account they are have several fundamentally unique characteristics from their climate to their oil.

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
But in any case, as per your question, what do Norway and the US have in common that creates such a high GDP?–seriously, I really don’t know.[/quote]

Resources. Oil is one of them, but it’s just one among many.

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Furthermore, my economic outlook is actually a by-product of my belief in social libralism: I have a fear of large government and of the danger it presents, and a sense that if one side of the coin gets too powerful (economic for instance), so will the other (social). If that sense is wrong, that’s fine; however, I haven’t yet been convinced.[/quote]

It is actually a VERY legitimate concern, one I am sure was shared by Thomas Jefferson, for example. But I think Europe – and, especially, countries like The Netherlands and Sweden – have proven that’s rarely the problem with Modern Liberalism – the problem is, almost invariably. a combination of corruption with incompetence; The Netherlands is officially the most socially liberal country on the planet, while the Dutch government has a tremendous economic influence. So while a legitimate concern, it is clearly not a realistic one.

I can fully empathize with the libertarian belief that the best way to avoid the unavoidable incompetence and corruption of any government is to have a small one; unfortunately, much like many predicted many moons ago, practice has shown that the economic void left by a small government will simply be filled with corrupt and inept… companies. At least with government, the institutions can be watched over by the people; if you leave important things to private initiative, it is MUCH harder to get rid of the inevitable corruption and incompetence.

I don’t want to paint too much of an Orwellian picture here, but the guy was on to something. I do agree with him that a libertarian society can easily devolve into a corporatist – and eventually Fascist – one.

I won’t pretend I really believe Social Democracy is the cure for all evils, but what I have seen is that it’s invariably the least bad compromise; it doesn’t avoid the fundamental problems that plague a society (which are, in no particular order, corruption and incompetence) but it does minimize their impact. I do believe that once people realize that the alternatives are worse, they will embrace it. Problem is, sometimes, it takes people a whole lifetime to realize it, and when they do, it’s too late.

(I’m sorry if that sounded arrogant, but, contrary to, unfortunately, many Democrats, I’ll pretty firm in my beliefs, at least until somebody points me to an alternative that has actually proven to be less bad in the long term)

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
p.s. That’s pretty cool you know Tom Sowell (although it makes sense). It must irritate you to no end when he subs for Rush! ;)[/quote]

We’re actually the best of friends, although we really don’t agree on much of anything. I think we’re basically each other’s coach – if we can argue with each other, we can argue with anyone… We kinda remind each other that as long as we can argue, this is still America.

And, not, in real life he doesn’t sound as much of a bigoted a-hole like he does in the media. He has an endearing quality to him that it really doesn’t translate well – even though I can’t say I’d mind if he would shut up 90% of the time he’s in the media… :wink: On the other hand, I get to read him the riot act every time he does, so it has its advantages.

By the way, talking about endearing, if you get HBO, don’t forget to watch the new documentary on Goldwater, made by his granddaughter:

http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/mrconservative/index.html

I really hate that the GOP has less and less people like him.

54

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This is silly. There are plenty of reasons. I listed some obvious ones and you blow them off.[/quote]

I did not blow them off – I just firmly believe that they are not reasons to justify the gap between GDP and QoL – and that if we did a better job at evening the odds we would close that gap.

Basically, what I’m saying is that everyone has to deal with similar problems – we are one of the few in the Western World that chose to take the “band-aid” approach – with things like affirmative action, which are necessary, but only because nobody wants to implement a more sweeping approach to the problem – being too afraid to implement anything that can be called the “S-word” – and paying for it.

55

[quote]karva wrote:

Sweden has been a welfare-state for half a century now. You don’t like the idea and thats ok, but it is a bit stretched to claim, that swedes are on their way to hell.[/quote]

Uh, what the fuck are you talking about? Are you familiar with the quote I was referencing?

I in no way was saying that Swedes were going to hell. (And being an atheist kind of makes me doubt the existence of a real hell.)

I believe you completely misunderstood my post and put your own beliefs into what I was saying. You didn’t even understand what my China reference was about.

56

[quote]hspder wrote:

No it doesn’t. You misread it. Or, rather, you read what you wanted to read. [/quote]

Actually I did look at it quickly, and misunderstood the last column, thinking it was our change from last year. So yes I was wrong.

Though I still do not believe you can actually boil things down to a single number. Practically everyone I know who has problems with the quality of their life here in America can look at themselves to blame.

I heard about some research into income, and it was found that income did increase happiness up to about $50,000 a year. And once that number was reached, income had no influence. (The information is a few years old.)

57

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

I have nothing against immigration or ethnic diversity but the fact remains that many/most of the poor people in this country are immigrants or minority status.

It is kind of hard to expect that an ethnic group that was still held in slavery 150 years ago will have all the financial advantages that others have.

To compare the economic systems without taking these factors into account is a waste of time.

Any metric you quote that excludes illegal immigrants is useless to the discussion.[/quote]

Actually, research shows that the less time a racial group has lived as citizens in this country, the more likely they are to become wealthy. This has nothing to do with government assistance, but work ethic.

People come to this country having had to work hard just to survive, and then they get here, work hard, start businesses, and don’t go out wasting money on crap just because somebody refers to it as bling.

Unfortunately the idea of the fat lazy American isn’t wholly untrue.

58

[quote]hspder wrote:
By the way, talking about endearing, if you get HBO, don’t forget to watch the new documentary on Goldwater, made by his granddaughter:

http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/mrconservative/index.html

I really hate that the GOP has less and less people like him. [/quote]

Am I reading this correctly? Or am I missing the sarcasm, or an angle you are playing?

You wished the right was more like Goldwater? Barry Goldwater? From Arizona? The former presidential candidate? One of the first real neocons?

At the risk of the sky falling and hell freezing over - I agree with you.

59

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Though I still do not believe you can actually boil things down to a single number. Practically everyone I know who has problems with the quality of their life here in America can look at themselves to blame.

I heard about some research into income, and it was found that income did increase happiness up to about $50,000 a year. And once that number was reached, income had no influence. (The information is a few years old.)[/quote]

I wonder what role consumer debt has to play with quality of life. I doubt it shows in the numbers quoted by hsapder, but if you have crdit card debt of 20K, a couple of cars you owe 40K on, and a house you owe 175K on - and you are at 65-75K - you are working for the banks.

Just thinking out loud.

60

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You wished the right was more like Goldwater? Barry Goldwater? From Arizona? The former presidential candidate? One of the first real neocons?
[/quote]

Is he really considered a neocon? I mean, as far as political lineage goes, I can see the connection, but ideologically?

hspder–thanks for heads-up on the HBO special!