4 ms·

Isn't the difference that, empirically, the more socialist a country becomes, the more its living standards deteriorate, while the more liberal a country become

Isn't the difference that, empirically, the more socialist a country becomes, the more its living standards deteriorate, while the more liberal a country becomes, the more its living standards improve?

dragonwriter 8y ago
Neither “socialist” nor “liberal” are qualities that exist on a simple total ordering such that that claim is even coherent, much less accurate, and standard of living measurements tend to be optimized for particular economic structures and not comparable across significantly different economic systems without problems.
- throwaway37585 8y ago
  > such that that claim is even coherent, much less accurate I don't know where you're getting this idea. There are coherent and accurate ways to measure how liberalized an economy is. > standard of living measurements tend to be optimized for particular economic structures They are optimized for measuring human welfare, through measures like access to and quality of food, healthcare, education, life expectancy, incidence of disease, cost of goods and services, infrastructure, etc. That they empirically end up favoring economic liberalism speaks to the effectiveness of the latter. > not comparable across significantly different economic systems without problems How so? If the very same country historically fares better under periods of economic liberalism, and worse under periods of economic authoritarianism, how is that not a valid data point for the effectiveness of economic liberalism versus authoritarianism?
jstewartmobile 8y ago
Western Europe and most of the Anglosphere are very socialistic, and do fairly well by almost every objective measure of a society. Countries like Venezuela and Argentina have been a mess under dictatorship, democracy, "economic liberalism", and "socialism". Empirically speaking, perhaps it's not what you do, but how you do it?
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  “Righteousness exalts a nation” regardless of its form of government.
- throwaway37585 8y ago
  > Western Europe and most of the Anglosphere are very socialistic Literally none of the Western European countries are socialist. They are all market economies. As the Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said: I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy. Similarly Jeffery Sachs notes: The eastern countries must reject any lingering ideas about a “third way”, such as a chimerical “market socialism” based on public ownership or worker self-management, and go straight for a western-style market economy...The main debate in economic reform should therefore be about the means of transition, not the ends. Eastern Europe will still argue over the ends: for example, whether to aim for Swedish-style social democracy or Thatcherite liberalism. But that can wait. Sweden and Britain alike have nearly complete private ownership, private financial markets and active labour markets. Eastern Europe today has none of these institutions; for it, the alternative models of Western Europe are almost identical. > Countries like Venezuela and Argentina have been a mess under... "economic liberalism". On the contrary. Those countries have fared much better under economic liberalism.
  - jstewartmobile 8y ago
    That is just Rasmussen's false opinion. Even the US, which is usually a poster-child for economic liberalism, is far more of a planned economy than most people think. The housing market lives and dies by fanniemae/freddiemac federal subsidies, mortgage insurance, and lending policies. The healthcare market--given that many ailments and infirmities are ones of old age--is primarily driven by medicare and would go into freefall without it. Many of the higher branches of engineering are, directly or indirectly, dependents of the military industrial complex. The educational complex would shrivel and die without federal loan programs and heavy state subsidies. Every state does not need three dipshit universities and a dozen community colleges, but every state has them. Even the Republicans know all of this. That is why all of their austerity talk ends in nickel-and-dime cuts to programs that serve the disenfranchised (welfare reform), or children (medicaid), and the debt continues to skyrocket. They know that if they make significant cuts to any of the gravy trains, there will be economic hardship and hell to pay come election time. As for Argentina, ask someone who went through the 2001 crisis what they think. Menem devoutly followed the free market religion. Didn't stop things from going down the drain.

dragonwriter 8y ago

Neither “socialist” nor “liberal” are qualities that exist on a simple total ordering such that that claim is even coherent, much less accurate, and standard of living measurements tend to be optimized for particular economic structures and not comparable across significantly different economic systems without problems.

throwaway37585 8y ago
> such that that claim is even coherent, much less accurate I don't know where you're getting this idea. There are coherent and accurate ways to measure how liberalized an economy is. > standard of living measurements tend to be optimized for particular economic structures They are optimized for measuring human welfare, through measures like access to and quality of food, healthcare, education, life expectancy, incidence of disease, cost of goods and services, infrastructure, etc. That they empirically end up favoring economic liberalism speaks to the effectiveness of the latter. > not comparable across significantly different economic systems without problems How so? If the very same country historically fares better under periods of economic liberalism, and worse under periods of economic authoritarianism, how is that not a valid data point for the effectiveness of economic liberalism versus authoritarianism?

jstewartmobile 8y ago

Western Europe and most of the Anglosphere are very socialistic, and do fairly well by almost every objective measure of a society. Countries like Venezuela and Argentina have been a mess under dictatorship, democracy, "economic liberalism", and "socialism". Empirically speaking, perhaps it's not what you do, but how you do it?

TimTheTinker 8y ago
“Righteousness exalts a nation” regardless of its form of government.
throwaway37585 8y ago
> Western Europe and most of the Anglosphere are very socialistic Literally none of the Western European countries are socialist. They are all market economies. As the Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said: I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy. Similarly Jeffery Sachs notes: The eastern countries must reject any lingering ideas about a “third way”, such as a chimerical “market socialism” based on public ownership or worker self-management, and go straight for a western-style market economy...The main debate in economic reform should therefore be about the means of transition, not the ends. Eastern Europe will still argue over the ends: for example, whether to aim for Swedish-style social democracy or Thatcherite liberalism. But that can wait. Sweden and Britain alike have nearly complete private ownership, private financial markets and active labour markets. Eastern Europe today has none of these institutions; for it, the alternative models of Western Europe are almost identical. > Countries like Venezuela and Argentina have been a mess under... "economic liberalism". On the contrary. Those countries have fared much better under economic liberalism.
- jstewartmobile 8y ago
  That is just Rasmussen's false opinion. Even the US, which is usually a poster-child for economic liberalism, is far more of a planned economy than most people think. The housing market lives and dies by fanniemae/freddiemac federal subsidies, mortgage insurance, and lending policies. The healthcare market--given that many ailments and infirmities are ones of old age--is primarily driven by medicare and would go into freefall without it. Many of the higher branches of engineering are, directly or indirectly, dependents of the military industrial complex. The educational complex would shrivel and die without federal loan programs and heavy state subsidies. Every state does not need three dipshit universities and a dozen community colleges, but every state has them. Even the Republicans know all of this. That is why all of their austerity talk ends in nickel-and-dime cuts to programs that serve the disenfranchised (welfare reform), or children (medicaid), and the debt continues to skyrocket. They know that if they make significant cuts to any of the gravy trains, there will be economic hardship and hell to pay come election time. As for Argentina, ask someone who went through the 2001 crisis what they think. Menem devoutly followed the free market religion. Didn't stop things from going down the drain.