4 ms·

> Western Europe and most of the Anglosphere are very socialistic Literally none of the Western European countries are socialist. They are all market economies

> 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.
- throwaway37585 8y ago
  > That is just Rasmussen's false opinion. Why do you think it's false? I can't fathom why you think Denmark is not a market economy. Have you ever been there? How do you think the Danish economy functions? > The housing market lives and dies by fanniemae/freddiemac federal subsidies, mortgage insurance, and lending policies. Which contributed to the subprime mortgage bubble and subsequent financial crisis. > 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. What makes you think healthcare would go into "freefall" without Medicare? Medicare is primarily funded by payroll taxes and premiums paid by enrollees. Where did you think this money came from? Thin air? > Many of the higher branches of engineering are, directly or indirectly, dependents of the military industrial complex. Ok... > The educational complex would shrivel and die without federal loan programs and heavy state subsidies. The U.S. spends a fortune per student relative to other OECD countries, yet has mediocre outcomes. I have no idea why you think education would "shrivel and die" without this wasteful spending, inefficiency, and corruption. Between 1970 and 2012, the full amount spent by all levels of government on the K–12 education of an individual public school student graduating in any given year, adjusted for inflation, increased by 185%. The average funding by state governments increased by 120% per student. However, scores in mathematics, science and language arts over that same period remained almost unchanged. Multi-year periods in which a state's funding per student declined substantially also appear to have had little effect. > As for Argentina, ask someone who went through the 2001 crisis what they think. Can you point to the relevant liberalization policies which you think made the situation worse?
  - jstewartmobile 8y ago
    We are all nominally market economies--in the respect that everything gets laundered through the market. Doesn't make us any less socialist. Typical medicare recipient blows through his entire lifetime contribution in two years. It is propped up through progressive taxation and gobs of public debt. Medicare spending for 2017 was around $700B[0]. US healthcare spending for 2017 was $3.5T[1]. That's roughly 20% of the market. It is totally a socialist program. As for post-secondary ed, when the whole thing is propped up through state and federal monies, what would happen to that market if it were limited to earned money, and cut off from other peoples' money? Education, the goal, has little to do with it. It's about the direct and indirect employment that comes from it. Even the Republicans aren't going to touch that. This was Argentina's economic policy prior to the crash: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Menem#Economic_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Menem#Economic_policy Most of these economic theories and belief systems are just cover for raw power. When old people who vote want free healthcare, they're socialists. When old people who vote want fatter dividends and lower inheritance taxes, they're capitalists. All at the same time! [0] https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/the-facts-on-medicare-spending-and-financing/ https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/the-facts-on-medica... [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-spending/u-s-healthcare-spending-to-climb-5-3-percent-in-2018-agency-idUSKCN1FY2ZD https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-spending/u...

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.

throwaway37585 8y ago
> That is just Rasmussen's false opinion. Why do you think it's false? I can't fathom why you think Denmark is not a market economy. Have you ever been there? How do you think the Danish economy functions? > The housing market lives and dies by fanniemae/freddiemac federal subsidies, mortgage insurance, and lending policies. Which contributed to the subprime mortgage bubble and subsequent financial crisis. > 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. What makes you think healthcare would go into "freefall" without Medicare? Medicare is primarily funded by payroll taxes and premiums paid by enrollees. Where did you think this money came from? Thin air? > Many of the higher branches of engineering are, directly or indirectly, dependents of the military industrial complex. Ok... > The educational complex would shrivel and die without federal loan programs and heavy state subsidies. The U.S. spends a fortune per student relative to other OECD countries, yet has mediocre outcomes. I have no idea why you think education would "shrivel and die" without this wasteful spending, inefficiency, and corruption. Between 1970 and 2012, the full amount spent by all levels of government on the K–12 education of an individual public school student graduating in any given year, adjusted for inflation, increased by 185%. The average funding by state governments increased by 120% per student. However, scores in mathematics, science and language arts over that same period remained almost unchanged. Multi-year periods in which a state's funding per student declined substantially also appear to have had little effect. > As for Argentina, ask someone who went through the 2001 crisis what they think. Can you point to the relevant liberalization policies which you think made the situation worse?
- jstewartmobile 8y ago
  We are all nominally market economies--in the respect that everything gets laundered through the market. Doesn't make us any less socialist. Typical medicare recipient blows through his entire lifetime contribution in two years. It is propped up through progressive taxation and gobs of public debt. Medicare spending for 2017 was around $700B[0]. US healthcare spending for 2017 was $3.5T[1]. That's roughly 20% of the market. It is totally a socialist program. As for post-secondary ed, when the whole thing is propped up through state and federal monies, what would happen to that market if it were limited to earned money, and cut off from other peoples' money? Education, the goal, has little to do with it. It's about the direct and indirect employment that comes from it. Even the Republicans aren't going to touch that. This was Argentina's economic policy prior to the crash: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Menem#Economic_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Menem#Economic_policy Most of these economic theories and belief systems are just cover for raw power. When old people who vote want free healthcare, they're socialists. When old people who vote want fatter dividends and lower inheritance taxes, they're capitalists. All at the same time! [0] https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/the-facts-on-medicare-spending-and-financing/ https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/the-facts-on-medica... [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-spending/u-s-healthcare-spending-to-climb-5-3-percent-in-2018-agency-idUSKCN1FY2ZD https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-spending/u...