3 ms·

Nobody is comparing working conditions between Greece and the US, so why knock down that particular strawman? Unless you believe the economic policies of the E

by seabee 13y ago

Nobody is comparing working conditions between Greece and the US, so why knock down that particular strawman? Unless you believe the economic policies of the European countries that do get talked about e.g. France, Germany, the Nordics, (the UK should count but it's not very interesting), are unsustainable and about to erupt in rioting over high unemployment, I think there is much to learn in both directions.

Silhouette 13y ago
I think perhaps you replied to the wrong post? The GGP post I replied to was explicitly contrasting the US with Europe (not once but twice clarifying that wasn't referring to France alone), and it specifically mentioned working conditions. Also, while Greece is the strongest example, you could probably substitute any of the PIIGS group and my counter-argument would still hold to a degree: when insufficiently moderated, the socialist-leaning economic policies that are popular in parts of Europe have not been very successful recently. There are many possible balances that might work, but neither extremely socialist nor extremely capitalist economic policies tend to fare well over the long term.
- TheCoelacanth 13y ago
  None of the PIIGS were extremely socialist. The most socialist-leaning countries in Europe (e.g. Denmark and Norway) are still going strong.
  - Silhouette 13y ago
    None of the PIIGS were extremely socialist. Please note that I never suggested they were. My intended point was only that generally socialist-leaning countries usually need to have something to balance that inclination or over time things tend to start going wrong. In successful examples, such as we see in Scandinavia, competent government and generally good public services appear to be sufficient. People see a decent return on the relatively high levels of taxation they pay. Also, while the overall tax burden is relatively high, most of these countries tend to have a relatively soft touch with businesses that makes them nevertheless a reasonably attractive place to operate. In less successful examples, such as we saw in Greece, the same sentiment is present, but the government failed to actually collect the taxes and provide effective public services. Black markets and corruption were everywhere, and a vicious cycle set in, leading to excessive borrowing by the government and the end result we're all familiar with. I'd suggest that similar factors were at work in Italy, with so much corruption and general incompetence in the government that they essentially gave up on democracy and wound up with an appointed technocrat at the helm. Portugal, also, had some very dubious financial management at government level, much of it based on excessive employment in the public sector and dubious arrangements based on public-private partnerships, and of course the problems with the banks that led up to their economic crisis. I concede that perhaps it wasn't correct to identify the PIIGS as a group in this context, because not all of their recent economic troubles started the same way. Even so, several of them have shared striking similarities, both in being generally over-reliant on an inefficient public sector before the crisis and in being relatively difficult places to try and start a new business since then.

by seabee 13y ago

Silhouette 13y ago

I think perhaps you replied to the wrong post? The GGP post I replied to was explicitly contrasting the US with Europe (not once but twice clarifying that wasn't referring to France alone), and it specifically mentioned working conditions. Also, while Greece is the strongest example, you could probably substitute any of the PIIGS group and my counter-argument would still hold to a degree: when insufficiently moderated, the socialist-leaning economic policies that are popular in parts of Europe have not been very successful recently. There are many possible balances that might work, but neither extremely socialist nor extremely capitalist economic policies tend to fare well over the long term.

TheCoelacanth 13y ago
None of the PIIGS were extremely socialist. The most socialist-leaning countries in Europe (e.g. Denmark and Norway) are still going strong.
- Silhouette 13y ago
  None of the PIIGS were extremely socialist. Please note that I never suggested they were. My intended point was only that generally socialist-leaning countries usually need to have something to balance that inclination or over time things tend to start going wrong. In successful examples, such as we see in Scandinavia, competent government and generally good public services appear to be sufficient. People see a decent return on the relatively high levels of taxation they pay. Also, while the overall tax burden is relatively high, most of these countries tend to have a relatively soft touch with businesses that makes them nevertheless a reasonably attractive place to operate. In less successful examples, such as we saw in Greece, the same sentiment is present, but the government failed to actually collect the taxes and provide effective public services. Black markets and corruption were everywhere, and a vicious cycle set in, leading to excessive borrowing by the government and the end result we're all familiar with. I'd suggest that similar factors were at work in Italy, with so much corruption and general incompetence in the government that they essentially gave up on democracy and wound up with an appointed technocrat at the helm. Portugal, also, had some very dubious financial management at government level, much of it based on excessive employment in the public sector and dubious arrangements based on public-private partnerships, and of course the problems with the banks that led up to their economic crisis. I concede that perhaps it wasn't correct to identify the PIIGS as a group in this context, because not all of their recent economic troubles started the same way. Even so, several of them have shared striking similarities, both in being generally over-reliant on an inefficient public sector before the crisis and in being relatively difficult places to try and start a new business since then.