NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4279562.stm

The Polish people, unlike the Germans, got it right. They booted out the leftists and implemented a parties dedicated to market reforms and low taxes, which will benefit their economy. Now I predict Poland will prosper for years to come, as long as the right wing parties stay in office. Great job Poland!

You must be as giddy as a school girl.

Cut the bias and report on what's happening, okay?

Poland isn't in any serious trouble that needs fixing, unlike Germany. Poland also has had very bad experiences with a very different form of "leftism" than the Germans.
And most importantly: Poland had very different experiences from the fall of the USSR than Germany did.

If you want to debate why the leftists will destroy the economy, please do. A mere assertion isn't enough.

My housekeeper, who I'm very close to, is Polish. Whenever I ask her about politics there, she reiterates the same theme as that article: any government in Poland has a LOT of work to do before they can begin to be even mildly trusted. That's why the turnout is so low.

Cut the bias and report on what's happening, okay?

Poland isn't in any serious trouble that needs fixing, unlike Germany. Poland also has had very bad experiences with a very different form of "leftism" than the Germans.
And most importantly: Poland had very different experiences from the fall of the USSR than Germany did.

If you want to debate why the leftists will destroy the economy, please do. A mere assertion isn't enough.

The Polish leftist government is a great example of leftism. It is corrupt, foolish and destructive. Poland does need fixing.. its unemployment is very high.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pl.html#Econ

"Unemployment: 19.5% (2004 est.)"

The Polish leftist government is a great example of leftism. It is corrupt, foolish and destructive. Poland does need fixing.. its unemployment is very high.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pl.html#Econ

"Unemployment: 19.5% (2004 est.)"

is unemployment a product of leftism, is it?

Finally someone remembered Poland!

is unemployment a product of leftism, is it?

No... I'm not connecting the two.. I'm just saying Poland needs to reduce its unemployment. All I'm saying the lack of progress can be faulted on the former left wing polish government.. and there was rampant corruption in it.

Nice. Hooray for Poland. :)

Not only did they defeat the Teutonic Order and keep the Turks out of Europe for a few hundred years, but they've also shown the commies that they're not invincible in Europe.. gotta give them some credit there.

No... I'm not connecting the two.. I'm just saying Poland needs to reduce its unemployment. All I'm saying the lack of progress can be faulted on the former left wing polish government.. and there was rampant corruption in it.

Right.


I was about to bust out labour (a left wing party who has been in power here for 6 years) campaigning on New Zealand's unemployment rate being the lowest in the OECD. It was 3.6% in june this year.

Right.


I was about to bust out labour's (a left wing party who has been in power here for 6 years) campaigning on New Zealand's unemployment rate being the lowest in the OECD. It was 3.6% in june this year.

And i would counter that with Singapore. Its unemployment is 3.4%.

All I'm saying the lack of progress can be faulted on the former left wing polish government.. and there was rampant corruption in it.

That may be what you meant, but that's not what you said.

The Polish leftist government is a great example of leftism. It is corrupt, foolish and destructive. Poland does need fixing.. its unemployment is very high.

You see the difference? In your first post you outright stated that corruption, foolishness, and destruction are features of leftism in general as opposed to this particular leftist government.

That may be what you meant, but that's not what you said.



You see the difference? In your first post you outright stated that corruption, foolishness, and destruction are features of leftism in general as opposed to this particular leftist government.

I see my mistake. I was meaning to say "it was a good example of corruption".

Being of Polish-descent and having read alot about Poland, I can say that this probably won't amount to much. You're talking about the most inefficent nation in history here!(Example: In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, for a bill to pass it had to have a unanimous vote for it.)

Of course this is good news for Georgie: The old government said it would pull out, the new one says it's willing to negotiate.

And i would counter that with Singapore. Its unemployment is 3.4%.


Bah, they're a major trading hub and we're 2000km away from anyone in the bottom of the pacific. 0.2% is pretty small, especially considering each countries population :)

Bah, they're a major trading hub and we're 2000km away from anyone in the bottom of the pacific. 0.2% is pretty small, especially considering each countries population :)

Well remember Helen Clark only won by a very small margin.

Well remember Helen Clark only won by a very small margin.

Yep. But the main point here is that after 6 years of being run by a leftist government, New Zealand's economy is doing well with low unemployment and plenty of new jobs being created. Blanket statements that the left is bad at managing economies and the right is good at it are just wrong. Labour's lead hasn't decreased because of bad economic management, but partly because they decided they couldn't afford tax cuts despite a large surplus. More a victim of a good economy than corruption.

The Polish people, unlike the Germans, got it right. They booted out the leftists and implemented a parties dedicated to market reforms and low taxes, which will benefit their economy. Now I predict Poland will prosper for years to come, as long as the right wing parties stay in office. Great job Poland!

Only 50-51% of the Polish voters even bothered to vote. And what did they vote for? A nationalistic populistic party which gained hughe approval for it's Germanophobic and Russiaphobic rants.

If you call that "Great job" you're seriously - with all due respect - fucked in the head.

Yep. But the main point here is that after 6 years of being run by a leftist government, New Zealand's economy is doing well with low unemployment and plenty of new jobs being created. Blanket statements that the left is bad at managing economies and the right is good at it are just wrong. Labour's lead hasn't decreased because of bad economic management, but partly because they decided they couldn't afford tax cuts despite a large surplus. More a victim of a good economy than corruption.

Look I made a mix up in words. I said the corrupt Leftist Polish government was a good example of leftism. I made a mistake by saying leftism when I should of said corruption. New Zealand.. well I disagree with quite a few of the policies including the high taxes. And I don't think she is that leftist. But wait..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Clark

"Currently, Clark is New Zealand's caretaker Prime Minister, pending the result of the 2005 General Election. Provisional results gave Labour a one-seat lead over the New Zealand National Party. Final results will be announced at 2PM on the 1 October 2005."

I'm confused?

Only 50-51% of the Polish voters even bothered to vote. And what did they vote for? A nationalistic populistic party which gained hughe approval for it's Germanophobic and Russiaphobic rants.

If you call that "Great job" you're seriously - with all due respect - fucked in the head.

50-51% is about the average in many countries these days.... in fact that's perhaps better then the US. So please... get over it.

I suggest that people actually read about "the commies" (like here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_the_Democratic_Left)) before they make unqualified comments.

Good for Poland, sounds like they may elect some good leaders for a change.

I suggest that people actually read about "the commies" (like here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_the_Democratic_Left)) before they make unqualified comments.

I'm sorry but are you talking to me?

Alright, let us sort out what is defined as Left-wing and what is defined as right-wing:

Left-Wing: Liberals

Right-Wing: Conservatives.

This is a very GENERAL description. Please take it as so.

Now, Liberals are more concerned with Social Programs, and the Government managing everything. This is an example of socialism, but since I see more Socialist Liberals than Socialist Conservatives, thus Liberals are given this.

Conservatives are more concerned with limiting the government's powers, and allowing corporations control of the economy and the world.

I can not truly say which form of Government is more corrupt, since both are capable and truly are corrupt. Power Corrupts, and all Governments are seen as the ultimate symbol of power in there country, correct?

Therfore, we can only wait and see. No one knows how this new government will function, and if it will be better than the last.

I'm sorry but are you talking to me?I was addressing a broad audience. ;)

Alright, let us sort out what is defined as Left-wing and what is defined as right-wing:

Left-Wing: Liberals

Right-Wing: Conservatives.

This is a very GENERAL description. Please take it as so.It's an AMERICAN description, actually. Here's the Global description:

Left-Wing: Democratic Socialists

Center: Liberals

Right-Wing: Conservatives

(Don't take this as an attack ;) )

Actually aren't liberals on the right wing too in Europe? That is at least what I think as a European.

It's an AMERICAN description, actually. Here's the Global description:

Left-Wing: Democratic Socialists

Center: Liberals

Right-Wing: Conservatives

(Don't take this as an attack ;) )

I don't. I just find it odd that Liberals are not put under Left. Though this could be because most of Europe is Liberal.

I don't. I just find it odd that Liberals are not put under Left. Though this could be because most of Europe is Liberal.

LIBERAL MEANS CENTER-RIGHT WING (in my opinion). IT MEANS PRO FREE MARKET.

I am a liberal.

I don't. I just find it odd that Liberals are not put under Left. Though this could be because most of Europe is Liberal.Liberals aren't left. The American political spectrum is quite skewed, due to the fact that there is no real left. Both American parties are so big that they encompass what would be many different parties in Europe. In Europe, these parties often have very different ideas about how to run a nation, for example the German SPD (social democrats) and FDP (liberals). Both would be found in the Democrats in the states.

Liberals aren't left. The American political spectrum is quite skewed, due to the fact that there is no real left. Both American parties are so big that they encompass what would be many different parties in Europe. In Europe, these parties often have very different ideas about how to run a nation, for example the German SPD (social democrats) and FDP (liberals). Both would be found in the Democrats in the states.

I agree to some extent. But I do feel there are different portions of the US Democratic Party. In the US, there are conservative democrats.. center democrats.. and left wing democrats. There is a real left in this country. However it is not as strong as in Europe.

You are the one "fucked in the head". 50-51% is about the average in many countries these days.... in fact that's perhaps better then the US. So please... get over it.
I'd cut out the flaming before a Mod catchs you.

I'd cut out the flaming before a Mod catchs you.

I'd cut out the telling other people what to do.

I edited it, but you aren't a boss.

And when this new government doesn't fix things, the same people talking shit about the old leftist government will be saying that it has nothing to do with left or right, etc.

It always happens.

I agree to some extent. But I do feel there are different portions of the US Democratic Party. In the US, there are conservative democrats.. center democrats.. and left wing democrats. There is a real left in this country. However it is not as strong as in Europe.The reason why there is no real left in America is because there's no party exclusively for the left. Like you said, there's all sorts of democrats in the democratic party.

LIBERAL MEANS CENTER-RIGHT WING (in my opinion). IT MEANS PRO FREE MARKET.

I am a liberal.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Oh, that is so funny! Sorry, but conservatives, as they truly are, are aimed more at a Free-Market. If you saw a Government controlled by conservatives, you would see a government that is kept under control, and has no sway over the market. A Liberal Government would do the opposite.

I'd cut out the telling other people what to do.

I edited it, but you aren't a boss.

Wow, hypocrisy?

LIBERAL MEANS CENTER-RIGHT WING (in my opinion). IT MEANS PRO FREE MARKET.

I am a liberal.

Actually aren't liberals on the right wing too in Europe? That is at least what I think as a European.
I'm not sure about Europe but liberals are right of center in Canada. They have cut funding to many public servises and have sold off public companies (Like BC Rail or BC Gas). Its nice to find someone who uses the term liberal properly.

The reason why there is no real left in America is because there's no party exclusively for the left. Like you said, there's all sorts of democrats in the democratic party.

There are plenty of third parties. But I'm happy the left isn't very powerful in this country.

Belator:

Oh, that is so funny! Sorry, but conservatives, as they truly are, are aimed more at a Free-Market. If you saw a Government controlled by conservatives, you would see a government that is kept under control, and has no sway over the market. A Liberal Government would do the opposite.

That's ridiculous. Liberals in Europe are center-right wing. They are pro-free market. Your mindset is narrow and I think Laerod would agree with me on this one.

There are plenty of third parties. But I'm happy the left isn't very powerful in this country. When we had our last "Grand Coalition" between the SPD and CDU on a national level, students founded the APO (non-parliamentary opposition) to make sure the government knew that what it was doing wasn't ok. I distinctly remember nothing of the sort happening in the US when Democrats and Republicans cooperated so nicely to bring about the Patriot Act and all sorts of fun stuff.

That's ridiculous. Liberals in Europe are center-right wing. They are pro-free market. Your mindset is narrow and I think Laerod would agree with me on this one.Agree on what? That liberals are center-right or that his mindset is narrow? :p

I distinctly remember nothing of the sort happening in the US when Democrats and Republicans cooperated so nicely to bring about the Patriot Act and all sorts of fun stuff.

We don't have coalitions, and that's for the better in my own opinion.

The process is faster.

Agree on what? That liberals are center-right or that his mindset is narrow? :p

That his mindset is narrow...

That's ridiculous. Liberals in Europe are center-right wing. They are pro-free market. Your mindset is narrow and I think Laerod would agree with me on this one.

Actually, I am just looking at History, American, to be exact, and I am talking about Traditional Conservatives. America was one of the first to have a Government that elected it's own officials, and therefore, was one of the first to have conservatives.

Actually, I am just looking at History, American, to be exact, and I am talking about Traditional Conservatives. America was one of the first to have a Government that elected it's own officials, and therefore, was one of the first to have conservatives.

These words existed far before the conception of the American government. And these words have changed in the US itself. The word liberal has changed in the last century in the US.. into something that it should not be. Liberalism is not leftism.

These words existed far before the conception of the American government. And these words have changed in the US itself. The word liberal has changed in the last century in the US.. into something that it should not be. Liberalism is not leftism.

They did. I am talking about TRADITIONAL Conservatives, as set forth in the Industrial Age.

We don't have coalitions, and that's for the better in my own opinion.

The process is faster.You'll like dictatorships then. Much faster process.



That his mindset is narrow...Nope. A mindset becomes narrow when the owner refuses to allow it to expand.

They did. I am talking about TRADITIONAL Conservatives, as set forth in the Industrial Age.

Traditional conservatives perhaps were the ones who opposed the industrial revolution and wanted are return back to an agricultural state. They wanted a close religious society.

You'll like dictatorships then. Much faster process.

That's very rude and I want an apology.

I support democracy, but the system the US has.

Nope. A mindset becomes narrow when the owner refuses to allow it to expand.

As he is? Come at least I thought we would agree with this.

I am talking about a Traditional Conservative that was described in my US History Class I took as a Senior. Laze Faire (French for Let it alone, or something like that) and all that jazz.

My question is to the person that started the thread. Were you talking International Right Wing, or not?

I am talking about a Traditional Conservative that was described in my US History Class I took as a Senior. Laze Faire (French for Let it alone, or something like that) and all that jazz.

My question is to the person that started the thread. Were you talking International Right Wing, or not?

What you named is associated with free market liberalism, not traditional conservatives. I'm talking about what the words actually mean.

That's very rude and I want an apology.

I support democracy, but the system the US has. It's not rude to point out that dictatorships would meet your desire for a fast process better. The problem with the two party system is that it is prone to rolling over the rights of minorities. And the democratic system of the US is crap. The electoral college is one of the most ludicrous ideas that are still in existence (and yes, I'd still be calling for getting rid of it if Kerry had won Ohio).
As he is? Come at least I thought we would agree with this.It's too early to come up with a judgement. Gimme some time.

What you named is associated with free market liberalism, not traditional conservatives. I'm talking about what the words actually mean.

Oh. I see. We are having a mix-up in communication. :)

See, I am talking about what the market would be in the past, while you are talking about what it is right now. We both are right! :)

It's not rude to point out that dictatorships would meet your desire for a fast process better. The problem with the two party system is that it is prone to rolling over the rights of minorities. And the democratic system of the US is crap. The electoral college is one of the most ludicrous ideas that are still in existence (and yes, I'd still be calling for getting rid of it if Kerry had won Ohio).

You are dead wrong about the system here (how dare you call it crap... look at your own country..). But I'm going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going to discard this and perhaps place you on my ignore list again. I think you are nothing more then just a troll who doesn't understand the American system of government, nor my views. TROLL!

You are dead wrong about the system here (how dare you call it crap... look at your own country..). But I'm going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going to discard this and perhaps place you on my ignore list again. I think you are nothing more then just a troll who doesn't understand the American system of government, nor my views. TROLL!I understand the American system quite well. My school is part American, after all, and I had to take classes in American History. Calling my views on the electoral college "trollish" won't make them go away. And doing so certainly isn't "agreeing" to disagree.

Greetings from Poland. I would like to comment on some things stated here.

As to the percentage of the people who voted (and had the rights) - unfortunately it's worse than 50%-51%, it's ~40.4%.

And now I would like to tell you more about those "rightwingers" who have the biggest number of votes and are said to form a coalition.
You see - the first of those two parties, which has the 1st place ("PiS" with ~26%) is a conservative-socialist party that wants to finally make a decommunisation and lustration in Poland but continue socialist regulations with a bit of their cosmetic re-design.

And the second one ("PO" with ~24%) is morally-centrist and quite pro-market - they want to change the tax system to a 15% flat tax from a progressive one, that is currently in Poland. But the thing is that "PiS" is strongly against it, and with such vote results it won't pass even if "PO" will try now.

If we see the Right as conservative+free-market - the only Right-wing party in Poland, "UPR" (it groups also some libertarians, monarchists and some other groups) has 1.49%.

If you want to know something more, I'll gladly try to help you.

If you want to know something more, I'll gladly try to help you.German media have been mentioning PiS for playing the anti-German card (especially with regards to the Russo-German relations). How has that been going about?

Greetings from Poland. I would like to comment on some things stated here.

As to the percentage of the people who voted (and had the rights) - unfortunately it's worse than 50%-51%, it's ~40.4%.

And now I would like to tell you more about those "rightwingers" who have the biggest number of votes and are said to form a coalition.
You see - the first of those two parties, which has the 1st place ("PiS" with ~26%) is a conservative-socialist party that wants to finally make a decommunisation and lustration in Poland but continue socialist regulations with a bit of their cosmetic re-design.

And the second one ("PO" with ~24%) is morally-centrist and quite pro-market - they want to change the tax system to a 15% flat tax from a progressive one, that is currently in Poland. But the thing is that "PiS" is strongly against it, and with such vote results it won't pass even if "PO" will try now.

If we see the Right as conservative+free-market - the only Right-wing party in Poland, "UPR" (it groups also some libertarians, monarchists and some other groups) has 1.49%.

If you want to know something more, I'll gladly try to help you.


Ooooh! Someone in the country! Oh and this is why Socialism and Conservatives are almost never together. The political ideals tend to be short lived.

As for the comments on the electorial college, Look at it like this. It is to prevent a popularity contest from occuring in American Politics.

Now, ConLibria, describe the people who have the right to vote. What gives them the right to vote in your country?

1. Why exactly is it you guys brought the US of Arsehats into an unrelated topic again-again?

2. Is it just me, or did you Polish people just elect a bunch of capitalist-themed racist national socialists?

Somehow, I think the EU Social Democratic block will slap your little mitts with a big fucking steel ruler for that. But Berlusconi will prolly be your new best friend...

As for the comments on the electorial college, Look at it like this. It is to prevent a popularity contest from occuring in American Politics.Are you trying to say it hasn't turned into a popularity contest?
From my learning, the electoral college was put in place to ensure that the educated elite would be able to rule America and some populist wouldn't be able to gain power quickly. Andrew Jackson proved that the electoral college didn't work, where that was concerned.

Gore vs. Bush.

And that is why the Electorial College was put into place.

First of all, I forgot to mention already in the previous post - those results are from 60% already counted votes, so the final results may be a slight bit different.

1. The question of polish-german-russian relations.
From our polish perspective it looks like this: we are a bit afraid of some Germans calling for reparations from Poland (sic!), like Erika Steinbach et consortes. The second thing that worries us is the thing that Russia and Germany try to omitt Poland in the case of oil-pipes, and that resembles a bit Rapallo 1922.

2. To have the right to vote, you must be at least 18y old, be a citizen and have no sentence of losing voting-rights on you.

3. As to national-socialists: "LPR" and "Samoobrona" which are such parties have 12.44% ("Samoobrona" with 3rd place) and 7.83% ("LPR" with 5th place). And there is a racist national-socialist party also - "PPN" with... 0.29%.

Gore vs. Bush.

And that is why the Electorial College was put into place.Pardon me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it considered impossible for something like that to ever happen? (And just because the more popular guy didn't win, doesn't mean it hasn't turned into a popularity contest).

Oh, here's a graph of the vote results, if someone's interested - http://www.onet.pl

Odd really. I pretty much expected PiS would get 30-32% or there abouts. I guess I haven't been paying much attention these past two weeks.

Look I made a mix up in words. I said the corrupt Leftist Polish government was a good example of leftism. I made a mistake by saying leftism when I should of said corruption. New Zealand.. well I disagree with quite a few of the policies including the high taxes. And I don't think she is that leftist. But wait..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Clark

"Currently, Clark is New Zealand's caretaker Prime Minister, pending the result of the 2005 General Election. Provisional results gave Labour a one-seat lead over the New Zealand National Party. Final results will be announced at 2PM on the 1 October 2005."

I'm confused?

I'd agree about Clark, I tend to go with the opinion of the political compass website that Labour is pretty much in the centre.

As for the election results: we have MMP, same as Germany. Labour beat National by one seat, but both are at around 40% so they have to sort out a coalition. When they say final results that's because special votes (including overseas) still have to be counted, and this could change things a bit. But as things stand it's definitely Labour. National can't get a majority without the support of the Maori party, which is a bit unlikely given that bashing Maori was one of Brash's main campaign themes.

Also, coalitions: You're right about coalitions making things more complicated, but I think it's worth it. Major parties are always way too similar, and the minor parties make the system more representative. Usually they just get a few policies in return for support, if they make too many demands they will risk losing votes.

Gore vs. Bush.

And that is why the Electorial College was put into place.

so that you don't need to engage in widespread electoral misconduct in every state to take an election, just a few of them?

the reason for the electoral college was to placate racist southerners.

Cut the bias and report on what's happening, okay?

Poland isn't in any serious trouble that needs fixing, unlike Germany. Poland also has had very bad experiences with a very different form of "leftism" than the Germans.
And most importantly: Poland had very different experiences from the fall of the USSR than Germany did.

If you want to debate why the leftists will destroy the economy, please do. A mere assertion isn't enough.

i'll pick this up for him/her.

Why will leftists destroy an economy (or at least see non-optimum performance)?

a)Tax the hell out of productive people and give their money to unproductive people.

b)Socialism leads to sloth in some cases -- witness high unemployment (double-digit for some) rates for many of the more left-leaning western european countries. I didn't say EVERYONE offered a free ride to sit on the couch would accept that gift from Joe Taxpayer... but some will/do.

c)Socialism, due to the high taxes on the middle and upper classes and the controls on business, hurts entrepreneurialism. When those who would start businesses decide not to, jobs are lost (or... jobs that would haev been created are not created).

etc.

The Polish people, unlike the Germans, got it right.
Lol, good pun.

And i would counter that with Singapore. Its unemployment is 3.4%.
NZ is still better. Singapore is authoritarian.

Actually aren't liberals on the right wing too in Europe? That is at least what I think as a European.
Correct.

I don't. I just find it odd that Liberals are not put under Left. Though this could be because most of Europe is Liberal.
No, most of Europe is Social Democratic.

Actually, I am just looking at History, American, to be exact, and I am talking about Traditional Conservatives. America was one of the first to have a Government that elected it's own officials, and therefore, was one of the first to have conservatives.

They did. I am talking about TRADITIONAL Conservatives, as set forth in the Industrial Age.
Actually Traditional Conservatives were monarchists in Europe. The American style of libertarian conservatism was new, and inspired by John Locke and Adam Smith.

As for the comments on the electorial college, Look at it like this. It is to prevent a popularity contest from occuring in American Politics.
What? Isn't the point of democratic republicanism that the most popular candidate be elected? Whether they are elected for the right reasons is a different thing altogether.

Now, ConLibria, describe the people who have the right to vote. What gives them the right to vote in your country?
Being Polish and over 18, I imagine.

Being Polish and over 18, I imagine.

This, "and having no sentence of losing voting-rights upon you" as I have written in a previous post.

i'll pick this up for him/her.

Why will leftists destroy an economy (or at least see non-optimum performance)?

a)Tax the hell out of productive people and give their money to unproductive people.

b)Socialism leads to sloth in some cases -- witness high unemployment (double-digit for some) rates for many of the more left-leaning western european countries. I didn't say EVERYONE offered a free ride to sit on the couch would accept that gift from Joe Taxpayer... but some will/do.

c)Socialism, due to the high taxes on the middle and upper classes and the controls on business, hurts entrepreneurialism. When those who would start businesses decide not to, jobs are lost (or... jobs that would haev been created are not created).

etc.

I don't see how you can link socialism and unemployment. Unemployment is increased by free market policies as "inefficient" jobs are no longer supported by the market. During NZ's neoliberal reforms in the 80's unemployment went through the roof. Now it is the lowest in the OECD despite increased taxes.

I also don't see how taxes hurt entrereneurialism. Red tape, sure, but no-one chooses to remain poor just because taxes are lowest at the low income bracket. Your net gain always increases with more income.

I do agree that socialist policies can sacrifice optimum economic performance. An efficient economy is a good thing, but it is not the only factor in quality of life. I'd say that optimum economic performance is barely ever worth it because of the inequality it causes.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pl.html#Econ



If the CIA says so it must be true. ;)

The Polish people, unlike the Germans, got it right. They booted out the leftists and implemented a parties dedicated to market reforms and low taxes, which will benefit their economy. Now I predict Poland will prosper for years to come, as long as the right wing parties stay in office. Great job Poland!



Unless their economy tanks like Argentina.

i'll pick this up for him/her....
:p

I don't see how you can link socialism and unemployment. Unemployment is increased by free market policies as "inefficient" jobs are no longer supported by the market. During NZ's neoliberal reforms in the 80's unemployment went through the roof. Now it is the lowest in the OECD despite increased taxes.

You can't link socialism by itself, but you can link poorly managed systems with regressive economic policies like those in France and Germany to unemployment and stagnation. Compare their economies to those of England or Sweden to see what the effects of poorly managed and incompetent socialism are.

You can't link socialism by itself, but you can link poorly managed systems with regressive economic policies like those in France and Germany to unemployment and stagnation. Compare their economies to those of England or Sweden to see what the effects of poorly managed and incompetent socialism are.

What kind of regressive policies do you mean? Protectionism? I don't know that much about Sweden but have the impression that they have pretty high taxes. I'm not convinced that taxation can be linked reliably to economic performance, but I'd agree that protectionism should be avoided if possible. It does depend though. Having tariffs because of powerful lobby groups is definitely a bad thing, but sometimes there are reasons why a country would want a local industry even if it can't compete internationally.

What kind of regressive policies do you mean? Protectionism? I don't know that much about Sweden but have the impression that they have pretty high taxes. I'm not convinced that taxation can be linked reliably to economic performance, but I'd agree that protectionism should be avoided if possible. It does depend though. Having tariffs because of powerful lobby groups is definitely a bad thing, but sometimes there are reasons why a country would want a local industry even if it can't compete internationally.

Exactly, protectionism. Germany and France protect their economies with so many subsidies and tariffs (they give their farmers much more than the US even) that competition is totally restricted. These subsidies do far more harm than good.

The result is economic stagnation, which decreases tax revenues, leading to higher taxes which further crimps growth, and so on. Their social models are poorly designed, stifiling competition and weighing down services under a bureaucracy. The German/French model is doomed to failiure unless they reform. Compare them to:

Sweden's economy is modern, open, and efficent. It's geared towards exports and foreign competition and is efficently and evenhandedly regulated by the government. High taxes don't matter when productivity is high, the workforce is well educated, and they have a well constructed infrastructure combined with well designed social programs. The profits companies in Sweden can make as a result of the nation's benefits far outweigh the high taxes.

I'd cut out the telling other people what to do.

I edited it, but you aren't a boss.
Lucky for you.

Exactly, protectionism. Germany and France protect their economies with so many subsidies and tariffs (they give their farmers much more than the US even) that competition is totally restricted. These subsidies do far more harm than good.

The result is economic stagnation, which decreases tax revenues, leading to higher taxes which further crimps growth, and so on. Their social models are poorly designed, stifiling competition and weighing down services under a bureaucracy. The German/French model is doomed to failiure unless they reform. Compare them to:

Sweden's economy is modern, open, and efficent. It's geared towards exports and foreign competition and is efficently and evenhandedly regulated by the government. High taxes don't matter when productivity is high, the workforce is well educated, and they have a well constructed infrastructure combined with well designed social programs. The profits companies in Sweden can make as a result of the nation's benefits far outweigh the high taxes.

Yeah, here in NZ we ditched almost all of our protectionism in a couple of years back in the 80s. It was a pretty damn nasty shock but has worked out in the end. Protectionism is often still appropriate for cultural industries because efficiency isn't the main concern, but the way countries like the US and France support their agriculture and then just dump their surplus as 'aid' in the third world is pretty disgusting.

Exactly, protectionism. Germany and France protect their economies with so many subsidies and tariffs (they give their farmers much more than the US even) that competition is totally restricted. These subsidies do far more harm than good.
That's gotta be a joke, right? Germany and France are legally incapable of protecting their industries with tariffs. Tariffs inside the EU are illegal!
Subsidies are handed out by the EU (and indeed more even than the US - not that that makes it any better or worse), not by countries. France is a net receiver, Germany a net payer - do not throw both in the same pot.
And for heaven's sake, don't assume their problems stem from that.

The result is economic stagnation, which decreases tax revenues, leading to higher taxes which further crimps growth, and so on.
Yes, but cutting taxes (as has been done vigorously in Germany over the past years: eg German Corporate Tax: 25%, US corporate tax: 35%) has done little to help (it has increased the budget deficit though).
Tax Cuts are hardly a universal way of helping an economy.

Their social models are poorly designed, stifiling competition and weighing down services under a bureaucracy.
Much closer - bureaucracy is bad on both countries, but reforms have been undertaken in Germany, yet the results did not show.
Also it should be said that most of the bureaucratic bullshit comes from Brussels rather than from Berlin.

The German/French model is doomed to failiure unless they reform.
"Model"? As in "Social Democracy"? Prove it.

Sweden's economy is modern, open, and efficent. It's geared towards exports and foreign competition and is efficently and evenhandedly regulated by the government.
Unlike Germany, which is only the world's largest exporter. Sweden is a member of the EU, thus just as open as any other member of the EU.

High taxes don't matter when productivity is high, the workforce is well educated, and they have a well constructed infrastructure combined with well designed social programs. The profits companies in Sweden can make as a result of the nation's benefits far outweigh the high taxes.
Indeed. So you conclude that social democracy doesn't mean stagnation, but bad implementation does.

The Polish people, unlike the Germans, got it right. They booted out the leftists and implemented a parties dedicated to market reforms and low taxes, which will benefit their economy. Now I predict Poland will prosper for years to come, as long as the right wing parties stay in office. Great job Poland!

The Death of German Conservatism (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,376015,00.html)

You forgot Poland!
http://weather.ou.edu/~mjames/albums/yfp/ipoland0.jpg