NationStates Jolt Archive

(in general) Conservatives tend to have kids, liberals do not.

Sorry I dont have a source. Anyways, I read a paper the other day which pointed out that in seatle, a liberal place, dogs greatly outnumber kids. In salt lake city, a die-hard conservative place, dogs vastly outnumber kids.

So, if conservatives have more babies than liberals, and parents pass on their ideologies to their kids, does that mean liberals are gonna die out from lack of babies?

You didn't factor in youth rebelion, kids going against their parents beliefs.

As an agnostic liberal from a conservative christian family, I would have to say that that idea is stupid.

Were liberals a species of humans, perhaps. But they aren't.

1. Political views aren't inherited.
2. There is no fact or truth to what you are stating.
3. What is moderate conservative today was once considered Liberal-progressive a century ago. That's called progressivism and this trend will continue.

(in general) Conservatives tend to have kids, liberals do not.

Sorry I dont have a source. Anyways, I read a paper the other day which pointed out that in seatle, a liberal place, dogs greatly outnumber kids. In salt lake city, a die-hard conservative place, dogs vastly outnumber kids.

So, if conservatives have more babies than liberals, and parents pass on their ideologies to their kids, does that mean liberals are gonna die out from lack of babies?
no itll even out, the conservative's extra dogs will end up eating the extra conservative babies.

(in general) Conservatives tend to have kids, liberals do not.

Sorry I dont have a source. Anyways, I read a paper the other day which pointed out that in seatle, a liberal place, dogs greatly outnumber kids. In salt lake city, a die-hard conservative place, dogs vastly outnumber kids.

So, if conservatives have more babies than liberals, and parents pass on their ideologies to their kids, does that mean liberals are gonna die out from lack of babies?
If conservatives get their way and ban abortion, the US will be swamped with liberals, who will in turn reverse the abortion ban, and so on and so on....:rolleyes:

no itll even out, the conservative's extra dogs will end up eating the extra conservative babies.

Ah, nature and its brutal balance...

Seriously, I think the end of Liberals and Conservatives will come about when the labels themselves become meaningless. The "defining" schisms of our day are hardly as enduring as they seem.

Were liberals a species of humans, perhaps. But they aren't.


That's mature. :rolleyes:

(in general) Conservatives tend to have kids, liberals do not.

Sorry I dont have a source. Anyways, I read a paper the other day which pointed out that in seatle, a liberal place, dogs greatly outnumber kids. In salt lake city, a die-hard conservative place, dogs vastly outnumber kids.

So, if conservatives have more babies than liberals, and parents pass on their ideologies to their kids, does that mean liberals are gonna die out from lack of babies?
I submit this as the stupidest post of the week.

That's mature. :rolleyes:
lol I didn't mean it that way...I meant it's not genetic as in a human subspecies.

That's mature. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Oops, sorry, already got it.

I don't think EM was saying liberals aren't human, I think they were suggesting that political affiliation is not conveyed via genetic vector, and so is not dependent on biological forebears to preserve its numbers.

As long as conservatives keep messing things up, there will be liberals :p

(in general) Conservatives tend to have kids, liberals do not.


I'm probably the most leftist liberal hippie socialist commie you'll ever meet in your lifetime and I mean that even if you've had dinner with Vanessa Redgraves and Jane Fonda in one night.

I have 4 children.

*coff*

EDIT: Oops, sorry, already got it.

I don't think EM was saying liberals aren't human, I think they were suggesting that political affiliation is not conveyed via genetic vector, and so is not dependent on biological forebears to preserve its numbers.
:p Exactly. But it sounds funnier if you look at it the way Maineiacs did now that I look back on it.

Thankfully we tend to progress and move left. The US slower than Europe sure, but left is the trend, and it'll continue. In fifty years they'll be shocked at some of the issues of today and regard us as right-wing idiots

That's mature. :rolleyes:

It is, liberals aren't a seperate species, we'll keep popping out of even the most conservative of vages.

Thankfully we tend to progress and move left. The US slower than Europe sure, but left is the trend, and it'll continue. In fifty years they'll be shocked at some of the issues of today and regard us as right-wing idiots

I don't think left is necessarily the trend. Protectionism is a left-wing idea (although it is also right wing, unions are left wing and advocate it strongest) and yet is disappearing because it is a failiure.

I think libertarian is the trend, and the left just happens to represent libertarianism more when it comes to social freedoms. Economically, the world is shifting more towards a free, common market.

lol I didn't mean it that way...I meant it's not genetic as in a human subspecies.


Oops. My bad. Sorry.

I don't think left is necessarily the trend. Protectionism is a left-wing idea (although it is also right wing, unions are left wing and advocate it strongest) and yet is disappearing because it is a failiure.

I think libertarian is the trend, and the left just happens to represent libertarianism more when it comes to social freedoms. Economically, the world is shifting more towards a free, common market.
Hmm if only this is so.

Hmm if only this is so.

I think it is, really.

I think it is, really.
The move towards a world government would indicate otherwise though.

I don't think left is necessarily the trend. Protectionism is a left-wing idea (although it is also right wing, unions are left wing and advocate it strongest) and yet is disappearing because it is a failiure.

I think libertarian is the trend, and the left just happens to represent libertarianism more when it comes to social freedoms. Economically, the world is shifting more towards a free, common market.

Libertarianism is the trend amongst socially inadaquete political message board users sure, but for people in the real world it's a non-issue

Libertarianism is the trend amongst socially inadaquete political message board users sure, but for people in the real world it's a non-issue

No, not really. Some libertarian ideas have been implemented, and they are generally successful. Pure libertarianism is unrealistic and unachievable, but free trade, social liberty and economic/political freedom do have real benefits and are successful, and are the future of the world.

No, not really. Some libertarian ideas have been implemented, and they are generally successful. Pure libertarianism is unrealistic and unachievable, but free trade, social liberty and economic/political freedom do have real benefits and are successful, and are the future of the world.

Social freedoms, sure. Lower taxes and a focus on individual rights simply don't work

Social freedoms, sure. Lower taxes and a focus on individual rights simply don't work

Lower taxes do work, provided they fall where they have the most benefit. And individual rights are an excellent plan no matter what; virtually all societies that emphasize individual rights are better off than those that don't, and politically free societies tend to be far better off economically and socially than those that are not. Freedom works, provided it is responsibly used.

Lower taxes do work, provided they fall where they have the most benefit. And individual rights are an excellent plan no matter what; virtually all societies that emphasize individual rights are better off than those that don't, and politically free societies tend to be far better off economically and socially than those that are not. Freedom works, provided it is responsibly used.

Well, in the country with the highest standard of living in the world you could be paying 50% tax, so I disagree

Well, in the country with the highest standard of living in the world you could be paying 50% tax, so I disagree
Maybe there are factors other than high tax that help them, such as a wealth of natural resources?

I don't think left is necessarily the trend. Protectionism is a left-wing idea (although it is also right wing, unions are left wing and advocate it strongest) and yet is disappearing because it is a failiure.

I think libertarian is the trend, and the left just happens to represent libertarianism more when it comes to social freedoms. Economically, the world is shifting more towards a free, common market.

Right-libertarianism is the trend in Europe, definitely, though in countries like Germany and France a strong backlash is developing. In the US, it is less so; within the next decade the US will likely move slightly leftward economically, the population will demand it.

In the Third World the situation is considerably more complex; I think Chile or Argentina is the emerging model, with heavy skepticism towards capital liberalization and the international institutions that enforce it, extensive investment in health care and education, and more or less non-protectionism. It remains to be seen whether that sort of center-left capitalism can survive; if the crumbling social democratic edifice in Europe is any indication, most likely not, and the consequences of that will be destructive.

Well, in the country with the highest standard of living in the world you could be paying 50% tax, so I disagree

Countries like Sweden and Norway have three major things that enable them to do that; they have natural resources that are worth a fortune and enable them to support economic growth as well as provide revenue, they have extremely small populations that have remained in equilibrium, and they have a well developed, open economy.

The official tax rate may be high, but it is so efficently collected and so well designed that the effective rate is easily 30-40% lower; Sweden's effective corporate tax rate is lower than that of the US because the tax money is efficently collected and allocated, resulting in savings to companies far greater than their actual tax bill. This translates in to benefits for everyone.

However, this can't work everywhere because these ideal conditions don't exist.

Right-libertarianism is the trend in Europe, definitely, though in countries like Germany and France a strong backlash is developing. In the US, it is less so; within the next decade the US will likely move slightly leftward economically, the population will demand it.
In which European countries is it a trend? :confused: Germany and France spend quite heavily to begin with, and they are faced with numerous problems.

I'm not sure how the left is the trend in the US. Since the 1968 "Southern Strategy" the US has been dominated by Southern presidents and Republican presidents. There has been no non-Southern Democrat president, and every non-Southern Democrat who runs for the White House is portrayed as a liberal wackjob and loses. The Southern Strategy moved the Republicans to the right and forced Democrats who want to win to move to the right as well. I don't see any left-wing trend in the US at all.

I'm not sure how the left is the trend in the US. Since the 1968 "Southern Strategy" the US has been dominated by Southern presidents and Republican presidents. There has been no non-Southern Democrat president, and every non-Southern Democrat who runs for the White House is portrayed as a liberal wackjob and loses. The Southern Strategy moved the Republicans to the right and forced Democrats who want to win to move to the right as well. I don't see any left-wing trend in the US at all.
He means economically, in which case there is. Even Republicans nowadays advocate big government, like Buchanan.

*snip*
Precisely. These countries are exceptional though. Norway also has huge wealth reserves due to oil.

I'm not sure how the left is the trend in the US. Since the 1968 "Southern Strategy" the US has been dominated by Southern presidents and Republican presidents. There has been no non-Southern Democrat president, and every non-Southern Democrat who runs for the White House is portrayed as a liberal wackjob and loses. The Southern Strategy moved the Republicans to the right and forced Democrats who want to win to move to the right as well. I don't see any left-wing trend in the US at all.

What other changes have there been? Since your date, in the sixties, racism has decreased, segregation seems almost impossible, AA has been introduced. And that's just one issue.

In which European countries is it a trend? :confused: Germany and France spend quite heavily to begin with, and they are faced with numerous problems.

I did not say the countries were right-libertarian, I said they were moving in that direction. Both Germany and France currently have center-right governments, and both have center-left parties who embrace the Third Way (France less so than Germany).

Overall the trend has been towards privatization and curtailment of the welfare state.

Right-libertarianism is the trend in Europe, definitely,

um... No it most definitely is not... thankfully.

I did not say the countries were right-libertarian, I said they were moving in that direction. Both Germany and France currently have center-right governments, and both have center-left parties who embrace the Third Way (France less so than Germany).

Overall the trend has been towards privatization and curtailment of the welfare state.
Germany and France may too go that way though. They are declining economically.

um... No it most definitely is not... thankfully.
Thankfully?

Countries like Sweden and Norway have three major things that enable them to do that; they have natural resources that are worth a fortune and enable them to support economic growth as well as provide revenue, they have extremely small populations that have remained in equilibrium, and they have a well developed, open economy.

The official tax rate may be high, but it is so efficently collected and so well designed that the effective rate is easily 30-40% lower; Sweden's effective corporate tax rate is lower than that of the US because the tax money is efficently collected and allocated, resulting in savings to companies far greater than their actual tax bill. This translates in to benefits for everyone.

However, this can't work everywhere because these ideal conditions don't exist.

Ireland, Canada and Australia are examples of societies closer to the US in structure and are doing better in terms of standard of living.

1. Political views aren't inherited.
2. There is no fact or truth to what you are stating.
3. What is moderate conservative today was once considered Liberal-progressive a century ago. That's called progressivism and this trend will continue.

Correct.

However, this can't work everywhere because these ideal conditions don't exist.
It is not as blunt as you are putting it. Most of those conditions you've mentioned must be created. I detest how Friedman's apostles discard Svandinavia's third-way policies. The bottom line that libertarians, conservatives and neoliberals don't want to hear is that those nations have accomplished all that because they have never placed corporate avarice in front of access to social and economic freedom for ALL.

Right-libertarianism is the trend in Europe, definitely, though in countries like Germany and France a strong backlash is developing. In the US, it is less so; within the next decade the US will likely move slightly leftward economically, the population will demand it.

In the Third World the situation is considerably more complex; I think Chile or Argentina is the emerging model, with heavy skepticism towards capital liberalization and the international institutions that enforce it, extensive investment in health care and education, and more or less non-protectionism. It remains to be seen whether that sort of center-left capitalism can survive; if the crumbling social democratic edifice in Europe is any indication, most likely not, and the consequences of that will be destructive.

Really, there is no conflict between the free market and social welfare; the government can provide those services and support them easily and still maintain a free market economy. The key is to restrict or eliminate government interference in the economy, particularly in regard to trade and subsidies to corporations. However, Europe is not doing this and their systems are falling apart because of it; their growth is not slow because of the social welfare system, but rather because they are attempting to supress comparative advantage and the market in favor of populist goals.

For example, it is far better to provide government healthcare than it is to subsidize private companies to do so; the people who want private health care can get it because the economy is open, but those who don't or cannot can recieve that necessary care without being subject to the vagaries of the market. The free market preserves the consumer's right to choose, but there will be an independent government safety net to support those whose needs are not or cannot be met by the free market.

It's perfectly possible to have both government and free-market services in the same economy, provided the government doesn't act anticompetitively; in fact, the savings companies recieve as a result of these programs may ultimately level the playing field further because the government can more easily adopt a neutral stance than private companies.

He means economically, in which case there is. Even Republicans nowadays advocate big government, like Buchanan.

"Big government" is not necessarily left-wing.

Economically the US has shifted to the right in the past forty years; in the 1960s Johnson could advocate expansion of the welfare state, but the last Democratic president we had participated eagerly in its curtailment. Truman could propose universal health care back in the 1940s and '50s, but today even Kerry's moderate reform was derided as "big government" and "socialist." The problem for the Republicans is that the US public is not with them at all economically, and is, if anything, slightly to the left of the Democrats.

It is not as blunt as you are putting it. Most of those conditions you've mentioned must be created. I detest how Friedman's apostles discard Svandinavia's third-way policies. The bottom line that libertarians, conservatives and neoliberals don't want to hear is that those nations have accomplished all that because they have never placed corporate avarice in front of access to social and economic freedom for ALL.
So then why has no other nation been able to emulate their success so far?

Thankfully?
Yes thankfully. I find that the unorthodox centrism that has come forward resulting from Europe's alternating governments of social-democrats and conservatives favourable to any style of government the US has had since Reagan and excluding Clinton.

Ireland, Canada and Australia are examples of societies closer to the US in structure and are doing better in terms of standard of living.
Because they are centrist. Its freedom equally for all they practice. Not freedom for whoever can afford it. The impoverished Americans are "essentially living in Honduras".

me 1
Tucker Carlson 0

Yes thankfully. I find that the unorthodox centrism that has come forward resulting from Europe's alternating governments of social-democrats and conservatives favourable to any style of government the US has had since Reagan and excluding Clinton.
So you also find Europe's increasing paralysis and other social problems (such as unemployment) favourable then?

He means economically, in which case there is. Even Republicans nowadays advocate big government, like Buchanan.

I question even that. In election 2000, for what must be the first time in American history, both the Republican and the Democrat Presidential candidates promised big tax cuts. The big government spending of the last 5 years is one of the reasons why public satisfaction with Congress and both parties is so low.

"Big government" is not necessarily left-wing.

Economically the US has shifted to the right in the past forty years; in the 1960s Johnson could advocate expansion of the welfare state, but the last Democratic president we had participated eagerly in its curtailment. Truman could propose universal health care back in the 1940s and '50s, but today even Kerry's moderate reform was derided as "big government" and "socialist." The problem for the Republicans is that the US public is not with them at all economically, and is, if anything, slightly to the left of the Democrats.
Are you sure of this? If anything, I find them closer to the Right.

So then why has no other nation been able to emulate their success so far?
The answer to that question is simply... Their success has been emulated.

The answer to that question is simply... Their success has been emulated.
By whom? And if so, how do they intend on ensuring that they do not run out of the wealth necessary to maintain such a system?

It is not as blunt as you are putting it. Most of those conditions you've mentioned must be created. I detest how Friedman's apostles discard Svandinavia's third-way policies. The bottom line that libertarians, conservatives and neoliberals don't want to hear is that those nations have accomplished all that because they have never placed corporate avarice in front of access to social and economic freedom for ALL.

In some ways, the two can be mutually inclusive. Scandinavia may have a large social welfare system, but it also has healthy economic growth, solid population growth, and relatively low unemployment as well as many multinational corporations.

These nations' social infrastructures improve the quality and productivity of their workforces, increasing the profitability of the corporations while they also reduce costs and ease the tax burden, also improving the bottom line.
Where other nations have failed is that they attempted to accelerate profits through subsidies and tax advantages rather than improving the quality of the workforce and easing the tax burden by making it more fair.

So you also find Europe's increasing paralysis and other social problems (such as unemployment) favourable then?1. What paralysis?
2.Unemployment goes up and down and varies greatly from nation to nation.
3. What other social problems (considering only those that are exclusively european)?

So then why has no other nation been able to emulate their success so far?
The rest of western europe has done quite well.

The answer to that question is simply... Their success has been emulated.

Well at least you have corrected described their path as "third way" and not "socialist" as some people seem to believe.

http://fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=814

Imagine a country where the following changes have been (or are being) introduced by a centre-left government: choice of primary and secondary schools, along with decentralisation of the education system; choice in healthcare, along with foundation hospitals; welfare reform, geared to making the economy more competitive; conditional unemployment benefits; a drive to get single mothers into the labour force; more early-years childcare; a commitment to balanced budgets; an insistence that immigrants accept the host society's values; a bigger role for the private sector in pension provision.

The UK under new Labour? One might well think so, as this list accurately summarises much of new Labour's programme. But no, the country in question is Sweden, assumed by many to be the most "socialist" society in Europe.

um... No it most definitely is not... thankfully.

Every social democratic party in Europe now embraces the Third Way and rejects "socialism," even the deformed and half-hearted version they once advocated. Even the Communists are moving to a left social democratic position, instead of their former socialist position. Both center-left and center-right governments, except perhaps in Spain, are pursuing right-wing "economic reform." It looks like Sweden will elect a center-right government in its election this year, and that will be the second time in only a little more than a decade - this in a country which has had a dominant left-wing since about 1930.

Who or what is considered a liberal these days? liberal as in a neo-classical liberal such as I (Libertarian)? a person who beleives in the freemarket, but also protects the welfare state?

All very nice throwing around liberal and conservative, but there are different meanings, given generational and cultural backgrounds.

1. What paralysis?
Its growth is declining rapidly. The EU average is around 1%.

2.Unemployment goes up and down and varies greatly from nation to nation.
With Germany and France having the highest.

3. What other social problems (considering only those that are exclusively european)?
Problems of immigrants integrating into society and a declining birth rate. These may appear in the US, but not to the extent that they do in the EU.

In some ways, the two can be mutually inclusive. Scandinavia may have a large social welfare system, but it also has healthy economic growth, solid population growth, and relatively low unemployment as well as many multinational corporations.

These nations' social infrastructures improve the quality and productivity of their workforces, increasing the profitability of the corporations while they also reduce costs and ease the tax burden, also improving the bottom line.
Where other nations have failed is that they attempted to accelerate profits through subsidies and tax advantages rather than improving the quality of the workforce and easing the tax burden by making it more fair.
The reason their workforce is highly quailfied is the direct result of government action.

Are you sure of this? If anything, I find them closer to the Right.

On issues like health care? Social Security? Free Trade? Most definitely not. The Republicans are hanging on with cultural and nationalist reaction, they know that on economics they would be crushed.

The rest of western europe has done quite well.
France and Germany? Which countries can boast using a system akin to that used by the Scandinavian nations and then boast the consequent wealth and elevated living standards?

1. What paralysis?
2.Unemployment goes up and down and varies greatly from nation to nation. 3. What other social problems (considering only those that are exclusively european)?

Europe does have some economic difficulties, particularly in regard to its rate of job creation, GDP growth, and demographic crises in its largest nations that threaten their social infrastructure. They are also facing budget problems and disputes over trade between themselves and other nations like China.

Slow economic growth is not bad in itself (in some instances, it can be good provided it's temporary) but it does become a problem in an environment of increasing inflationary pressue because the ECB cannot alter its monetary policy enough to always tame inflation, nor can it loosen it enough to revive growth because rates have to remain low to keep the economy still growing.

Slow growth also reduces growth in tax revenue, which is a serious problem given the growing demographic problems in Germany.

Every social democratic party in Europe now embraces the Third Way and rejects "socialism," even the deformed and half-hearted version they once advocated. Even the Communists are moving to a left social democratic position, instead of their former socialist position. Both center-left and center-right governments, except perhaps in Spain, are pursuing right-wing "economic reform." It looks like Sweden will elect a center-right government in its election this year, and that will be the second time in only a little more than a decade - this in a country which has had a dominant left-wing since about 1930.Yes but you're a communist. Communists in europe have been calling social-democracy, Neoliberal policy for years.

On issues like health care? Social Security? Free Trade? Most definitely not. The Republicans are hanging on with cultural and nationalist reaction, they know that on economics they would be crushed.
Yes, that much is true. My point is that their hold is still very powerful though. They are not in any form of decline, not yet anyway.

Who or what is considered a liberal these days? liberal as in a neo-classical liberal such as I (Libertarian)? a person who beleives in the freemarket, but also protects the welfare state?

All very nice throwing around liberal and conservative, but there are different meanings, given generational and cultural backgrounds.
I consider a Liberal to be a centrist, socialy progressive and economicaly liberal policies. We are the hardest political animals to define and group. I always use the Liberal Party of Canada and their platform as a reference.

Its growth is declining rapidly. The EU average is around 1%.The European economy is more stable and less subject to spikes like the US economy is. Up or down. Every indicator in the first trimester suggest that in 2006 and 2007 there will be recovery and growth.

Problems of immigrants integrating into society and a declining birth rate. These may appear in the US, but not to the extent that they do in the EU. There is no cataclysmic problem here. Nor is it a direct result of European policy. Europe is still expanding while it doesn't have a central government with central policies. In fact it is precisely because there is no official Euoropean immigration policy that integration of immigrants is inefficient in some nations. Meanwhile in other nations such as Denmark for example, immigration is exemplary.

Personally I'm a staunch Euro-Federalist.

I consider a Liberal to be a centrist, socialy progressive and economicaly liberal policies. We are the hardest political animals to define and group. I always use the Liberal Party of Canada and their platform as a reference.
I would well endorse the Scandinavian system, were it to work in other nations in an equally successful manner and were it to have a long-term staying power (in other words, that it won't suffer from a melt-down due to scarcity of resources). Perhaps what would be necessary is the formation of smaller nations out of bigger ones.

On issues like health care? Social Security? Free Trade? Most definitely not. The Republicans are hanging on with cultural and nationalist reaction, they know that on economics they would be crushed.
They and anybody with two-cents worth of knowledge in economics. If you want to increase the national debt you vote republican otherwise you vote democrat.

The European economy is more stable and less subject to spikes like the US economy is. Up or down. Every indicator in the first trimester suggest that in 2006 and 2007 there will be recovery and growth.
Ceteris paribus, yes. It does have a problem with competitiveness though and some regions are near complete stagnation.

There is no cataclysmic problem here. Nor is it a direct result of European policy. Europe is still expanding while it doesn't have a central government with central policies. In fact it is precisely because there is no official Euoropean immigration policy that integration of immigrants is inefficient in some nations. Meanwhile in other nations such as Denmark for example, immigration is exemplary.

Personally I'm a staunch Euro-Federalist.
If this implies a confederal system, such as that of Switzerland, I am all for it too. I think the EU needs more of a political status, although not to become overly centralised.

Yes but you're a communist. Communists in europe have been calling social-democracy, Neoliberal policy for years.

I don't care what the Communists in Europe say or don't say, I don't care much for them except perhaps as a least of several evils (and that only in Western Europe).

Looking at what the social democratic parties advocated forty or even twenty years ago, compared to what they advocate now, the difference is obvious.

Really, there is no conflict between the free market and social welfare; the government can provide those services and support them easily and still maintain a free market economy. The key is to restrict or eliminate government interference in the economy, particularly in regard to trade and subsidies to corporations. However, Europe is not doing this and their systems are falling apart because of it; their growth is not slow because of the social welfare system, but rather because they are attempting to supress comparative advantage and the market in favor of populist goals.

For example, it is far better to provide government healthcare than it is to subsidize private companies to do so; the people who want private health care can get it because the economy is open, but those who don't or cannot can recieve that necessary care without being subject to the vagaries of the market. The free market preserves the consumer's right to choose, but there will be an independent government safety net to support those whose needs are not or cannot be met by the free market.

It's perfectly possible to have both government and free-market services in the same economy, provided the government doesn't act anticompetitively; in fact, the savings companies recieve as a result of these programs may ultimately level the playing field further because the government can more easily adopt a neutral stance than private companies.

The problem is that Third World countries don't have the infrastructure and wealth to support extensive social welfare systems (at least not without severely redistributing wealth), and they won't get that wealth unless they either restrict capital flight or force increases in wages. Neither will be welcomed by foreign investors. Chávez has managed to avoid this problem with very high oil prices that allow him to run social programs without redistributing wealth, but he will either move considerably to the left or considerably to the right once they fall again, to deal with the consequences. Lula has already been brought into line. We will have to see about Argentina and Chile.

As an agnostic liberal from a conservative christian family, I would have to say that that idea is stupid.

I second that. Or third that.

France and Germany? Which countries can boast using a system akin to that used by the Scandinavian nations and then boast the consequent wealth and elevated living standards?Belgium to name one. Luxumbourg is two. Spain is pretty neat. They have made great progress despite a large traditional unemployment. If you by Scandinavian you mean with a broad ranging public system, than its practically every other developed nation on the planet.

Belgium to name one. Luxumbourg is two. Spain is pretty neat. They have made great progress despite a large traditional unemployment. If you by Scandinavian you mean with a broad ranging public system, than its practically every other developed nation on the planet.
No, I mean a nation that has enjoyed similar levels of economic and social success. Not just the economic system. If their level of private market and welfare economy can be combined to produce such results, it is worth looking into, presuming others can emulate it without running dry in terms of capital.

Luxembourg and Belgium are also extremely small.

Europe does have some economic difficulties, particularly in regard to its rate of job creation, GDP growth, and demographic crises in its largest nations that threaten their social infrastructure. They are also facing budget problems and disputes over trade between themselves and other nations like China.

Slow economic growth is not bad in itself (in some instances, it can be good provided it's temporary) but it does become a problem in an environment of increasing inflationary pressue because the ECB cannot alter its monetary policy enough to always tame inflation, nor can it loosen it enough to revive growth because rates have to remain low to keep the economy still growing.

Slow growth also reduces growth in tax revenue, which is a serious problem given the growing demographic problems in Germany.

One of the main critiques I have of the welfare systems of several European nations is the need for reform of its social security and public pensions. Reform was needed about a decade ago. Very little was done. The system needs a total overhaul. I think Canada's model is perfect. Reformed in 97. Private pensions are stressed while public pensions function as an old age insurance only that allows senior citizens to be well off without the extravagant Ponzi scheme type returns that they expect to receive in Europe.

Ceteris paribus, yes. It does have a problem with competitiveness though and some regions are near complete stagnation.The end of 2005 was rock bottom for most nations in Europe. Its slowly picking up again.

If this implies a confederal system, such as that of Switzerland, I am all for it too. I think the EU needs more of a political status, although not to become overly centralised.

I favour a full blow centralised government. Similar to the USA or perhaps even Canada's provinces. Part of this is from my hatred of euro-nationalism.

The end of 2005 was rock bottom for most nations in Europe. Its slowly picking up again.
Hopefully it will be back on track by the end of this year.

I favour a full blow centralised government. Similar to the USA or perhaps even Canada's provinces. Part of this is from my hatred of euro-nationalism.
I am not too sure if that would work. EU regions are far too different to each other, as opposed to American states or Canadian regions. A one-size-fits-all style of policy-making in the EU may be devastating. It could mean economic death. I don't care for Euro-nationalism one way or the other. A Swiss model of confederacy, on the other hand, could be just what the EU needs.

No, I mean a nation that has enjoyed similar levels of economic and social success. Not just the economic system. If their level of private market and welfare economy can be combined to produce such results, it is worth looking into, presuming others can emulate it without running dry in terms of capital.

Luxembourg and Belgium are also extremely small.
Is Canada or Australia big enough for ya?

Europe as a whole is larger than the USA in population. It is still growing and expanding and in sheer volume it is allready comparable and only slighly smaller than NAFA. I still declare that the third way cannot be applied elsewhere does not stick.

Is Canada or Australia big enough for ya?
Comparatively speaking, they still are. Australia and Canada barely reach 30 million. Many EU nations run into 50 million citizens, some well over that. The US runs well into 300 million.


Europe as a whole is larger than the USA in population. It is still growing and expanding and in sheer volume it is allready comparable and only slighly smaller than NAFA. I still declare that the third way cannot be applied elsewhere does not stick.
Precisely. So far the Third Way has been working well in smaller countries. The US or a highly centralised EU would have problems implementing it as it stands, unless they did it slowly and methodically. The US's debt is already escalating way too high.

Hopefully it will be back on track by the end of this year.


I am not too sure if that would work. EU regions are far too different to each other, as opposed to American states or Canadian regions. A one-size-fits-all style of policy-making in the EU may be devastating. It could mean economic death. I don't care for Euro-nationalism one way or the other. A Swiss model of confederacy, on the other hand, could be just what the EU needs.

What I aspire for Europe is the creation of a European President elected by direct universal and popular vote, a european army, a european government, a european Prime Minister, a european constitution, european common policies where applicable, and so forth.

What I aspire for Europe is the creation of a European President elected by direct universal and popular vote, a european army, a european government, a european Prime Minister, a european constitution, european common policies where applicable, and so forth.
This could equally apply to a confederal EU though, without all the problems that excess centralisation would entail for a region where countries differ significantly.

Any attempt at Euro-Federalism would have a naturally loose body of government. Kings and Queens wouldn't just give up their entitlements and an entity so large would naturally require a de-centralised government.

Any attempt at Euro-Federalism would have a naturally loose body of government. Kings and Queens wouldn't just give up their entitlements and an entity so large would naturally require a de-centralised government.
Then we are talking about Swiss style confederalism :)

They and anybody with two-cents worth of knowledge in economics. If you want to increase the national debt you vote republican otherwise you vote democrat.

The US National Debt has increased under every president, Republican and Democrat, since FDR.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto3.htm

The US National Debt has increased under every president, Republican and Democrat, since FDR.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto3.htm
In terms of % of GDP(which is what matters) it has not.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

There is a clear trend here. Even those who are colour blind can surely see this.

The US National Debt has increased under every president, Republican and Democrat, since FDR.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto3.htm
Yeah, but Republican presidents spend far more than Democrat presidents and George W. is the king of debt.

An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible For Excessive Spending (http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm)

Since 1946 the Democratic Presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.7% per year when they were in office. The Republican Presidents stay at an average increase of 9.3% per year. Over the last 59 years Republican Presidents have out borrowed Democratic Presidents by almost a three to one ratio. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.87.

Chew on those numbers for awhile.

In terms of % of GDP(which is what matters) it has not.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

There is a clear trend here. Even those who are colour blind can surely see this.

Why are Nixon, Ford, and Eisenhower colored blue?

Why are Nixon, Ford, and Eisenhower colored blue?
There was a decrease in debt as a % of GDP during their presidencies. What this says is basically that the tragedy that was Nixon gave the GOP an excuse to revert to neo-classic economic structure starting with Reagan. Neoliberalism. The next few generations of Americans will eventually have to pay for this down the road. America needs more presidents like Clinton. More democrats and less neoconservative lunatic warmongers.

The US National Debt has increased under every president, Republican and Democrat, since FDR.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto3.htm
Huh, from that it looks like from the eight years of Clinton it went from 4,692,749,910,013.32 to $5,674,178,209,886.86, up about a trillion. Bad.

But in the time of Bush it went from $5,674,178,209,886.86 to $7,932,709,661,723.50, over 2 trillion in less time.

Bush the I in four years 2,602,337,712,041.16 to 4,064,620,655,521.66 - Holy hell, almost 2 trillion in 4 years....

Reagan? 930,210,000,000.00 to 2,602,337,712,041.16 in 8 years (1,662,966,000,000.00 in 4)

Carter goes from 653,544,000,000.00 to 930,210,000,000.00, comparitively speaking, crackers. But bigger numbers are going to increase faster than smaller, so momentum figures pretty prominantly there-not to give Carter too much credit...

But, the data provided does support that, yes, it's gone up under everyone, but it goes up noticably faster under Republican presidents.

There was a decrease in debt as a % of GDP during their presidencies.

Oh, I thought the graph was colored by party, as the red/blue division would imply.

But, the data provided does support that, yes, it's gone up under everyone, but it goes up noticably faster under Republican presidents.

It seems like more bad timing than anything; the Democrats were elected in tooffice at times of comparative peace and economic stability while Republicans are elected during wars and recessions...Bush has definitely had some of the worst luck of a president in a while.

It seems like more bad timing than anything; the Democrats were elected in tooffice at times of comparative peace and economic stability while Republicans are elected during wars and recessions...Bush has definitely had some of the worst luck of a president in a while.
That's not true. Truman and Ike had Korea. JFK, LBJ and Nixon had Vietnam. I contend that Bush has created most if not all of his bad luck. If democrats have governed in peace time it is because they have cultivated peace.

That's not true. Truman and Ike had Korea. JFK, LBJ and Nixon had Vietnam. I contend that Bush has created most if not all of his bad luck. If democrats have governed in peace time it is because they have cultivated peace.

Ike and Nixon were both elected during a war, which is what the previous poster was arguing when he said Republicans are elected during wars (not my own opinion). Neither started the wars that they finished.

Ike and Nixon were both elected during a war, which is what the previous poster was arguing when he said Republicans are elected during wars (not my own opinion). Neither started the wars that they finished.
The point is that there is no real connection to increasing national debt and war. I find that it is important to pay atention to real statistics and historical fact as a general rule. To avoid unecessary and utopic dogmas such as Reganism or Bush's neoconservatism. A decrease of national debt requires good government and prudent fiscal policy. Peace is not mandatory as the record clearly shows.

Since 1946 the Democratic Presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.7% per year when they were in office. The Republican Presidents stay at an average increase of 9.3% per year. Over the last 59 years Republican Presidents have out borrowed Democratic Presidents by almost a three to one ratio. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.87.

Chew on those numbers for awhile.


Strange that they decided to start their argument from 1946. It cuts out an entire period of borrow and spend that began in 1932. Anyway, during the 59 years in question, Republicans have held the White House for 33, the Democrats for 27. Republicans controlled the House of Representatives for 13 years, Democrats for 46. Republicans controlled the Senate for 16, Democrats for 43. I'm mentioning all this to back up my initial claim that Democrats and Republicans have all contributed to the US national debt (Congress must pass the budget or shut down the federal government as it did in 1996).

The budget is nevertheless the presidents responsibility.

It seems like more bad timing than anything; the Democrats were elected in tooffice at times of comparative peace and economic stability while Republicans are elected during wars and recessions...Bush has definitely had some of the worst luck of a president in a while.
Bad luck? That's what you're going to go with? Bad luck? At this point, and I'm not superstitious, but really with the data given and the excuse of 'bad luck' it seems like it is bad luck to elect a republican president. With that kind of statistical predictability, I'd have to go with that...

Not all republican presidents are bad. They've all been horrible since and including Nixon. Just about when the Neocons took over the GOP. Prior to that I feel that Ike was one of the top 5 possibly top 3 presidents of all time.

Strange that they decided to start their argument from 1946. It cuts out an entire period of borrow and spend that began in 1932. Anyway, during the 59 years in question, Republicans have held the White House for 33, the Democrats for 27. Republicans controlled the House of Representatives for 13 years, Democrats for 46. Republicans controlled the Senate for 16, Democrats for 43. I'm mentioning all this to back up my initial claim that Democrats and Republicans have all contributed to the US national debt (Congress must pass the budget or shut down the federal government as it did in 1996).
However, I suppose you didn't notice that the biggest and sharpest rise of US GDP (it went over $10 trillion) was during FDR's term of office?

Now if King George the Lesser hadn't started an unnecessary war in Iraq, spending hundreds of billions in the process, and cutting taxes.....

Political views aren't heriditary....

As an agnostic liberal from a conservative christian family, I would have to say that that idea is stupid.
Indeed.

I would well endorse the Scandinavian system, were it to work in other nations in an equally successful manner and were it to have a long-term staying power (in other words, that it won't suffer from a melt-down due to scarcity of resources). Perhaps what would be necessary is the formation of smaller nations out of bigger ones.

That is assuming that culturally, the country is willing to accept a over berring government in peoples lives, and over regulating and taxing everything that moves or resembles the slightest hint of life.

Believe me, in Sweeden, it isn't all sunshine and lolly pops, there is a sizeable number who are pissed that they're taxed in every aspect of their life, only to find that the money is wasted at every turn as it seems to go through each department.

Sorry, I don't want that model; I want control over my own life, without the interference of government telling me what I can and can't do; dictating to me whether my relationship with a member of the same sex is sociallably acceptable, or whether I am earning 'too much'.

I'm probably the most leftist liberal hippie socialist commie you'll ever meet in your lifetime and I mean that even if you've had dinner with Vanessa Redgraves and Jane Fonda in one night.

I have 4 children.

*coff*
You're not as commie as DHomme, but you are more hippie.

Really, there is no conflict between the free market and social welfare; the government can provide those services and support them easily and still maintain a free market economy. The key is to restrict or eliminate government interference in the economy, particularly in regard to trade and subsidies to corporations. However, Europe is not doing this and their systems are falling apart because of it; their growth is not slow because of the social welfare system, but rather because they are attempting to supress comparative advantage and the market in favor of populist goals.

For example, it is far better to provide government healthcare than it is to subsidize private companies to do so; the people who want private health care can get it because the economy is open, but those who don't or cannot can recieve that necessary care without being subject to the vagaries of the market. The free market preserves the consumer's right to choose, but there will be an independent government safety net to support those whose needs are not or cannot be met by the free market.

It's perfectly possible to have both government and free-market services in the same economy, provided the government doesn't act anticompetitively; in fact, the savings companies recieve as a result of these programs may ultimately level the playing field further because the government can more easily adopt a neutral stance than private companies.
I've finally realised that you are one of the smartest posters on this forum. *worships*

That is assuming that culturally, the country is willing to accept a over berring government in peoples lives, and over regulating and taxing everything that moves or resembles the slightest hint of life.

Believe me, in Sweeden, it isn't all sunshine and lolly pops, there is a sizeable number who are pissed that they're taxed in every aspect of their life, only to find that the money is wasted at every turn as it seems to go through each department.

Sorry, I don't want that model; I want control over my own life, without the interference of government telling me what I can and can't do; dictating to me whether my relationship with a member of the same sex is sociallably acceptable, or whether I am earning 'too much'.

Agreed for almost all of your post.

But a good post nonetheless.

I think, that in the future....people are going to want a government that is less in your face and more behind the scenes. Government is usually big, slow and ugly....something you dont want to see daily. Government should be there for the nessesities....but people are bound to get fed up with being taxed to piss on a side walk and are going to get equally pissed about the government being in their social life.

I may have a biased conservative America point of view, but I'd like the government to be there when we need it, but not to prevent us from doing things, and not to expand to meet its needs from expanding, which certianly seems happening in most of Europe.

Its bad enough that you are an American conservative. Why do you quote Hitler?

Its bad enough that you are an American conservative. Why do you quote Hitler?

Eh...I honestly didnt quote Hitler.

I swear.

What did I say?

In your signature.

In your signature.

Oh...I thought you ment in my post.

I have that too show how important it is for men to think and what happens when we dont.

when you have kids, especially in a marriage, you tend to care more about your family and more about hings that will protect and keep your family safe and happy, there fore you tend to go conservative.

when you have kids, especially in a marriage, you tend to care more about your family and more about hings that will protect and keep your family safe and happy, there fore you tend to go conservative.

Wow. I guess all those liberal parents don't know they are conservatives.

This has to be the dumbest day ever on Nation States... Seriously. It's crazy dumb.

Bad luck? That's what you're going to go with? Bad luck? At this point, and I'm not superstitious, but really with the data given and the excuse of 'bad luck' it seems like it is bad luck to elect a republican president. With that kind of statistical predictability, I'd have to go with that...

Well I can shorten it a little from how it's been explained to me a few times.

When times are good and it's a demo Presdent; it's because of the Republican President 10 years before as it takes 10 years for an economic policy to take affect(ie Clinton really inherited the effects of Regan).

When times are bad and it's a Republican President; its because of the Demo President 10 years ago(ie shrubby's problems are really because of Clinton).