Ban the Swastika

[ACPlayer]

Should the Swastika be banned in Europe?
Europe proposes Swastike Ban (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4178643.stm)

The swastika represents:
[ QUOTE ]
The case for the ban:
<ul type="square"> The Nazis' final assault on the Jews from 1933-1945
Estimated 15m civilians killed by regime
6m Jews murdered
1942: Gas chambers built at Birkenau concentration camp, mass transports begin
Majority who arrive gassed immediately
About 900,000 gassed at Birkenau
1.1m died at Auschwitz-Birkenau and its sub-camps
1m of them were Jewish
[/list]


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the swastika (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika) The points against the ban
<ul type="square"> The Nazi use of the Swastika was a distortion of a symbol dating back 5000 years
Freedom of speech
Swastika is sacred to about a billion hindus
Swastika is a long term cultural icon [/list]

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course the ban could never (?!) happen in America (due to freedom of speech), but our European brethren are considering it.

[bholdr]

no. it is speech. no ban.

[Snoogins47]

I could quite easily see a ban like this in happening in the States.

[Cyrus]

This is easy. Or, it should be. One need only examine "The Producers" - what do we do, ban the satire of the swastika? And if we don't ban the satire, where do we draw the line? And what about symbols resembling the damn thing? I could point out half a dozen runic symbols that could be used instead. You see how it goes.

This quickly degenerates into having moral rules dictated by the majority - which is one of democracy's dangers.

But I'm afraid there is a momentum in Europe to ban the swastika, driven by a combination of guilt and misguided politics. In Germany, all symbols, names and references to the Nazis are already banned by law. I find that to be a stupid law, and, what's more, a law that attains the opposite effect of what it aims for. I hope I don't have to explain why.

There was a Crossfire show, years back, when Frank Zappa was on, along with some Washington Times forgettable asshole journalist, and they were debating whether banning certain "obscene words" from rap songs would be a good thing or not. You can guess where Frank stood on the subject - and how convincingly (and hilariously) he made mincemeat of the hapless opposition! Frank's motto for the evening was, "It's just words and you guys want to ban words!"

Now we wanna ban drawings. Either we are out of arguments --which would be a sorry state of affairs if we cannot argue convincingly against Nazism-- or we are getting just plain sillier.

[zaxx19]

It shouldnt be banned. Freedom of expression supersedes people getting upset, even if those people have a very good reason to be upset.

Period.

And Europe stopped being "our brethren" about 12 years ago when they stopped needing us to detangle their genocidal messes and protect them from a Eurasian superpower. I feel like the US will have alot more in common with India and East Asia in the future than with Europe.

[Kaz The Original]

Who should moral rules be decided by if not the majority? The minority? Church? You?

[Kaz The Original]

[ QUOTE ]

And Europe stopped being "our brethren" about 12 years ago when they stopped needing us to detangle their genocidal messes and protect them from a Eurasian superpower. I feel like the US will have alot more in common with India and East Asia in the future than with Europe.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is this childish cliche making?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Who should moral rules be decided by if not the majority? The minority? Church? You?

[/ QUOTE ]

The rules in every society should be guided by the principle of individual autonomy. In other words, I should be free to do with my body and my soul as I please, if I hurt no one else in the process. And that includes believing in astrology, scientology or the Washington Times. Or smoking cigarettes, getting whipped or piercing my penis. (I'm using in my examples what, by some, are considered extreme behavioral aspects, in order to make a point. Don't start bugging me about Prince Albert.)

The Church, the majority, or me, should have no say in anybody's personal business.

[Toro]

I'm for not banning. A positive thing has occurred as a result of the Prince wearing the Nazi costume, namely creating a controversy which has served to educate the younger people of the horrible events of the past.

[elwoodblues]

I mostly agree. However, I can see why a society in Europe (Germany in particular) would want to make the ban. That one symbol represents SO much pain that they literally want to wash themselves of it. They also want to send a strong message that they won't let their country fall under that trap again.

[Bez]

A ban would achieve nothing.

[Bubbagump]

It most definately should not be banned, but it won't surprise me at all if the ban gets passed.

IMO the whole reason that it is already banned in Germany is because of guilt. If the German people never have to look at another swastika again, the German people can carry on with their lives as if the Holocaust never happened at all.

Every country in the world has now, or has had its dark moments in history. I think each country should be forced to reflect on those moments every once in a while.

Bubbagump

[archmagi]

I don't think it can't be banned. At the most, they can ban swastika drawn in the Nazi fashion.
Swastika can be drawn in many different forms. For example, a slante "S" represents a swastika. They cannot possibly ban all forms.
Besides it being sacred to Hindus, Swastika's can be found on many middle age churches, carved on their walls and painted on the ceilings. What are they going to do, konck down the 1000 year old cathedrals?

[MichaelLee]

Displaying a swastika doesn't mean you're a Nazi; Being a Nazi means you're a Nazi. Seems as though some sensitive people have forgotten what the word "symbolism" means.

[Felix_Nietsche]

In the USA, we do have freedom of speech (free expression).....for the most part.

In *OLD* Europe, they may claim to have free speech/ free expression but their politicans are getting loonier and their hive mentality is trying to force their moral code on everyone else.

Brigitte Bardot, the femme fatale actress, was fined in France for publicly speaking her mind. LePen, the contraversial French politician, is being taken to court for saying unpopular things. Those who do not like certain types of free speech are using laws to punish their enemies. Europe is self-destructing economically and socially...

In today's WSJ (2005 Jan 27), there is a story of a Iraqi man who wants to vote in Sunday's election. He does not fear possible car bombs but he does fear retribution on his family. But some people consider the elections to be an immoral assault on Islam so they seek to bully the others to obey their wishes to boycott the elections. Tell me....other than tactics(murder vs government fines) what is the difference between these Iraqi thugs and European moralists?

Let people burn their countries flags and wear swastikas. Who cares? I do not. Government needs to butt out of people's lives... But I fear this ban will probably be passed and set the precedent to stifle more free speech/free expression in Europe.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
In *OLD* Europe, they may claim to have free speech/ free expression but their politicans are getting loonier and their hive mentality is trying to force their moral code on everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you are using the Donald Rumsfeld definition of "OLD EUROPE" which signifies the "anti-Iraqi war" Europe. I'll have you know that the RumsfELd definition has been patented already - for stupidity.

(Check this link (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/26/pendleton/index.html) for the definition of stupidity in war.)

Next time, ask for permission to use it.


[ QUOTE ]
Europe is self-destructing economically and socially.

[/ QUOTE ]


I laugh all the way to the bank reading this, where I'm heading to deposit more moolah into my Euro-denominated account.

(I'll give you a discount for making me laugh, too, if you wanna borrow a clip above Euribor.)

[Wake up CALL]

I suppose you'll be laughing all the way to the poorhouse too Cyrus when Europe completes it's self destruction.

[Voltron87]

I don't think it should be banned in the US, it is a form of speech, etc, but I can think if Germany wants to ban it that would be reasonable.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it should be banned in the US, it is a form of speech, etc, but I can think if Germany wants to ban it that would be reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is freedom of speech only good for Americans?

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
I could quite easily see a ban like this in happening in the States.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very easily... all we need is for enough people to call it "hate speech" and out it goes.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"I laugh all the way to the bank reading this, where I'm heading to deposit more moolah into my Euro-denominated account."
***Lets look at some facts.
Average unemployment rate in Europe is 10% and the GDP growth percentage of Old European countries like France is 1.7% and for Germany is 1.8%. WOW! That is better than Zimbabwe! As a matter of fact, Germany and France made the top 10 list of having the slowest GDP growth of all nations. Gee whiz, I guess I was wrong. I better transfer my investments to Europe...

Old Europe has been sliding for thirty years. Back in the 1970s Europe had a lower unemployment rate than the US and a much healthier GDP growth than they do today. Old Europe has been self destructing with pathological anti-business laws. Their Karl Marx-lite economic policies are killing Old Europe slowly.

I have data to back up why I think Old Europe is self destructing economically. Do you have data to back up why it is not? Or do you want to concede now that you don't know what your talking about?

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
So is freedom of speech only good for Americans?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. The American way is the only way. If Europe doesn't support our definition of "freedom" we should invade Europe and force them to accept our definition of "freedom".

[Felix_Nietsche]

Europe is not worth invading.
Perhaps a "Viking" like raid to steal all their best looking women and bring them back to the USA...... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps a "Viking" like raid to steal all their best looking women and bring them back to the USA

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me. But I think we should shave their armpits.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Once again Cyrus spouts off opinions without any supporting facts and once again he shows his mind is ruled by emotions and not reason.....

I'll throw down the gauntlet again.... Perhaps you can prove me wrong and show that you are able to back up your arguments with supporting facts...

Can you explain why Germany and France are in the top 10 for the worst GDP growth% in the world and yet you think Old Europe is NOT in economic trouble?

I won't be holding my breath for you actually back your claims.....

[sirio11]

GDP Growht%

What kind of stat is that?

So, since Afganistan, Equatorial Guinea and Turkmenistan have a higher GDP Growth than the US, that means that their economies are in better shape. Please

[zaxx19]

Old Europe is beyond help.....

Its native populations are at below replacement birthrates.
Their economic systems temporarily buoyed by European cooperation have now slid back into their old patterns of regression. And the Immigrant population continues to mushroom and without proper assimilation this will cause problems most Europeans cant fathom.

Old Europe is the new front of Islamic expansion.

Look for a new age of cooperation between the Arab states and Europe...conversely the United States trade with India will expand rapidly creating a new partner for North America. The Pacific Rim will be dominated by China and Japan will be the real loser in this restructuring.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Nice try, but you can spin away the fact that:

Hi GDP growth % = GOOD
Lo GDP growth % = BAD

You can't spin away the fact that the two largest economies in Europe (France/Germany) have one of the worst GDP growth % in the world.

For countries with small economies, they can show an extremely high growth% in the SHORT RUN.... So comparing Afganistan's GDP growth% with the USA is not very useful. The USA has a mature economy while Afganistan does not....

Today, Germany and France have 10% unemployment and terrible GDP% growth.
In the 1970s they had low unemployment rates and good GDP growth.

Jeez....Don't tell me your going to claim these are signs of a healthy economy. Are you going to claim their economies have not been in a downslide since the 1970s. Please...

[bholdr]

France and Germany can have poor growth and still not be in serious economic trouble at the same time because thier populations are actually shrinking.

why do you think "old europe " (an inflammitory and partisan, emotive term) IS in economic trouble, out of curiousity?


try to look at the whole picture before 'throwing down the gauntlet' next time.

[zaxx19]

Bc it isnt an even shrink.

The numbers of working aged people is DRASTICALLY DECLINING. At the same time the numbers of older people continues to increase.

And the educational make-up of prospective workers in the future will be less than desirable. In socialist systems this is almost a sure recipe for disaster.

[Il_Mostro]

Now, isn't this exactly why some people in the US want's to do an overhaul of SS? You have the same problems.

Maybe the economies of Europe is going down, but at the moment it's not our currency that's in free-fall, not us that need 2.8 billion$ (some 80% of the total world savings, as far as i've read) in foreign loans every day to go around, not us that will go bankrupt if the rest of the world decides to stop throwing good money after bad.

I'd say we're in this togehter. And this at the end of cheap oil, with no viable alternatives in sight.

[Bez]

UK has the 2nd largest economy in Europe, not France. Unless you're referring to Europe as meaning the Eurozone then fairplay.

[BadBoyBenny]

Not disagreeing, I really don't know. But I have a question.

Is this real GDP growth rate or nominal rate (local currency)? If it's local currency, then the Euro's rise over the dollar would help cover the gap.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Average unemployment rate in Europe is 10% and the GDP growth percentage of Old European countries like France is 1.7% and for Germany is 1.8%.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your understanding is choppy. Let's see why.

You are calling (like that idiot Rumsfeld) France and the other "core" EU countries, Old Europe. By default, the newer EU members, such as Poland, etc, are your New Europe.

So, you are disparaging "Old Europe's" economies. Impressive chutzpah.

Just answer me this, please: Is it currently preferable to (A) invest, and/or (B) reside in Old Europe or in New Europe ?

[ QUOTE ]
The Karl Marx-lite economic policies are killing Old Europe slowly.

[/ QUOTE ]
What do you call "Karl Marx lite"? The greater percentage (comparatively to the US) of the GNP coming out of the state sector? It's not as greater as to cause systemic inefficiencies.

Or, perhaps the much greater social care provided in "Old Europe", in its various manifestations? The weaker disparity in income distribution among the people? (Doesn't the GINI count for anything anymore?)

A case in point of your fallacious thinking is this morcel. You say

[ QUOTE ]
Back in the 1970s Europe had a lower unemployment rate than the US and a much healthier GDP growth than they do today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Back in the 1970s (and before), "Old Europe" had a MUCH greater state sector, MORE dirigiste economies, HIGHER taxation in general, and at least as big a chunk of GNP diverted to social care as today.

So, to quote Dustin Hoffman from Marathon Man, What Are You Saying??

[ QUOTE ]
I have data to back up why I think Old Europe is self destructing economically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. A present from the internet which will keep me amused for the weekend. Great value. Can't wait.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Felix_Nietsche]

"Back in the 1970s (and before), "Old Europe" had a MUCH greater state sector, MORE dirigiste economies, HIGHER taxation in general, and at least as big a chunk of GNP diverted to social care as today."

****Greater state sector? Huh?! Care to back that up. According to OECD statistics (table 8.2)
French Govt Taxes as % of GDP increase 31% from 1968-98.
German Govt Taxes as % of GDP increased 17.1% from 1968-98.
Swedish Govt Taxes as % of GDP increased 48.6% from 1968-98.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&amp;start=8&amp;q=http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/200/300/fraser/tax_facts_12/08TxFxch8.pdf&amp;e=9901
Old European politicians love to play Santa Claus with other people's money....

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Again, I won't hold my breath that you will actually back up these absurb claims... You are indeed living in a land of make believe. Take my advice and concede it was during a drunken stupor that you mistakenly made the above claims and I will say no more about...

Obviously you and Old Europe have not heard the cold war is over.

Adam Smith won and Karl Marx lost.

Old Europe is afraid to let go of their "Karl Marx Lite" economies. The producers of a country can support only so many parasites before the economy falls too its knees. Old Europe needs a Ronald Reagan badly to cut taxes and regulation so that their economies can show a healthy growth. But they will never elect a Reagan until they hit rock bottom. Which will occur in the next 30-50 years...

"Just answer me this, please: Is it currently preferable to (A) invest, and/or (B) reside in Old Europe or in New Europe ?"
****Here is my answer.
(A)It is preferable to invest in economies that show strong growth. Since New Europe has stronger growth than Old Europe, I would invest in New Europe.
(B)Depends. If I was financially independent and did not have to work and pay taxes, then my choices would be betwwen Prague, Paris, Amsterdam, or Frankfort. If I was starting a business and wanted to make big$, then New Europe is the best place to go. I would lean toward Prague because the girls I saw there were quite nice /images/graemlins/smile.gif and it was inexpensive.

Once again supporting facts trumps wishful thinking and movie quotes...

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it should be banned in the US, it is a form of speech, etc, but I can think if Germany wants to ban it that would be reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is freedom of speech only good for Americans?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're an idiot. It would be ok to ban it in Germany because of the stigma associated with the Holocaust.

[Cyrus]

You should learn to look at things you do not like without so much as your blood pressure rising.

You claimed that the economies of "OLD EUROPE" are getting "killed" by their "Karl Marx-lite economic policies".

Well, you are wrong. If indeed the "OLD EUROPE" economies are not doing well, this is most certainly NOT because they are following some kind of "leftist" policy. If anything, all western European countries have moved towards more privatisations of public sector companies, total liberalisation of movements of labour, capital and trade across European frontiers, generally lower ranges of taxation of corporations and citizens, lower levels of deficit-financed government projects, more stringent (i.e. anti-labour) policies, less people working for the public sector as a percentage of labour force, etc.

Felix : "Back in the 1970s Europe had a lower unemployment rate than the US and a much healthier GDP growth than they do today."

Cyrus : "Back in the 1970s (and before), "Old Europe" had a MUCH greater state sector, MORE dirigiste economies, HIGHER taxation in general, and at least as big a chunk of GNP diverted to social care as today."

In response, you focused exclusively on the level of taxes as a percentage of GDP, which you "discovered" has grown since the 60s. True enough as table 8.2 in your link (http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/200/300/fraser/tax_facts_12/08TxFxch8.pdf) shows, but look closer at that table! The change in taxes (as a percentage of GDP) from 1965 to 1998 in the whole of OECD averaged 43%. France, Germany, Britain, the "OLD EUROPE", was way behind that average.

But the factor that you ignore is that, since the 1960s, there has been a colossal amount of privatisation in western Europe. The telecommunications sector alone would suffice to show the enormity of the achievements. Those state entities went private and started paying taxes! What was once possibly un-productive, probably mismanaged and certainly not paying taxes, turned into a tax-paying (and usually big) corporation. Which is another factor why that percentage has shot up.

I'll say it again: The western European governments since the 1970s have engaged in turning their economies --others less, others more so-- towards the "neo-liberal", right-wing, aggressively capitalist model. ALL governments -- from the Italian leftist "Olive" (that's a political coalition, yes) to the Spanish rightist Popular Party (currently somewhat unpopular). ALL governments "downsized the state sector, turned less dirigiste, lowered taxation in general, and cut off big chunks of social care programs from GNP."

I happen to disagree with some (not all) those moves, for specific reasons, grounded in reality and not ideology, but seeing ignorant people, such as you, turning things upside down and assigning blame for the European economies on their "leftist economic policies" (!) is not adding insult to injury -- it's adding imbecility to insult.

BTW, I noticed you are using the term "OLD EUROPE" exactly as the idiot Rumsfeld does. How fitting.

[TomBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
Who should moral rules be decided by if not the majority? The minority? Church? You?

[/ QUOTE ]
Every individual ultimately and rightly determines his own moral guidelines.

Attempts by any person, group, institution or Government, especially by a Government, to impose morality on an individual or a people is almost always unwise and generally unwelcome.

This is not to say that suggested guidelines for living wisely and happily made by family, friends, and religious or cultural organizations are bad. Quite the contrary. But the key word there is 'suggested', versus 'decided.' Certainly, most Governments are amongst the least qualified institutions imaginable to assert a superior knowledge of morality.

And it is an essential prerequisite for freedom that the rights of the minority be protected from the oppression of the majority.

- TomBk

[Felix_Nietsche]

"I'll say it again: The western European governments since the 1970s have engaged in turning their economies --others less, others more so-- towards the "neo-liberal", right-wing, aggressively capitalist model."

****Never have I read so much bull**** in one post.
Since the 1970s? Uh...did you not look at the data I provided?

"But the factor that you ignore is that, since the 1960s, there has been a colossal amount of privatisation in western Europe."
****Then why does this not reflected in the govt growth data I provided?

Until now I just thought you were a person with some kooky ideas. Now I am firmly convinced you are a FRAUD who makes up "facts" to support your preconceived ideas.

You can NOT back up any of the assertions you have made with any govt size as % of GDP.

Show me data of Govt size as a % of GDP that supports your assertions and I will apologize. Otherwise my opinions of you being a fraud who makes up facts to support your posts will remain in place.

SHOW ME GDP data or just concede you made this all up. I simply can not believe anything you say...

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Since the 1970s? Uh...did you not look at the data I provided?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. Have you? Your own data, I mean?

[ QUOTE ]
I am firmly convinced you are a FRAUD who makes up "facts" to support your preconceived ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would I ever want to do that? To impress ..you?? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
You can NOT back up any of the assertions you have made with any govt size as % of GDP.

[/ QUOTE ]
Once again: I did not assert anywhere (and I challenge you to show otherwise) that "taxation as a percentage of GDP" rose or declined or whatever. (And I already provided you with one of the reasons behind the "discrepancy" you thought you discovered between your data and my claim: Newly privatized companies, instead of taking in state budget funds, started to pay taxes to the state.)

What I wrote is that the taxation rates of both corporations and individuals have gone down, in general, since the 1970s, in "Old Europe" (to use the term you and the idiot Rumsfeld are using). Nothing "leftist" there.

If you don't believe this (you seem to have gotten your education from the web!), I may dig up some data for you -- when I'm done scratching my balls. It's a promise. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
"Since the 1960s, there has been a colossal amount of privatisation in western Europe." : Then why does this not [get] reflected in the govt growth data I provided?

[/ QUOTE ]
What do you mean, specifically? There have been numerous privatisations across the board in western Europe, yes. (Get with the program and start reading up something beyond WorldNetDaily!) And yes, western Europe's economies have grown since the 1960s -- are you disputing this?

I do not disupte (never disputed) that a lot of western European economies are currently in a slump. I never contested that the EU is perfect, for that matter! But I find your claim that "Old Europe is killing itself by Karl Marx-lite policies" to be laughable.

Like I said : You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Il_Mostro]

I'm not sure what you are trying to show with these stats, care to enlighten me?

I also do not recoqnize the "europe is getting more socialist by the hour" viewpoint you seem to have. Certainly Sweden has not become more socialist the last 10 years (or the last 30). You seem to have a very skewed with of what socialism is. Hint, it's not just how much taxation there is...

There has been a massive surge for privatization in Sweden (and the rest of western europe) the last 10 years or so, telecom., energy, postal service and so on, so forth. How do you connect that with your view of more socialist government?

I get the feeling you don't really know a lot about European countries, am I correct? Have you spent time here? Studied more indepth from home?

[Felix_Nietsche]

My point is back in the 1970's Western Europe had low unemployment(lower than the USA) and healthier economic growth. Since the 1970's, governments in Western Europe have grown in size (as a % of GDP) and now they have higher unemployment and more sluggish economic growth.

My position is the cost of government acts as burden to the health of a country's economy. Governments that tax/regulate the private sector heavily, hurt the health of their economy. If a country has a large govt (measured as % of GDP) then I consider that country to be more socialistic. If a country has a small govt (measured as a % of GDP) then I consider that country to be more capitalistic. Traditionally, in the USA there has been struggle between the Democratic Party wanting to increase government "services" (the size of the govt.) and the Republican Party trying to keep government smaller. In Europe, the people have elected politicians that have increased the size of government since the 1970s.

I have not seen recent GDP data and whether the privatization has had much of an effect on these countries govt size as a % of GDP. I'll probably be going to the library on Friday and if I have time I'll compare the size of Western Governments (measured as a % of their GDP), the corresponding unemployment rates, and GDP growth.

Yes, I have spent time in Europe.
England, 3 times
France/Germany, 3 times
Czech Republic, Once
Holland, Once
Scandinavia, Zero /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Cyrus]

"Since the 1970's, governments in Western Europe have grown in size (as a % of GDP)."

I presume you mean "taxation as pecentage of government revenue". Is that it? Please be precise in such matters. It makes for better conversation. Thanks.

"If a country has a large govt (measured as % of GDP) then I consider that country to be more socialistic. If a country has a small govt (measured as a % of GDP) then I consider that country to be more capitalistic."

Europe and the rest of the capitalist democracies, including Japan, has always had more "government" as you put it than the US. (As a matter of fact, Japan has been, for the last fifty years, ferociously dirigiste -- no matter what political party/coalition was in power.)

So, the question has always been one of relative measure. And, relatively, Europe has turned more "right-ward" in its economic policies in the last thirty years. No European worth his title would dare argue with that! (The whole political spectrum has shifted rightward! What was a center-left party is now center or center-right, and what was left is not at best center-left -- and so on. The current policies, for instance of the Labour government in the UK were demonstrated against by the Labour opposition some decades ago!)

"I'll probably be going to the library on Friday and compare the size of Western Governments, the corresponding unemployment rates, and GDP growth."

Don't do only that. Check mainly the progress on the following : (1) Freedom of inter-border trade and capital movements; (2) Fiscal policies of EU imposed on member states, and the pivotal role of the European Central Bank; (3) Rate of privatisations; (4) Government subsidies to ailing industries; (5) Right-to-work legislation; (6) Flow of labour across borders (in a nutshell: absolutely free); (7) Competition rules.

Should give you a better picture than the one you seemingly have right now.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
If a country has a large govt (measured as % of GDP) then I consider that country to be more socialistic. If a country has a small govt (measured as a % of GDP) then I consider that country to be more capitalistic.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are severely misusing the terms here. You really need to stop doing that. You are not allowed to redefine the meaning of words without clearly stating what you mean by them up front (allowed as in allowed to do it and still expect anyone to take you seriously). That is basic argumentation theory. And even if you do state it up front it's really a bad practise. If you mean that the state has grown (as a % of GPD) then say so, don't muddle it up by misusing words.

Also, to go off on a slight tanget, GDP (and GPD growth)is an extraordinairly bad measurement of the health of a country. GDP can go up as living standards go down for example. There are those who argue, fairly persuasively, that the overall quality of life in the US peaked in the late 70:s and has gone down ever since. Incidentally, the energy use/capita also peaked around that time.

So, to conclude. You are probably correct in that the governments has become larger as a % of GPD since the 70:s. Most countries here has not become more socialist during this time, however.

[ QUOTE ]
Scandinavia, Zero

[/ QUOTE ]
Well? Stop mucking about and get over here then, you're missing out, dude.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
GDP (and GPD growth)is an extraordinairly bad measurement of the health of a country. GDP can go up as living standards go down for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn right.

The GINI index of stratified income dispersion is one of the most important measures of true "economic happiness", IMHO. Total dispersion means Taliban; the other extreme means Sultan of Brunei. "Happiness", as is often the case, lies somewhere in between.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
You're an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good one. Way to bolster your argument.

[ QUOTE ]
It would be ok to ban it in Germany because of the stigma associated with the Holocaust.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is it ok to ban the Stars and Bars and wistling Dixie in the States? Or should FREEDOM of speech trump whatever "stigma" might be associated with it?

[Matithyahu]

I think the true "ban" does not have to be put in writing. I have never seen any Hindu wear a swastika, or anything like that. I have only seen it worn by Nazis, or neo-Nazis, or British Royalty. But never on Hindus. I agree that banning it is wrong. I would just hope that Nazis and neo-Nazis who generally wear swastikas slowly evaporate from the cultures of the world, so we wouldn't have to put up with people glorifying Nazis.

M@

[Bez]

I have to agree with you. Banning the swastika in Germany has not prevented right-wing extremism - it is rife, especially in the East. Banning a symbol achieves nothing, just sweeps the dust under the carpet.