Scandinavia - working socialist economies?

[theBruiser500]

our GDP is high and growing, our GDP includes everything bad that happens. cancer is good for our economy because of all the treatment for it involved and all the money it generates. that is how we measure growth here in the good united states.

would sweeden include treatemnt all the medical stuff sicne it's done by the government? is that not included in their gdp?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
our GDP is high and growing, our GDP includes everything bad that happens. cancer is good for our economy because of all the treatment for it involved and all the money it generates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bruiser, I am pretty sure this general take is mistaken in the matter of chronic diseases, because the costs of chronic diseases include enormous amounts of lost productivity in the workplace, as well as other costs. I read some years ago of studies done regarding the effects of cigarette-induced illnesses and the net economic effect of such was quite negative. Greater health care costs also contribute to rising insurance premiums which drain the pockets of the average citizen, so Joe Blow can't go spend that money elsewhere and thus can't raise the GDP in that manner either.

If Joe gets a nasty cold, he buys NyQuil maybe and loses a few days work, or works less effectively if he does go to work. Common colds reduce our country's GDP. Diseases like emphysema, chronic heart disease, and long-term cancer also reduce our GDP. Short-term cancer which quickly kills, raises GDP immediately, but costs GDP in the long run as the victim can no longer contribute years of work to future GDP's, nor can the (dead) victim purchase consumer goods or services in the future.

government purchases are included in GDP but government transfer payments are not.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
That was a completely different context.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah there it is, found it! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] What a distortion of your words, I apologize for using your quote without permission and out of context. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Seriously, an apophthegm, a maxim, is almost always taken "out of (its original) context". I simply considered the phrase you wrote worthy of that status, and that's how I used it, i.e. "You don't have to be rich to be a success!"

Quotations "by great men" are used that way, i.e. in varying contexts.

I'm not implying anything about your size, btw. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Here, we're talking about massive government intervention that *reduces* all measureable aggregate indicators.

[/ QUOTE ] If by "here", you are still referring to Scandinavian economies, you are seriously wrong.

"All measurable aggregate indicators"?! Hah. Not even in your dreams.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you'd like a Gross National Plundering index that measures how much is stolen from the producers and squandered. That seems like something most European nations would score high in.

[/ QUOTE ] People in Europe have been consistently responding quite positively about their standard of living, in general, when everything is taken into account, i.e. working conditions, environmental conditions, social policies, etc etc etc. Yes, the people of Europe are whining and moaning about the "Brussels bureaucracy" and would dearly love to have their taxes lowered, as everybody would, but they are unwilling to part with what those taxes are providing them for -- no matter how "inefficiently"...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a friend of mine was fond of saying, "When we pump out the last barrel of oil and cut down the last tree, we will discover that we cannot eat money."

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't eat oil or trees, either.

[/ QUOTE ]
Even if your rebuttal consists of a simplistic literal interpretation, it's not making it : One can eat off a tree.

...You can keep the oil. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, an apophthegm, a maxim, is almost always taken "out of (its original) context". I simply considered the phrase you wrote worthy of that status, and that's how I used it, i.e. "You don't have to be rich to be a success!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. We're talking about countries here, we were talking about individuals there.

[ QUOTE ]
People in Europe have been consistently responding quite positively about their standard of living, in general, when everything is taken into account, i.e. working conditions, environmental conditions, social policies, etc etc etc. Yes, the people of Europe are whining and moaning about the "Brussels bureaucracy" and would dearly love to have their taxes lowered, as everybody would, but they are unwilling to part with what those taxes are providing them for -- no matter how "inefficiently"...

[/ QUOTE ]

All of them??? Of course, those that are getting more than they are putting in love the system. And of course, those same people would love to get more "free stuff" at the expense of the producers while putting in even less of their own. These same people don't care if it's inefficient because it's someone else's money.

Unfortunately, those people aren't *everyone* in Europe. You're taking the opinion of some individuals and applying it "the people of Europe" (who don't have a single, unified opinion) - what you should say is "some people in Europe."

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
our GDP is high and growing, our GDP includes everything bad that happens. cancer is good for our economy because of all the treatment for it involved and all the money it generates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bruiser, I am pretty sure this general take is mistaken in the matter of chronic diseases, because the costs of chronic diseases include enormous amounts of lost productivity in the workplace, as well as other costs. I read some years ago of studies done regarding the effects of cigarette-induced illnesses and the net economic effect of such was quite negative. Greater health care costs also contribute to rising insurance premiums which drain the pockets of the average citizen, so Joe Blow can't go spend that money elsewhere and thus can't raise the GDP in that manner either.

If Joe gets a nasty cold, he buys NyQuil maybe and loses a few days work, or works less effectively if he does go to work. Common colds reduce our country's GDP. Diseases like emphysema, chronic heart disease, and long-term cancer also reduce our GDP. Short-term cancer which quickly kills, raises GDP immediately, but costs GDP in the long run as the victim can no longer contribute years of work to future GDP's, nor can the (dead) victim purchase consumer goods or services in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, Bruiser has used the broken window fallacy.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever. We're talking about countries here, we were talking about individuals there.

[/ QUOTE ]And, in bringing finally the two sub-threads together, I will maintain that, in the context of either individuals or countries, the rhetorical question applies equally aptly: Do you have to be rich to be success?

Anyone who does not answer that (rhetorical!) question negatively, has issues.

(And I do not mean underlying issues. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img])

[ QUOTE ]
Those people aren't *everyone* in Europe ... What you should say is "some people in Europe."

[/ QUOTE ] I did not imply that everyone in Eruope is in agreement. Europeans have not been unanimous or nearly unanimous about anything in the last two millenia, bless their inventive, belligerent, nervous souls!

The fact is that a significant number, oftentimes the majority, of Europeans are quite content with the social policies associated with the European Union, although, at the same time, they complain about the "bureaucracy" that comes with 'em.

Guess what? Collective policies, inculding collective decision-making, involve by definition some of that "bureaucracy". Most people in Europe realize this, when all is said and done -- and this is why they keep returning to power politicians that are carrying them on.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I did not imply that everyone in Eruope is in agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why do you use terms like "the people of europe" if not to downplay the dissenters?

Obviously, a lot of people support these policies. That doesn't make them legitimate (it doesn't necessarily make them illegitimate, either). Theft doesn't magically become legitimate when your gang grows past some critical size.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have to be rich to be success?

Anyone who does not answer that (rhetorical!) question negatively, has issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on what definition of success you're using for a particular question, which was exactly my point when I first made that statement. In that thread, the OP had used a well-defined condition (bankruptcy) for failure, and a vague and easily-redefined condition ("being rich") for success.

[ACPlayer]

Your statement was ill stated in the thread I started (which is why I ignored it there). In that thread there was no reference to success or failure as I consider those to be rich or bankrupt. There are successful people who are poor and vice-versa. The term success and failure are too subjective for me to use in a post (I am very precise [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img])

We can discuss that further in the other thread if you like. Now on to the meat of this thread.

By one measure the European nations are very successful. If you measure the number of young people willing and able to travel out of their countries for extended periods of time, America is way behind Scandanavia, Europe, and even Canada. I have noticed this in Africa and in Asia and have a recollection from parts of the Carribean that it is true over there as well.

I suggest this comes from the policies of the European Government to wit:

1. Greater vacation time per annum for travel. Two weeks per year is a great way to prepare workers for early graves.
2. Health Insurance. A 30 year Dane and his girl friend can take a year off and travel the world knowing that their health coverage is available at home when needed and on their return. An American who does that risks not getting coverage on his return, unless he quickly finds a job, has no preexisting conditions and was not hurt while travelling.

So, in these cases the government is acting to build an attractive life environment for their citizens. I guess the assumption is that Nokia, BMW, and the other corporation are good at negotiating their way through the government for goodies to improve the corporations well being -- however Nigel, Claudette, Milla, and Horst need their representatives (the people these folks voted for) to get goodies that improve their well being(such as vacation time and health care)

In America, the middle class (specially those who are rapidly falling into the poor class as posited by me in the other thread) keep falling for the myth that when their government (the people they elected yet) passes laws that make it easier for Credit Card companies to collect from bankrupt individuals somehow they are being helped!!!

Of course, it is the same middle class that buys the myth that the tax cuts primarily benefit them.

No wonder Rush Chortles on and on during his entertainment programs