Ban the Swastika

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[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.