Many leftists often point to the "superiority" of Scandinavian "socialism." Leftists often use Denmark and Sweden as their examples, since they are the most successful Scandinavian nations. I already covered this issue in an earlier post, but I feel it is important to rehash this topic and to post a refutation of this leftist fallacy. For this post, we shall define Scandinavian countries as Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland. Some might dispute whether we should consider Finland and Iceland as Scandinavian, because of cultural differences (Finland) and geographical barriers (Iceland), though we the point of this post is not to argue whether or not these countries are Scandinavian, but to dispute the fact that they are indeed successful socialist states.
First of all, most leftists will use the USA as the measure of laissez faire capitalism. We all know that this is completely false, so I won't go into detail refuting this casuistry here but I'd like to point several things out: Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, and Australia were all rated as "more free," according to the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom. It would probably be better to compare these Scandinavian nations to Hong Kong or Ireland than to the United states.
Furthermore, Scandinavian nations are not nearly as socialist as leftists claim they are. Although the United States ranks higher than these nations on the Index of Economic Freedom, Scandinavian nations are more free in several decisive areas. Denmark has greater business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, freedom from corruption, and labor freedom while having comparable property rights and trade freedom scores to the U.S. Sweden has greater business freedom and freedom from corruption, while having comparable trade freedom, monetary freedom, property rights enforcement, investment freedom, and financial freedom to the United States. Finland has greater business freedom, monetary freedom, and freedom from corruption than the United States, while having comparable property right enforcement, financial freedom, and trade freedom. Norway, the least successful Scandinavian nation, has greater freedom from corruption than the United States while having comparable business freedom, trade freedom, and property right enforcement. Iceland has greater business freedom, fiscal freedom, and freedom from corruption, while having comparable trade freedom and property right enforcement. In many ways, Scandinavian countries are more "laissez faire" than the United States.
To finish of this deal, here are some articles, excerpts, etc. about the failure of specific welfarist policies the Scandinavian countries follow, change occurring in these nations, and the like:
The Sweden Myth (LvMI)
How the Welfare State Corrupted Sweden (LvMI)
Sweden: Poorer Than You Think (LvMI)
Can the United States Learn from the Nordic Model? (Cato)
Sweden: From Capitalist Success to Welfare-State Sclerosis (Cato)
Should Scandinavia Be Our Model? Podcast (Cato)
Should the United States Be More Like Scandinavia? Policy Forum (Cato)
Johnny Munkhammar in Defense of Free Market Capitalism in Sweden Weeky Video (Cato)
Sweden Repeals Wealth Tax (Cato)
Sweden is a Tax Haven? (Cato)
The Welfare State Causes Sickness (Cato)
If the Swedish State is Socialist, What is Ours? (Cato)
New Challenge to the Nordic Welfare Model (Cato)
Introduction to Economics Review (Mackinac)
Free Enterprise in Action Review (Mackinac)
Institutions and Analysis (Mackinac)
Where Are the Omelettes? (Mackinac)
Scandinavian Irony (FEE)
Are High Taxes the Basis of Economic Growth? (FEE)
Sweden: Tightening the Screws (FEE)
Swedish Welfare (The New American)
Sweden after the Swedish model.
EU vs USA.
NORWAY: LOWER LIVING STANDARDS THAN THE US
Here is one more thing of interest to everyone interested in living standards in Scandinavian countries vs. the US. First, according to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the CIA World Factbook, the USA has a higher GDP per capita than any Scandinavian nation with the exception of Norway. Norway has one of the highest GDP per capita in the world, right after free market paradises such as Luxembourg and Liechtenstein, and oil rich nations such as Qatar and Kuwait.
Although Norway's GDP per capita seems to be boosted by huge oil and natural gas production, do Norwegians actually enjoy higher living standards than Americans? I dare say that they don't. A quick look around worldsalaries.org shows that:1. Americans enjoy higher average disposable (after tax) AND gross (before tax) income than Norwegians do.2. Americans enjoy a significantly lower cost of living than do Norwegians (1.00 vs. 1.487).
Here (url: http://www.ssb.no/en/fnr/main.html) is another source of Norwegian disposable income. As you see, average household disposable income is 176503 NOK, which is approximately $29,373. Note that the USA has a per capita disposable income of about $21,500. Since the average US household consists of two wage earners, it follows that US household disposable income is higher than Norwegian household dispoable income.
Political Atheists Blog
Wow, I've never realized the Economic Freedom facts about the Scandinavian nations before. Great post!
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
I have some sceptisism about Economic Freedom Indices (or is it Indexes), because there are so many things that are difficult to quantify. And there are many mistakes also. The most nasty thing in the Scandinavian countries is that the tax structure is so complex and wide that it isn't always clear how much the government actually taxes the people.
Here are what I found to be wrong about what it had to say about my country, Finland:
heritage.org claims that ”Finland has moderate tax rates. The top income tax rate is 32 percent, and the top corporate tax rate is 26 percent.”
To put it simply, that talk about ”moderate taxes” is a joke. The personal federal income tax is ”only” 32 percent, but additionally you have to pay communal tax which is flat tax and usually somewhere between 18 and 22 percent of your income. The tax rate has to be that high, because the government forces communitys to give certain free services to the people. And you have to pay the Value Added Tax for every product you buy. VAT is generally 22 percent, but only 12 for food items and 8 percent for travelling and culture.
Americans occasionally complain when the price of gasoline is over 2 dollars per gallon. But remember that because of the gasoline tax, in Finland it was recently a big happy news when the cost of gasoline fell under 1 euro per litre (that is to say under $5.30/gallon). And there are additional paternalistic taxes for tobacco and liqueur. So if you smoke, you have to pay roughly 30 cents for every cigarette you use :)
I'm pretty sure it's covered when the index says:
In the most recent year, overall tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was 43.3 percent.
That said, economic freedom indices do have their problems. It is indeed impossible to measure how harmful certain regulations are and then to compare them to other regulations and taxes. But generally speaking, we can say which economies are more or less regulated. As we've seen, for the most part, Scandinavian countries are less regulated than the U.S.
Of course, that isn't to say that Finland and other Scandinavian countries don't have their own problems, which is why I included the links at the bottom.
Aragon: To put it simply, that talk about ”moderate taxes” is a joke. The personal federal income tax is ”only” 32 percent, but additionally you have to pay communal tax which is flat tax and usually somewhere between 18 and 22 percent of your income. The tax rate has to be that high, because the government forces communitys to give certain free services to the people. And you have to pay the Value Added Tax for every product you buy. VAT is generally 22 percent, but only 12 for food items and 8 percent for travelling and culture.
Yes, that's what I always say when debating taxation. Basically, one pays the following taxes: income tax, social security and VAT. Social security might be optional, depending on the nature of your income. However, the VAT applies to all personal consumption. One can sometimes get around the income tax for some products if they own a company, as it can be considered reinvested profit, which gets deducted. But generally, most people pay all of these plus certain special taxes (where it applies). So the total taxes can easily amount to 40-50% of the income even in the least socialist European countries (flat, "low" income tax).
Another interesting detail about the scandinavian countries is a largely homogeneous population. How this pertains to the theory of socialism (especially in regards to the calculation problem) is irrelevant for the time being.
Under a multitude of social pseudo-insurance programs, a homogeneous population more closely resembles an "insurable risk" (e.g., class probability) than a heterogeneous population.
To take the example of health care (and I have no idea how the Swedes do it), the scandinavians have a much narrower normal distribution than do Americans, taken as a population. Any individual Swede is far less likely to reside in the "tails" so to speak, than an individual American in his own country.
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
Some people replying to this thread clearly need to read it before responding.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Yes, that's what I always say when debating taxation. Basically, one pays the following taxes: income tax, social security and VAT. Social security might be optional, depending on the nature of your income. However, the VAT applies to all personal consumption. One can sometimes get around the income tax for some products if they own a company, as it can be considered reinvested profit, which gets deducted. But generally, most people pay all of these plus certain special taxes (where it applies). So the total taxes can easily amount to 40-50% of the income even in the least socialist European countries (flat, "low" income tax).
This was refuted already before Eduard posted:
krazy kaju: I'm pretty sure it's covered when the index says: In the most recent year, overall tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was 43.3 percent. That said, economic freedom indices do have their problems. It is indeed impossible to measure how harmful certain regulations are and then to compare them to other regulations and taxes. But generally speaking, we can say which economies are more or less regulated. As we've seen, for the most part, Scandinavian countries are less regulated than the U.S. Of course, that isn't to say that Finland and other Scandinavian countries don't have their own problems, which is why I included the links at the bottom.
david_z:Another interesting detail about the scandinavian countries is a largely homogeneous population.
Well, not any more it isn't!
20% of "Swedes" are already muslims (by immigration or birth by immigrants during the last 20 years). Sweden with 9 million citizens recieved 100 000 (one hundered thousand) Iraqi refugies during the one year of 2008 alone. By 2035 a MAJORITY of the "Swedes" will be ARABS. Your "homogeneous population" variable should factor that in in krder to compare it to for example Gaza and how standards of living hav been there for the last half century...
And that was just a humble note to the statician...
It's not fascism when the government does it.
“We must spend now as an investment for the future.” - President Obama
Have to agree wit my countrymen.
To me the most horrible thing in our country is that we have this called collective agreement. This means that the coverment together with the trade union and emplyers come together and negotiate collective agreements establishing rates of pay, working hours, holidays and other terms of employment in specific industries.
Both employees and employers in Finland are highly organised. Every trade union has a negotiating partner representing the employers in its industry. This high level of organisation enables national employer and labour confederations to negotiate very broad collective agreements, which then serve as guidelines for collective bargaining by individual industry trade unions and employers’ federations.The Finnish government often supports this centralised process by adjusting its social and taxation policies according to the nationallabour market agreement. The government also consults the trade unions and the employers in detail over any proposed amendments tothe laws that affect working life. For example any proposal to change the law on hours of work will automatically be considered by a workinggroup including trade union and employer representatives. Working groups of this kind generally continue to negotiate for as long as ittakes to reach a common understanding. The outcome of this three-sided collective bargaining process between the employers, the trade unions and the government is the comprehensive incomes policy settlement (TUPO). The TUPO settlement covers general pay increases, job security, hours of work, training and equality between men and women at work.
The three-sided collective bargain system is a good example how the socialism works in this country.
I can honestly say, from the dozen or so people I have met from France and Sweden the only thing those people complained about was the need for MORE socialism, if they complained at all about their country. Mostly they would reserve their hatred for Republicans in America though. Likewise of the 4 people from Canada I know only one hates the healthcare over there.
Now immigrants from Arabic countries and Indians (of which I know many of both) who have been to both America and Europe (mostly France and Sweden. I'm not counting the UK) they almost unilateraly prefer America.
If that is an honest sample, it confuses me.
Pampered brats vs people trying to work for a living.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Dondoolee:Now immigrants from Arabic countries and Indians (of which I know many of both) who have been to both America and Europe (mostly France and Sweden. I'm not counting the UK) they almost unilateraly prefer America.
Unsurprisingly, since most Asian/Arabic immigrants tend to be independent businessmen (small restaurant or shop owners) whereas the entrepeneurial, self-reliant spirit of the average European seems to have all but vanished.All I ever get to hear about businessmen is that they "abuse" lower taxes on investment to finance their cars. Duh!
half of my family immigrated from Syria in the 50's, and I know a large portion of arabs in northwest Ohio because of it. I would say that is a fair stereotype, while they were mostly somewhat apolitical, or where until Bush kind of forced them not to be.
Sphairon: Dondoolee:Now immigrants from Arabic countries and Indians (of which I know many of both) who have been to both America and Europe (mostly France and Sweden. I'm not counting the UK) they almost unilateraly prefer America. Unsurprisingly, since most Asian/Arabic immigrants tend to be independent businessmen (small restaurant or shop owners) whereas the entrepeneurial, self-reliant spirit of the average European seems to have all but vanished.
Unsurprisingly, since most Asian/Arabic immigrants tend to be independent businessmen (small restaurant or shop owners) whereas the entrepeneurial, self-reliant spirit of the average European seems to have all but vanished.
I think that the issue is more complicated than that. Where taxes are high, the incentives for cheating with taxes are high too. And this is what the million of never-oppressed middle class arab immigrants and their children in Sweden do. They and every member of their phantastically huge families (on doctored papers) take social welfare from the tax payers, at the same time as they all work for the family restaurant. Since the most anti-PC antisemitic jewish mass murdering gas chamber nazi thing imaginable to do in Sweden, is to apply the same law on non-Swedes as on Swedes, this multi-billion mafia grows out of control by leaps year by year. 50 years from now, Sweden will again be etnically homogenously, since practically all of its then 100 million inhabitants will be arabs, and "our" living standard will be at the Gaza level forever with war and foreign aid being the by far two dominating "industries"....
Actually, this increasing lawlesness is the only sign of liberalization taking place in Sweden!
Has the tension of cultures increased, even with the lefties, because of the immigration situation?
Add these to the list:
Jon Irenicus: Add these to the list: Sweden after the Swedish model.
Trivia: The writer of that pdf was a member of the Swedish Riksdag (for the "Liberal People's Party", and I do not remember him being very libertarian. The think-tank (Timbro) that is hosting the pdf has a high-up member blaming libertarianism for the financial crisis. I haven't read the PDF, but I would guess that it's not 100%.
ProudCapitalist:I think that the issue is more complicated than that. Where taxes are high, the incentives for cheating with taxes are high too. And this is what the million of never-oppressed middle class arab immigrants and their children in Sweden do. They and every member of their phantastically huge families (on doctored papers) take social welfare from the tax payers, at the same time as they all work for the family restaurant.
Don't get me wrong, but that is, in my view, part of an entrepreneurial mentality: taking profits where chances arise. I don't think these Arabs would actually start pillaging Europe if it weren't for the welfare state; much rather, they recognize this faulty and prone-to-abuse system as what it is and act accordingly.Sort of like a PDA which doesn't have a clause in its contract definining standard reactions to criminal charges by other PDAs. It'll be full of pirates and criminals in no time who demand enforcement of their purchased protection.Or, to use a more real-world example, a stock broker who is shorting a specific company big time as soon as he realizes that their pension plan is unsustainable. Sure, they still produce what's in demand, but how long and what then?As they say, the market figures out the best business models. That's true for political systems as well.
Since the most anti-PC antisemitic jewish mass murdering gas chamber nazi thing imaginable to do in Sweden, is to apply the same law on non-Swedes as on Swedes, this multi-billion mafia grows out of control by leaps year by year.
Same thing over here in Germany and, I'd reckon, in the rest of Western Europe as well. Except maybe Ireland.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
If there's any "myth" involved, the most fundamental one would be the conception of Scandinavian social democracy as "socialist." Social democracy is merely a different breed of capitalism, which falls into the category of the more leftist Rhine capitalism rather than the more rightist form of Anglo-Saxon capitalism. The Anglo-Saxon model, of course, illustrates the inefficient nature of attempting to implement a "free market" economic framework, which is a utopian fantasy with no applicability outside of the textbook.
Conversely, social democracy, though short of the efficiency that socialist economic structure is required to guarantee, produces greater efficiency gains than the Anglo-Saxon model, whilst promoting positive social benefits that Anglo-Saxon capitalism and more "centrist" forms of capitalism (such as the liberal democratic model), fail to provide, as indicated by Headley et al.'s Is there Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE a Trade-Off Between Economic Efficiency and a Generous Welfare State? A Comparison of Best Cases of `The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism,’ for instance.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE "A crucial debate in policy-making as well as academic circles is whether there is a trade-off between economic efficiency and the size/generosity of the welfare state. One way to contribute to this debate is to compare the performance of best cases of different types of state. Arguably, in the decade 1985-94, the US, West Germany and the Netherlands were best cases - best economic performers - in what G. Esping-Andersen calls the three worlds of welfare capitalism. The US is a liberal welfare-capitalist state, West Germany a corporatist state, and the Netherlands is social democratic in its tax-transfer system, although not its labor market policies. These three countries had rates of economic growth per capita as high or higher than other rich countries of their type, and the lowest rates of unemployment. At a normative or ideological level the three types of state have the same goals but prioritise them differently. The liberal state prioritises economic growth and efficiency, avoids work disincentives, and targets welfare benefits only to those in greatest need. The corporatist state aims to give priority to social stability, especially household income stability, and social integration. The social democratic welfare state claims high priority for minimising poverty, inequality and unemployment. Using ten years of panel data for each country, we assess indicators of their short (one year), medium (five year) and longer term (ten year) performance in achieving economic and welfare goals. Overall, in this time period, the Netherlands achieved the best performance on the welfare goals to which it gave priority, and equalled the other two states on most of the goals to which they gave priority. This result supports the view that there is no necessary trade-off between economic efficiency and a generous welfare state."
Dondoolee:I can honestly say, from the dozen or so people I have met from France and Sweden the only thing those people complained about was the need for MORE socialism, if they complained at all about their country.
Agnapostate:Social democracy is merely a different breed of capitalism, which falls into the category of the more leftist Rhine capitalism rather than the more rightist form of Anglo-Saxon capitalism. The Anglo-Saxon model, of course, illustrates the inefficient nature of attempting to implement a "free market" economic framework, which is a utopian fantasy with no applicability outside of the textbook.
The reason Scandanavian "socialism" is able to allow its people more freedom is because its a social democracy. Social democracies recognize that the market is for the benefit of the people living and trading in it. Its not really working if it doesn't benefit the people at large. Eventually, as more countries implement similar policies more people will effectively be able to contribute, and tax rates will drop even lower. Libertarianism may come one day. But not in a world where ninety percent only owns ten percent.
Adam E Zandarski
Pskapompos: Libertarianism may come one day. But not in a world where ninety percent only owns ten percent.
Libertarianism may come one day. But not in a world where ninety percent only owns ten percent.
Which, of course, has nothing to do with progressive / social-democratic policies, such as a central banking, anti-trust legislation, nationalization and erosion of property rights, whatsoever.You guys really need to read up on libertarian theory and positions before you accuse us of supporting the status quo. And check your premises.
I have no clue what this means.
Agnapostate:Social democracy is merely a different breed of capitalism,
It's a shame that's bullshit, otherwise you might have a point. Capitalism entails private ownership of the means of production, social democracy means publicly owned means of production.
Agnapostate:The Anglo-Saxon model, of course, illustrates the inefficient nature of attempting to implement a "free market" economic framework, which is a utopian fantasy with no applicability outside of the textbook.
Perhaps if you'd read more than Noam Chomsky you'd understand that free markets cannot be implemented.
Agnapostate:though short of the efficiency that socialist economic structure is required to guarantee,
A socialist economy is impossible, once again if you'd bothered to read the seminal works of the economy who this institute is named after, you'd know this.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Why thankyou very very very much.
I'm goign to Sweden for a year a have a research project on the Swedish social healthcare system, and am hoping to expand it to socialism in general.
I may post my finding back here.
Ugh. The above was not properly edited and the site is not letting me edit for some reason. So what it should say is...
"Why thank you very very very much for the post and links.
I'm going to Sweden for a year abroad and have been given a research project on the Swedish social healthcare system, although I am hoping to expand it to socialism in general.
I may post my findings back here."
Why, if it's 40% expropriation as opposed to say 60% (a lot more in either case if you factor in fiat money), it's capitalism!
Pskapompos: Social democracies recognize that the market is for the benefit of the people living and trading in it.
Social democracies recognize that the market is for the benefit of the people living and trading in it.
I dont see capitalism being any different.
I have always thought that freedom and self-managemnent are the foundation of a prosperous society
Pskapompos: Its not really working if it doesn't benefit the people at large.
Its not really working if it doesn't benefit the people at large.
How do you measure that benefit?
A happy slave is still a slave.
Pskapompos: Eventually, as more countries implement similar policies more people will effectively be able to contribute, and tax rates will drop even lower.
Eventually, as more countries implement similar policies more people will effectively be able to contribute, and tax rates will drop even lower.
I dont see that happening, historically once the state has some power it always wants more.
Anyway social-democracy is just a bunch of "socialists" that renounced marxism and socialism but they still wear their red shirts for the "nostalgia".
Giles Stratton:It's a shame that's bullshit, otherwise you might have a point. Capitalism entails private ownership of the means of production, social democracy means publicly owned means of production.
I'm familiar with the general Misesian ignorance of economics, that being a common attribute of the Austrian school, but it should go without saying that socialismm itself involves public ownership of the means of production. Social democracy, while incorporating significantly more egalitarian facets than Anglo-Saxon or liberal democratic capitalism, remains a capitalist economic system precisely because it does not collectivize the means of production.
Giles Stratton:Perhaps if you'd read more than Noam Chomsky you'd understand that free markets cannot be implemented.
I wasn't aware that Chomsky had written any major commentary on economic framework; amongst libertarian socialists, that seems to be the purview of Albert and Hahnel. That being said, I realize that Misesians aren't especially familiar with economic literature, so this misidentification is understandable. ;)
Giles Stratton:A socialist economy is impossible, once again if you'd bothered to read the seminal works of the economy who this institute is named after, you'd know this.
Mises was never anything other than buffoonishly incompetent during the course of the economic calculation debate. Primarily, there was the failure to address Barone's formulation of a Pareto efficient socialist economic model proposed twelve years before dear Ludwig advertised his economic ignorance, considering that The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State was published in 1908 and Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth in 1920. This was followed by his inability to respond to the theoretical model produced by Oskar Lange, instead attacking its feasibility. This was then followed by concessions by Hayek and Robbins, who abandoned the concept of the "impossibility" of socialism to some extent.
Following this, market socialism gained a post-Hayekian element, which ensures that it is now able to circumvent the socialist calculation debate. For instance, Burczak's Socialism After Hayek: (Advancements in Heterodox Economics) elaborates on elements of Hayek's inconsistency, which is why David Prychitko notes that the book is "an advance well beyond the great 'socialist calculation debate,'" considering that advocates of decentralized socialism are able to utilize a Hayekian critique to analyze tacit and distributed knowledge issues in capitalism.
More than that, the decentralized nature of libertarian socialist economic structure also permits anarchists and other libertarian socialists to circumvent the socialist calculation debate to some degree, as with the aforementioned Albert and Hahnel, for instance.
Agnapostate:I'm familiar with the general Misesian ignorance of economics, that being a common attribute of the Austrian school, but it should go without saying that socialismm itself involves public ownership of the means of production.
Ignorance of economics? If you want to push this nonsense you're going to have to assert it, why is the Austrian school ignorant of economics?
Agnapostate:Social democracy, while incorporating significantly more egalitarian facets than Anglo-Saxon or liberal democratic capitalism, remains a capitalist economic system precisely because it does not collectivize the means of production.
Publicly owned hospital, roads, finacial sector, military and courts amongst other things. Also high levels of regulations and taxation that essential put large amounts of capital under state control. That sounds like collectivised means of production to me, perhaps not entirely, but then, nobody has said it will entire do so.
Agnapostate:That being said, I realize that Misesians aren't especially familiar with economic literature, so this misidentification is understandable. ;)
Actually it's generally acknowledged that Mises was not awarded the Nobel prize in economics because the prize is awarded by the central bank, with whom he was not particularly popular, so they waited until his death and awarded it to another Austrian. Also, Rothbard was nominated for the prize by a number of European economists, but died subsequently and before he could receive. Menger's Principles is also one of the fundamental works in the neoclassical paradigm, so I don't know what you're talking about.
Agnapostate:Primarily, there was the failure to address Barone's formulation of a Pareto efficient socialist economic model proposed twelve years before dear Ludwig advertised his economic ignorance, considering that The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State was published in 1908 and Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth in 1920. This was followed by his inability to respond to the theoretical model produced by Oskar Lange, instead attacking its feasibility. This was then followed by concessions by Hayek and Robbins, who abandoned the concept of the "impossibility" of socialism to some extent.
Only he did address it, in his book Socialism, in fact the only way the socialists could respond to Mises' challenge was to focus of the weaker Hayekian (also explicated by Robbins) exposition of the calculation problem.
Which brings me on to this:
Agnapostate:Following this, market socialism gained a post-Hayekian element, which ensures that it is now able to circumvent the socialist calculation debate. For instance, Burczak's Socialism After Hayek: (Advancements in Heterodox Economics) elaborates on elements of Hayek's inconsistency, which is why David Prychitko notes that the book is "an advance well beyond the great 'socialist calculation debate,'" considering that advocates of decentralized socialism are able to utilize a Hayekian critique to analyze tacit and distributed knowledge issues in capitalism.
Who gives a damn about Prychitko, he's a hermeneuticist and hardly an Austrian. As I said, those individuals don't even understand the Misesian challenge, so it's no suprise that they reject the weaker Hayekian argument (also rejected by Austrians, see Salerno, Hoppe, Hulsmann, Rothbard and Herbener on this)
Agnapostate: Giles Stratton:It's a shame that's bullshit, otherwise you might have a point. Capitalism entails private ownership of the means of production, social democracy means publicly owned means of production. I'm familiar with the general Misesian ignorance of economics, that being a common attribute of the Austrian school, but it should go without saying that socialismm itself involves public ownership of the means of production.
I'm familiar with the general Misesian ignorance of economics, that being a common attribute of the Austrian school, but it should go without saying that socialismm itself involves public ownership of the means of production.
So who makes the decisions on these public properties? Sounds like your back at square one.
Agnapostate: Social democracy, while incorporating significantly more egalitarian facets than Anglo-Saxon or liberal democratic capitalism, remains a capitalist economic system precisely because it does not collectivize the means of production.
Social democracy, while incorporating significantly more egalitarian facets than Anglo-Saxon or liberal democratic capitalism, remains a capitalist economic system precisely because it does not collectivize the means of production.
"involves public ownership", but "does not collectivize"...ooook?
Agnapostate: I wasn't aware that Chomsky had written any major commentary on economic framework; amongst libertarian socialists, that seems to be the purview of Albert and Hahnel. That being said, I realize that Misesians aren't especially familiar with economic literature, so this misidentification is understandable.
I wasn't aware that Chomsky had written any major commentary on economic framework; amongst libertarian socialists, that seems to be the purview of Albert and Hahnel. That being said, I realize that Misesians aren't especially familiar with economic literature, so this misidentification is understandable.
And meanwhile the free market is producing everything and everybody wants to corrupt or move it's works around.
Agnapostate: Primarily, there was the failure to address Barone's formulation of a Pareto efficient socialist economic model proposed twelve years before dear Ludwig advertised his economic ignorance, considering that The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State was published in 1908 and Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth in 1920.
Primarily, there was the failure to address Barone's formulation of a Pareto efficient socialist economic model proposed twelve years before dear Ludwig advertised his economic ignorance, considering that The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State was published in 1908 and Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth in 1920.
Care to elaborate on "Pareto efficient socialist economic models"? Wikipedia didn't really help me here.
That being said, I realize that Misesians aren't especially familiar with economic literature, so this misidentification is understandable. ;)
Aww an attempt at an insult. How cute.
Actually it was Lange who could never respond to him because Lange had no real clue what he was arguing against (he assumed he was arguing against something akin to neoclassical equilibrium models.) Kirzner documents the history of this debate. If you're going to say Mises was "buffoonishly incompetent" you're going to have to demonstrate it with more than just assertions. Hayek's and Robbins' "concessions" stemmed from their own confusion, in fact. So much for being "buffoonishly incompetent".
As regards the "anglo-saxon" system of economy, where the government largely directs and controls economic activity, it is to that extent more socialist, yes... though not a left-wing variant thereof.
Actually it's generally acknowledged that Mises was not awarded the Nobel prize in economics because the prize is awarded by the central bank, with whom he was not particularly popular, so they waited until his death and awarded it to another Austrian. Also, Rothbard was nominated for the prize by a number of European economists, but died subsequently and before he could receive. Menger's Principles is also one of the fundamental works in the neoclassical paradigm, so I don't know what you're talking about
He means their leftist economic credo.
Actually if this idiot had read anything by Mises, he would know what he was talking about. Instead he comes charging onto the forums for God knows what reason to rant about the buffoonishly ignorant Misesians.
Yeah, but of course no one really has covered this topic.
Agnapostate:I'm familiar with the general Misesian ignorance of economics
Ok, now try something that isn't a blatant lie. And remember: lying gets you banned.
Knight of Bwaahahahahaha
wilderness: Pskapompos: Libertarianism may come one day. But not in a world where ninety percent only owns ten percent. I have no clue what this means.
Simply put, in a world in which ten percent own ninety percent , the electorate is constantly in danger of being divided by demagogues on both sides... between those in favor of a redistributionist state on one side, and a police state on the other.
If you have a supposedly "free market" system that results in a situation where ten percent of the people are in posesssion of ninety percent of all assets, particularly if there is a significant part of the population working very hard for basic food and shelter, there's probably something wrong with this "free market", some aspect of the property regime, that is denying some portion of the population their earnings. The government could be taking a portion of their earnings directly and transferring it to wealthier people through debt service, subsidies, and/or kickback-motivated contracting. Monetary policy could be blocking the link between a worker's savings and the earnings of capital. Maybe early land policy created a situation in which the vast majority of people are net (economic) rent payers to a minority. Perhaps the national currency is constantly inflating, drawing wealth from workers through the finance industry to the government.
The point is that there's nothing wrong with regarding systemic inequity as a symptom pointing to potential systematic injustice... so long as one studies the problem honestly and earnestly, rather than regarding the symptom itself as the problem, and then trying to treat through brute force. Worse than daring to operate under the assumption that systematic poverty indicates a potential problem, I think, is to operate under the assumption that all poverty is always the result of ignorance and vice on the part of the poor... without even investigating whether this is, in fact, the case. Knee-jerk "ZOMG teh evil Socialism!!!" is just as bad as "ZOMG teh evil capitalism!!!"
DASawyer: wilderness: Pskapompos: Libertarianism may come one day. But not in a world where ninety percent only owns ten percent. I have no clue what this means. Simply put, in a world in which ten percent own ninety percent , the electorate is constantly in danger of being divided by demagogues on both sides... between those in favor of a redistributionist state on one side, and a police state on the other. If you have a supposedly "free market" system that results in a situation where ten percent of the people are in posesssion of ninety percent of all assets, particularly if there is a significant part of the population working very hard for basic food and shelter, there's probably something wrong with this "free market", some aspect of the property regime, that is denying some portion of the population their earnings. The government could be taking a portion of their earnings directly and transferring it to wealthier people through debt service, subsidies, and/or kickback-motivated contracting. Monetary policy could be blocking the link between a worker's savings and the earnings of capital. Maybe early land policy created a situation in which the vast majority of people are net (economic) rent payers to a minority. Perhaps the national currency is constantly inflating, drawing wealth from workers through the finance industry to the government. The point is that there's nothing wrong with regarding systemic inequity as a symptom pointing to potential systematic injustice... so long as one studies the problem honestly and earnestly, rather than regarding the symptom itself as the problem, and then trying to treat through brute force. Worse than daring to operate under the assumption that systematic poverty indicates a potential problem, I think, is to operate under the assumption that all poverty is always the result of ignorance and vice on the part of the poor... without even investigating whether this is, in fact, the case. Knee-jerk "ZOMG teh evil Socialism!!!" is just as bad as "ZOMG teh evil capitalism!!!"
Slow down with something specific. I still have no clue what this says other than after reading this a dreadful feeling is trying to overcome me. Luckily I fee must better than this awful feeling and I am not willing to be a criminal, a slave, and then if not before all those, then after - die. The sun will shine tomorrow.
Pick something real. I don't do 'what if's', unless I voluntarily pick up a good dystopia novel, and this fiction isn't shiny enough for me to bite. Thanks.
wilderness:Luckily I fee must better than this awful feeling and I am not willing to be a criminal, a slave, and then if not before all those, then after - die. The sun will shine tomorrow
I tripped once and wrote down my thoughts. It came out something like this. I'm not saying your tripping, but I can make just as much sense of my trips thoughts as the above.