"The nations with the highest standards of living have strongly entrenched welfare states."
How should a Libertarian address this statement?
"The states with strongly entrenched welfare systems are as a rule stagnating economically , even when all other conditions such as accumulated capital, skilled workforce and developed infrastructure imply, they are otherwise in the best position to continue advancing rapidly."
As confusion of cause and effect. Welfare states are entrenched because of high standards of living.
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
Also, I'd like to ask why places like Singapore and Hong Kong don't have higher ratings on the UN Human Developement index, despite having such (relative) economic freedom?
sirmonty: Also, I'd like to ask why places like Singapore and Hong Kong don't have higher ratings on the UN Human Developement index, despite having such (relative) economic freedom?
There's your answer.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
And there as well. Any attempt at measuring "freedom" is pretty flawed, imo.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
GilesStratton: sirmonty: Also, I'd like to ask why places like Singapore and Hong Kong don't have higher ratings on the UN Human Developement index, despite having such (relative) economic freedom? There's your answer.
While I'm not a fan of the UN by any means, I don't think just pointing that out will satisfy many in an argument.
Spideynw: sirmonty: Also, I'd like to ask why places like Singapore and Hong Kong don't have higher ratings on the UN Human Developement index, despite having such (relative) economic freedom? And there as well. Any attempt at measuring "freedom" is pretty flawed, imo.
But why aren't those nations that have some of the freest economies lagging behind those that have massive welfare states?
Doesn't that fact give statists a little bit of ammunition when defending their welfare state?
sirmonty:I don't think just pointing that out will satisfy many in an argument.
Why not?
GilesStratton: sirmonty:I don't think just pointing that out will satisfy many in an argument. Why not?
Because statists are thick?
Besides, just denouncing things as biased or wrong without pointing out specifically how isn't that great of a tactic in a debate/argument.
sirmonty: But why aren't those nations that have some of the freest economies lagging behind those that have massive welfare states?
Is there a typo in there?
sirmonty:But why aren't those nations that have some of the freest economies lagging behind those that have massive welfare states? Doesn't that fact give statists a little bit of ammunition when defending their welfare state?
sirmonty:Also, I'd like to ask why places like Singapore and Hong Kong don't have higher ratings on the UN Human Developement index, despite having such (relative) economic freedom?
They have pretty low literacy compared to other developed nations (something like 92%).
Marko: Is there a typo in there?
Yes sorry.
*are
Sphairon: When did the process of capital accumulation begin in Europe / the US, when in Hong Kong and Singapore? Even though technology and know-how can easily be copied from countries with a long history of capital accumulation, the average person in developing territories obviously cannot imitate the bank account of those who have been blessed with the fruits of a multigenerational streak of building up and saving. However, especially the Chinese are catching up. Their personal savings rate is fairly high. While Americans (and European welfarists, for that matter) are currently destroying the foundation of their prosperity by embracing debt and inflation, the Chinese are always expanding it. It'll be an interesting development to observe.So, when welfarists claim that European nations have a high living standard and a large welfare state, point out how long it took to generate all this wealth and how the welfare state, after first halting this process, is now even reversing it in almost no time.
When did the process of capital accumulation begin in Europe / the US, when in Hong Kong and Singapore? Even though technology and know-how can easily be copied from countries with a long history of capital accumulation, the average person in developing territories obviously cannot imitate the bank account of those who have been blessed with the fruits of a multigenerational streak of building up and saving.
However, especially the Chinese are catching up. Their personal savings rate is fairly high. While Americans (and European welfarists, for that matter) are currently destroying the foundation of their prosperity by embracing debt and inflation, the Chinese are always expanding it. It'll be an interesting development to observe.So, when welfarists claim that European nations have a high living standard and a large welfare state, point out how long it took to generate all this wealth and how the welfare state, after first halting this process, is now even reversing it in almost no time.
That is a good point. Very well put, sir.
Solomon: sirmonty:Also, I'd like to ask why places like Singapore and Hong Kong don't have higher ratings on the UN Human Developement index, despite having such (relative) economic freedom? They have pretty low literacy compared to other developed nations (something like 92%).
I can smell an argument for public education on the horizon from statists....
IMO the best argument to be made is one of rapidity of developement. There is not one case of a welfare state that would be experiencing rapid economic growth. Economic growth has always occured in relatively free conditions. That is true wether we are talking about 19th century Western Europe or the Asian Tiger economies of 60s and 70s.
The welfare state does not send the economy into ruin but it does make it stagnant. So it does not spell doom for people in states that are economicaly relatively well developed, but it is a real tragedy in places which are poor, because it cutts every chance of climbing from poverty. Some of the poorest Eastern European states proudly declare they are "social states" and promise unemployement benefits, universal healthcare, forced pension savings and so forth.
sirmonty:Besides, just denouncing things as biased or wrong without pointing out specifically how isn't that great of a tactic in a debate/argument.
Well, I don't know the specifics of the UN criteria. Nonetheless, it's completely valid to assume that they would be biased. Moreover, the burden of proof is on the person claiming that they are fair to prove it.