Anybody have one on hand?Thanks,Luis.
Well then you have to refute that. Point out how the economy needs to liquidate malinvestments in order for the economy to grow. See this.
Political Atheists Blog
Stefan Karlsson wrote about this on his blog a couple of weeks ago.
Myths & Facts About Swedish Bank "Rescue"
Like every other bailout, the Swedish bank nationalization plan socialized the losses. If someone is arguing that Sweden shines through as a prime example of what government intervention can accomplish, simply make the that if someone screws up, it is much more just and moral if the losses are privatized than if they are socialized. Also think about it from a consequentialist point of view: by bailing out the banks, the Swedish government made every Swede suffer from higher taxes and higher inflation. If the banks were just allowed to fail and if the market could clear, then only a select few would suffer, as opposed to the entire country.
krazy kaju: Like every other bailout, the Swedish bank nationalization plan socialized the losses. If someone is arguing that Sweden shines through as a prime example of what government intervention can accomplish, simply make the that if someone screws up, it is much more just and moral if the losses are privatized than if they are socialized. Also think about it from a consequentialist point of view: by bailing out the banks, the Swedish government made every Swede suffer from higher taxes and higher inflation. If the banks were just allowed to fail and if the market could clear, then only a select few would suffer, as opposed to the entire country.
I tried this path, but it just doesn't work for left-leaning liberals.
Well what were their arguments?
That it was actually preferable to socialize the losses b/c a if you took a little bit from everybody instead of a lot from a few no one would be forced to live through something they had not created. Then, they regurgitated what I have been hearing in the news for the past month about Sweden and its 'miracle.'
OK, so how does taking from everyone not force them to live through something they didn't create, as opposed to forcing those who did cause the problems to shoulder the lion's share of the burden?
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: OK, so how does taking from everyone not force them to live through something they didn't create, as opposed to forcing those who did cause the problems to shoulder the lion's share of the burden?
Well, they won't take an explanation from me, what I was looking for was to get a clear article going against this-apparently the word of a 14yrs. old just isn't good enough these days, hence it would be preferable to have something written by somebody who has had the chance to go to college.
You're 14? You write well for a 14 year old.
Anyway, you don't need empiricism here - just rely on your logic. You can either have a select few who were part of the problem feel the pain, which would serve as a warning against taking on high risks, or you can have everyone feel a share of the pain, which would serve as an incentive for some to take those high risks in hope of a bailout.
Yes, I am; and they believe all the Keynesian rubbish and believe that if they fail that the increase in poverty will lead to a decrease in aggregate demand, which will only worsen the depression (oh god the troubles of having step father has a degree in economics from a school in New Zealand, where they are free, which is not meant to imply that he is stupid b/c he is not, he is the vice president of outsourcing in [use your imagination]).
It wasn't a couple of weeks ago, but in semptember.
I've read something else since then, but I can't remember where. Something that you have to take into account when looking empirical evidence is that there are many other factors. I think in Sweden there were tax cuts and privatisations around the same time, but most important of all the rest of western europe and north america went through a boom starting in the early nineties.
Sweden is not a rich country, they would be a much richer and freer country if they didn't have a welfare state, and didn't nationalize all the problems their government causes. Sweden's economy is like Michigan, hence why michael moore loves it.
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Sweden is actually a thousand times better off than Michigan. They might have an extensive welfare state, but they had a balanced budget, they're cutting taxes to fight the depression, and they have significantly less regulations in certain areas than the USA does.