Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (92588)	10/30/2008 8:29:04 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541851

If you were offended by the statement about marxism - I apologize. I do think the idea is weird, but I will try to be more sensitive in the future. No need to be more sensitive. I wasn't offended. I was merely correcting the record. I did not say or suggest that I thought that calling Obama either a socialist or a Marxist was "acceptable" and didn't want to let that notion stand. My point throughout was only that I thought "Marxist" was less risky from a defamation perspective because it had, at least, plausible deniability. It would be harder to prove that a lie. Not sure what you mean by "the system"? I meant their "socialism." It holds up better in small homogeneous places like the Scandinavian countries but I don't think it's viable long term in anything larger than a tribe. I've read several pieces about Sweden lately. I found a recent one just as an example. Sweden: paradise or purgatory? 05 Jun 2008 03:04 pm I know, I should link more. I tend to forget that my readers don't know everything I know--that they haven't written a couple dozen stories about European disability and pension systems, growth rates, unemployment, immigration, and so forth. That's the hazard of blogging--print journalists have editors there to remind them what other people don't know. So sorry that I didn't provide links on my Sweden post about disability, unemployment, and so forth. I just sort of assumed that Sweden's amazing rates of disability, "true" unemployment rate that may top 20%, and so forth were common knowledge. They certainly aren't particularly controversial. But if there is anything less common than common sense, it's probably "common knowledge". That, presumably, is how this got written. It's a compendium of extremely weak Google-fu that betrays a pretty fundamental lack of knowledge about Sweden's economic problems. Let me be clear: Sweden is not by any means a dystopian hell on earth full of morose workers standing in endless queues for Yugoslavian shoes. It's a lovely place to live, full of people who are about as happy as genetics and the weather permit them to be. However, Sweden is wrestling with a lot of big issues. I was going to write a post about them to correct some of Ms. G's more bizarre misperceptions, but I was beaten to the punch by the inimitable Michael Moynihan, who has lived in Sweden, is married to a (lovely) Swede, and has spent far more time on the subject than I have, explain. Luckily for you, he's done a far better job than I would have. I won't excerpt, because it should be read in its entirety. One other point I should make, though: the subject of cultural homogeneity and welfare states is complicated, delicate, and by no means settled. But there are a few things we think we do know. First, the more ethnically diverse a population is, the lower the political support for lavish safety nets (the subject of Robert Putnam's recent anguished paper). We also know to a pretty high degree of certainty that social solidarity plays a big role in keeping down free riding--most people don't refrain from shoplifting because they're afraid of a minor court case, but because Mom would cry and the neighbors would snicker. When you have multiple, somewhat mutually suspicious communities, you have to rely on other, harsher measures, like fraud police--or see public support erode even further. Most people don't mind paying taxes for people they think can't work. But very few want to support people who won't work. Cultural norms about what constitutes "can't", "won't", and "shouldn't have to" matter a great deal. And even with a small country with a single culture that defines these categories pretty much the same, if those norms change, as seems (from both anecdotal and empirical evidence) to be happening in Sweden, it may be that the change will make welfare programs either fiscally or politically untenable. I don't know that this is true, and indeed don't know of any way to prove it. But I think it's worth exploring. meganmcardle.theatlantic.com

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (92588)	10/31/2008 1:47:00 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 541851

Norway is a small oil exporting country. Its not exactly comparable to the US. It doesn't have many more people than LA (just the city, it has much less than the metro area) And "rocketing ahead" isn't true. Its got a slightly larger GDP per capita ( en.wikipedia.org ) but it isn't that far ahead by that measure. The only other European country ahead of us is Luxembourg. Pick any large European country and you'll find their income is lower, and in most cases their unemployment rates are higher.