• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Socialism din't work in Sweden and it won't work here.

Bullseye said:
That depends on what you define as "socialism". The textbook definition I see is "a political system where the government owns or controls the means of production and distribution". Some how, some slopping thinking has worked its way into the dialogue and socialists claim every service provided by the government is "socialism". It's not.
Click to expand...

You're confused about how to apply the definition of Socialism, it seems.

Yes, services provided to the population by the federal government are certainly examples of socialism.

  • Medicare and medicaid are socialist programs.
  • The entire VA healthcare systems is a socialist program.
  • Social Security is a socialist program.
  • The entire Pentagon is a socialist program.
  • Unemployment Insurance is a socialist program.
  • Disability Insurance is a socialist program.
  • WIC is a socialist program.
  • Corporate Subsidies and tax breaks are ENTIRELY socialist in nature.
  • School Lunch programs are entirely socialist in nature.
  • Farm Subsidy programs are entirely socialist in nature.
  • etc. etc.

The presence of so many socialist government programs does NOT mean that we are a "Socialist" country, any more than the Wall Street, Silicons Valley and Big Energy mean that we are a Capitalist country. Like EVERY other western democracy on the globe, the U.S. economy is decidedly MIXED.

And since you people can NEVER seem to find ANY examples of ANY prominent political leaders advocating anything more than increased government regulation in selected area of the economy (i.e. health care, education, science and research, etc. ) don't you think it's about time for you all to start being a little more honest in these debates?
 
KLATTU said:
Really? can you tell us where free market capitalism has proven to be a failed experiment?
Click to expand...

The USA. Since Reagan’s Deep Deregulation, commonly referred to as trickledown/voodoo economics more and more AmeriCANs have less and less, our infrastructure has dangerously deteriorated, industry (and jobs) have fled overseas while fewer and fewer have more and more.

NO ONE in America wants PURE SOCIALISM any more than UNBRIDLED CAPITALISM. The America you’re “AGAINING about was when we had a WORKING mix of both. Wealth equality was at its zenith as was our infrastructure and our Industry was a model for the world.
 
KLATTU said:
sure.
So Long, Swedish Welfare State? – Foreign Policy
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/violent-crime-in-sweden-is-soaring-when-will-politicians-act/
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Sweden On Brink Of Collapse, Worrying Report - News Punch

Haven't you learned from the OJ trail ? NEVER ask the incomparable KLATTU an open ended question unless you already know the answer.

Else, this happens...
:shoot
Click to expand...

KLATTU, at some point you're going to realize that relentlessly posting right-wing OP/EDS as your news sources...is a bad look for you.

But I get it, I think. You don't see any difference between legitimate news and political opinions, right?
 
ultmd said:
KLATTU, at some point you're going to realize that relentlessly posting right-wing OP/EDS as your news sources...is a bad look for you.

But I get it, I think. You don't see any difference between legitimate news and political opinions, right?
Click to expand...

You mean I can't rely on Fox for accuracy in reporting?

Birmingham is ‘totally Muslim’ city, claims Fox News pundit | Media | The Guardian

Pundit Sorry For Saying Birmingham Is 100% Muslim | US News | Sky News

Maybe I'll try Heritage Foundation:lamo
 
ataraxia said:
What’s the the difference between TX’s “business friendly” policies and those of AL and MS?

There is no difference between the policies of those states. The only difference is TX has oil, and NASA. Take those away and they got nothing. They are otherwise a stagnant, backward, uneducated, xenophobic, religiously conservative, wealthy oil state like Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Click to expand...

I really hate being put in the position of defending a wingnut, but....clearly, you don't know much about Texas.

Let me ask you...are the policies of California, Oregon and Washington different in any way?
 
KLATTU said:
{Watch what happens to this post
Click to expand...

Your failure to provide evidence to the claim that Sweden is on the brink of collapse is on full display for the second time. An opinion piece in Foreign Policy Magazine certainly doesn't cut it.

I think he assumed it was common knowledge.
Click to expand...

I know he is full of ****.

Don't worry- a little soap and water will get that egg right off your face.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
ultmd said:
:lamo:lamo

I must say...some of our righties really do excel at making some of the DUMBEST arguments we're likely to see anywhere.



"News flash": NO ONE is talking about converting the U.S. economy to pure socialism. To suggest, or even imply, as much (as you and many other right wingers do) is to LIE. As many have noted already, we live in a mixed, capitalist-socialist economy; and the ONLY debate is with regard to where best, and to what degree, to emphasis each within various components of our society. Most non-wingnuts understand that those "social programs" that the Right opposes (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, the VA system, the entire U.S. Military, the postal service, Farm subsidies, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, etc. etc.)....are ENTIRELY Socialist, and could not exist in a purely Capitalist economy. I'm guessing that you people actually understand this (as you likely enoy the benefits of them right now), but just CHOOSE to demagogue because you know your cannot otherwise prevail.



Apples and Oranges. Being a republic has ZERO to do with being Socialist (or Capitalist, or Communist). So when you say you "prefer a Constitutional Republic" to Socialism...you're just telling people that you're just another brain-washed, fake-news ideologue. It's like when my wife told me the other day that someone "scored a home run". The difference between you and her is that my wife doesn't pretend to be knowledgable about sports.
Click to expand...

When you ignore what I actually wrote and insert what you wish I had said so that you can attack it, you don't help your argument in any way. Neither does ad hominem and personal insults. So I'll just wish you a pleasant day and let it go at that.
 
KLATTU said:
When somebody's critique of my brilliant work consists of pointing out a typo, I know I've hit the mark.
Click to expand...

Here, review this and then tell us how brilliantly you analysed Sweden's imminent demise and collapse from the evils of socialism:

Sweden Economy - GDP, Inflation, CPI and Interest Rate

You will note that tiny (10 million), Sweden's GDP is close to the giant, America. Obviously they are doomed.
 
Last edited:
DamnYankee said:
Nope. Never took a single dime. Put myself through college, busted my ass, got a damn good job. And the rest is history.

My biggest decision these days is, should I have a pale ale or light beer today? Hmmmmmm decisions, decisions.
Click to expand...

You built your own roads, power grid, and school system. Well, I guess you showed us.
 
Irwin Corey said:
The USA. Since Reagan’s Deep Deregulation, commonly referred to as trickledown/voodoo economics more and more AmeriCANs have less and less, our infrastructure has dangerously deteriorated, industry (and jobs) have fled overseas while fewer and fewer have more and more.

NO ONE in America wants PURE SOCIALISM any more than UNBRIDLED CAPITALISM. The America you’re “AGAINING about was when we had a WORKING mix of both. Wealth equality was at its zenith as was our infrastructure and our Industry was a model for the world.
Click to expand...

If you tap a liberal on his knee with a hammer , he will say " our infrastructure is crumbling , we need more money to fix it " . If you tap him on the other knee, he will say the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer"
It's just a reflex;the result of liberal propaganda
Neither is remotely true.
 
KLATTU said:
If you tap a liberal on his knee with a hammer , he will say " our infrastructure is crumbling , we need more money to fix it " . If you tap him on the other knee, he will say the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer"
It's just a reflex;the result of liberal propaganda
Neither is remotely true.
Click to expand...

Propaganda? Who was it insisting Sweden was economically doomed because of some nebulous failure of 'socialism'? Oh yes, that would be brilliant you and your brilliant analysis.
 
snakestretcher said:
Propaganda? Who was it insisting Sweden was economically doomed because of some nebulous failure of 'socialism'? Oh yes, that would be brilliant you and your brilliant analysis.
Click to expand...


It wasn' t just me. You should read the article again and pay attention to the time frames -maybe you would stop misrepresenting it.

and it wasn't just me- it was these folks..
How 'Democratic Socialism' Wreaked Havoc On My Native Sweden

They explain that the free market elements are responsible for the country’s relative wealth and health. Much of the wealth in real terms was created before and in the early stages of the welfare state, between 1870 and 1960, when Sweden was one of the countries with the lowest levels of regulation and taxation in Europe.

The one period when Sweden practiced what may be considered “democratic socialism” was between 1960 and 1980. During this period, the country nationalized industry and massively expanded the welfare state financed by tax increases and currency devaluations, and it paid a high price. Sweden fell from the top of the list of wealthiest countries in the world to the middle of the pack of industrialized nations, bringing it to the brink of ruin in the 1990s.

Realizing the practical consequences of the disastrous policies, the country cut back on its welfare programs and reduced corporate taxes, leading to somewhat of a comeback in the past two decades. But the experiment with “democratic socialism” resulted in four decades of lost progress.
"
The Sweden Myth | Mises Institute

"After this deep downturn, Sweden has performed much better for a number of reasons. The 20% decline in the value of the krona in late 1992 gave a strong boost to exports and together with the dramatic lowering of interest rates, this helped kick-start a cyclical recovery in late 1993. Moreover, a number of free market reforms implemented during Ingvar Carlsson and conservative Carl Bildt (who was Prime Minister between 1991 and 1994) had helped raise the structural growth potential of the Swedish economy.

Apart from the already mentioned reforms of reduced marginal tax rates and abolished currency controls, deregulated bank lending and significantly lower inflation, this included privatizations of several state-owned companies and deregulation of several key sectors, including the retail sector, the telecommunications sector and the airline industry. Also, when the massive budget deficit was eliminated, even the Social Democrats realized the need for deep spending cuts, which together with the typical cyclical decline in the burden of spending during booms helped reduce the extremely bloated burden of government spending somewhat.

All of this has helped Sweden recover in relative terms from the stagnation of the 1970s and 1980s and the deep economic downturn in the early 1990s. It is this relative recovery that is now seized upon by the Social Democrats and their sympathizers inside and outside of Sweden when they claim that the Swedish model of high taxes and a big welfare state is successful."
 
AlbqOwl said:
When you ignore what I actually wrote and insert what you wish I had said so that you can attack it, you don't help your argument in any way. Neither does ad hominem and personal insults. So I'll just wish you a pleasant day and let it go at that.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the deflection, thinly disguised as (attempted) wisdom. But I got it right the first time. You're a fairly typical conservative who relies on canned talking points and simplistic arguments, and you don't really understand many of the "liberal" ideas and policies you rail against. In this case, you clearly don't undersand what Socialism is....and what it looks like within our society. And, as evidenced by your attempt to contrast "Constitutional Republica" with "Socialism"....you clearly don't undestand what a Republic is, either.

Pointing out the ignornace those arguments from you isn't name-calling, it's just truth-calling.

You know this, hence your substance-free deflection, above. If you could rebut what I've said, you'd have done so. You won't do that, because you can't. It's about as simple as that.
 
KLATTU said:
It wasn' t just me. You should read the article again and pay attention to the time frames -maybe you would stop misrepresenting it.

and it wasn't just me- it was these folks..
How 'Democratic Socialism' Wreaked Havoc On My Native Sweden

They explain that the free market elements are responsible for the country’s relative wealth and health. Much of the wealth in real terms was created before and in the early stages of the welfare state, between 1870 and 1960, when Sweden was one of the countries with the lowest levels of regulation and taxation in Europe.

The one period when Sweden practiced what may be considered “democratic socialism” was between 1960 and 1980. During this period, the country nationalized industry and massively expanded the welfare state financed by tax increases and currency devaluations, and it paid a high price. Sweden fell from the top of the list of wealthiest countries in the world to the middle of the pack of industrialized nations, bringing it to the brink of ruin in the 1990s.

Realizing the practical consequences of the disastrous policies, the country cut back on its welfare programs and reduced corporate taxes, leading to somewhat of a comeback in the past two decades. But the experiment with “democratic socialism” resulted in four decades of lost progress.
"
The Sweden Myth | Mises Institute

"After this deep downturn, Sweden has performed much better for a number of reasons. The 20% decline in the value of the krona in late 1992 gave a strong boost to exports and together with the dramatic lowering of interest rates, this helped kick-start a cyclical recovery in late 1993. Moreover, a number of free market reforms implemented during Ingvar Carlsson and conservative Carl Bildt (who was Prime Minister between 1991 and 1994) had helped raise the structural growth potential of the Swedish economy.

Apart from the already mentioned reforms of reduced marginal tax rates and abolished currency controls, deregulated bank lending and significantly lower inflation, this included privatizations of several state-owned companies and deregulation of several key sectors, including the retail sector, the telecommunications sector and the airline industry. Also, when the massive budget deficit was eliminated, even the Social Democrats realized the need for deep spending cuts, which together with the typical cyclical decline in the burden of spending during booms helped reduce the extremely bloated burden of government spending somewhat.

All of this has helped Sweden recover in relative terms from the stagnation of the 1970s and 1980s and the deep economic downturn in the early 1990s. It is this relative recovery that is now seized upon by the Social Democrats and their sympathizers inside and outside of Sweden when they claim that the Swedish model of high taxes and a big welfare state is successful."
Click to expand...

Brilliant; ONE opinion piece in a right-wing rag, and another (Mises), founded by a racist with far right fascist tendencies. Quite brilliant.

Exposing the Racist History Of Libertarianism And Murray Rothbard - Business Insider
 
Last edited:
Another article about the all too familiar pattern.

Capitalism makes a nation prosperous. The liberal vultures move in and start promising free **** ( ie redistribution) in exchange fo votes. the nation eventually becomes lees prosperous.

How Laissez-Faire Made Sweden Rich | Libertarianism.org
But in one century, everything was changed. Sweden had the fastest economic and social development that its people had ever experienced, and one of the fastest the world had ever seen. Between 1850 and 1950 the average Swedish income multiplied eightfold, while population doubled. Infant mortality fell from 15 to 2 per cent, and average life expectancy rose an incredible 28 years. A poor peasant nation had become one of the world’s richest countries.

Many people abroad think that this was the triumph of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, which somehow found the perfect middle way, managing to tax, spend, and regulate Sweden into a more equitable distribution of wealth—without hurting its productive capacity. And so Sweden—a small country of nine million inhabitants in the north of Europe—became a source of inspiration for people around the world who believe in government-led development and distribution.

But there is something wrong with this interpretation. In 1950, when Sweden was known worldwide as the great success story, taxes in Sweden were lower and the public sector smaller than in the rest of Europe and the United States. It was not until then that Swedish politicians started levying taxes and disbursing handouts on a large scale, that is, redistributing the wealth that businesses and workers had already created. Sweden’s biggest social and economic successes took place when Sweden had a laissez-faire economy, and widely distributed wealth preceded the welfare state.
 
KLATTU said:
Another article about the all too familiar pattern.

Capitalism makes a nation prosperous. The liberal vultures move in and start promising free **** ( ie redistribution) in exchange fo votes. the nation eventually becomes lees prosperous.

How Laissez-Faire Made Sweden Rich | Libertarianism.org
But in one century, everything was changed. Sweden had the fastest economic and social development that its people had ever experienced, and one of the fastest the world had ever seen. Between 1850 and 1950 the average Swedish income multiplied eightfold, while population doubled. Infant mortality fell from 15 to 2 per cent, and average life expectancy rose an incredible 28 years. A poor peasant nation had become one of the world’s richest countries.

Many people abroad think that this was the triumph of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, which somehow found the perfect middle way, managing to tax, spend, and regulate Sweden into a more equitable distribution of wealth—without hurting its productive capacity. And so Sweden—a small country of nine million inhabitants in the north of Europe—became a source of inspiration for people around the world who believe in government-led development and distribution.

But there is something wrong with this interpretation. In 1950, when Sweden was known worldwide as the great success story, taxes in Sweden were lower and the public sector smaller than in the rest of Europe and the United States. It was not until then that Swedish politicians started levying taxes and disbursing handouts on a large scale, that is, redistributing the wealth that businesses and workers had already created. Sweden’s biggest social and economic successes took place when Sweden had a laissez-faire economy, and widely distributed wealth preceded the welfare state.
Click to expand...

America has a $20 trillion national debt. Borrowed money; and that's prosperity? Being in debt is fine-until the debt gets called in.
 
KLATTU said:
If you tap a liberal on his knee with a hammer , he will say " our infrastructure is crumbling , we need more money to fix it " . If you tap him on the other knee, he will say the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer"
It's just a reflex;the result of liberal propaganda
Neither is remotely true.
Click to expand...

:roll:

So there we have it...this is now officially another thread by KLATTU in which he abandons his discredited OP after being unable to defend it....and then quickly moves on to a new set of fact-free wingnut talking points (i.e. lies).

I think you have already posted close to a dozen OP/EDS as your "news" sources in this this thread, right? :lamo

You are nothing, if not predictable, KLATTU.
 
KLATTU said:
Another article about the all too familiar pattern.

Capitalism makes a nation prosperous. The liberal vultures move in and start promising free **** ( ie redistribution) in exchange fo votes. the nation eventually becomes lees prosperous.

How Laissez-Faire Made Sweden Rich | Libertarianism.org
But in one century, everything was changed. Sweden had the fastest economic and social development that its people had ever experienced, and one of the fastest the world had ever seen. Between 1850 and 1950 the average Swedish income multiplied eightfold, while population doubled. Infant mortality fell from 15 to 2 per cent, and average life expectancy rose an incredible 28 years. A poor peasant nation had become one of the world’s richest countries.

Many people abroad think that this was the triumph of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, which somehow found the perfect middle way, managing to tax, spend, and regulate Sweden into a more equitable distribution of wealth—without hurting its productive capacity. And so Sweden—a small country of nine million inhabitants in the north of Europe—became a source of inspiration for people around the world who believe in government-led development and distribution.

But there is something wrong with this interpretation. In 1950, when Sweden was known worldwide as the great success story, taxes in Sweden were lower and the public sector smaller than in the rest of Europe and the United States. It was not until then that Swedish politicians started levying taxes and disbursing handouts on a large scale, that is, redistributing the wealth that businesses and workers had already created. Sweden’s biggest social and economic successes took place when Sweden had a laissez-faire economy, and widely distributed wealth preceded the welfare state.
Click to expand...

So you can do both. Have capitalism and generous social programs.

I knew you could get there
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom