| Blogs > Adolpho > My Blog |
|
How Maisie is mistaken, once again Rather than wasting my breath and an inordinate amount of time that far outstrips the gravity of another intellectually flawed supposition from the resident queen of hyperbole, I found the following, from Joshua Engel, to cover the misinformation that Maisie has trotted out as factual reality in direct fashion. "Why is socialism highly efficient in Nordic / Scandinavian nations? On second thought I may be mistaken and it's not so efficient as I thought, government provided goods and services are excellent quality however at a very high cost. Nobody can really say for certain. There are many, many theories, but without controls it's impossible to put any of those theories to a meaningful test. They all end up in the category of "comfortable fable", some of which might even be true. What I think is clear, though, is that even if the fables are true, they likely hold little value in extrapolation. The most important thing that they do is to contradict the trivial "SOSHULISM BAD" that you hear from certain sources, but honestly, nobody who took that notion seriously was worth taking seriously*. Instead, let's turn the question around for a second: why shouldn't it work? There is a lot to be said for a "benevolent monopoly" on some kinds of service: Economies of scale reduce cost Universal payment via taxation eliminates free riders Security in things that people needed anyway (education, housing, food, medical care) mean that less services are provided on a more expensive emergency basis A government that doesn't want to turn a profit, and instead actually wants to provide services, will waste a lot less money on things like trying to build its customer base. It doesn't spend effort trying to save a nickel to do something that costs its customers a dollar. Poverty leads to crime; reducing poverty reduces crime. and so on. Essentially, the question is really why people automatically assume that it wouldn't work. There are a few standard arguments: Top-down direction can't distribute goods efficiently. All of the marketing tools available to corporations are available to governments. These societies still use money; they're really more "social democracies" than socialism. Further, the kinds of goods that are well-handled by a social democracy are the ones for which demand always exceeds supply: health care, policing, road building, education. There is no optimal allocation, and capitalist societies don't do especially well at it. There is no incentive to succeed. People every day, in every culture, do all kinds of work because they enjoy it. I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise that the single most important piece of open-source software, run for free in people's spare time, came from Finland. People feel good about themselves by doing well at their work, all kinds of work. There are free riders everywhere; capitalism does not eliminate them. (The wealthy in capitalist societies often get some of the biggest free-rider benefits of all.) That's not to say you get it all by volunteerism, which isn't what they're doing anyway. What they're saying is that by realizing that work can be part of a fulfilling life, and ceasing to have spaz attacks about free riders that you get anyway, they can gain all of the advantages I listed with no greater down sides. Most other objections are of the trivially-dismissed variety. There are no rampaging godless atheists; there is no Politburo; there are no bread lines. Communism failed spectacularly in countries that weren't ready for it; it was conceived for wealthy industrial societies, like Scandinavia, which have resources to spare. These are countries with a history of good management, unlike China and Russia. I've only touched on the things that are specific to Scandinavia. There is speculation about social cohesion and such that I can't prove, and which wouldn't easily adapt elsewhere anyway. What I think is important to recognize is that the general ideals of social democracy are demonstrably solid, and that the first step in figuring out what that means is to dismiss the trivial reasons why it shouldn't be, as they are demonstrably false. Beyond that, the details of Scandinavia will be difficult to ferret out without sounder controls. ARE SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES SUCCESSFUL? There is no doubt that on most economic benchmarks Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) are highly successful. They are up there among the richest 20 nations in the world, their national debt is manageable (not like the Greek socialist state, for instance), and their people even claim to be happy. [True, there is some detail, e.g. huge private debt in Denmark, but I said "most" economic indicators, not "all"]. So what is going on here? Are these guys an example of successful socialist countries, or are the capitalist in some way, or do they follow some other, "third way"? WHAT DO THE HIGH LEVEL FREEDOM INDICATORS TELL US? Without going into too much detail (there are plenty of other, similar, indicators), this list of indicators shows that unlike India (which is a HARDCORE SOCIALIST, UNFREE SOCIETY), the Scandinavian countries are FREE countries, with the world's strongest property rights systems. They are NOT fundamentally socialist. Socialist countries DO NOT have economic (or other) freedoms. The whole idea of socialism is PROOF THAT THESE ARE ROBUST MARKET ECONOMIES Does the price system work in these countries? (e.g. do they use administered prices) Denmark has a "thoroughly modern market economy" [Source]. "Denmark boasts a modern market economy in which the prices of goods and services are determined in a free price system." [Source] Market restrictions? There is no minimum wage in Denmark. [Source] Labour market flexibilty: In Denmark, the employer's right to hire and fire their employees whenever they find it necessary is recognised. [Source] This suggests labour market flexibillity at a level that is totally unheard of in any socialist (or even most capitalist) society. Trade policy? Denmark advocates free trade [Source]. "All Nordic countries have a commitment to free trade" [Source]. The Economist describes these as "stout free-traders who resist the temptation to intervene even to protect iconic companies" [Source] HOW THE NORDIC COUNTRIES HAVE CHANGED - BECOME MORE MARKET ORIENTED These countries had a period of greater state intervention in the society, but have become market oriented at a level not heard of in most parts of the West. In the 1970s and 1980s the Nordics were indeed tax-and-spend countries. Sweden’s public spending reached 67% of GDP in 1993. Astrid Lindgren, the inventor of Pippi Longstocking, was forced to pay more than 100% of her income in taxes. But tax-and-spend did not work: Sweden fell from being the fourth-richest country in the world in 1970 to the 14th in 1993. Since then the Nordics have changed course—mainly to the right. Government’s share of GDP in Sweden, which has dropped by around 18 percentage points, is lower than France’s and could soon be lower than Britain’s. Taxes have been cut: the corporate rate is 22%, far lower than America’s. The Nordics have focused on balancing the books. While Mr Obama and Congress dither over entitlement reform, Sweden has reformed its pension system (see Free exchange). Its budget deficit is 0.3% of GDP; America’s is 7%. [Source] Private management of public hospitals and schools An example of their private orientation is their operation of schools and hospitals. Denmark and Norway allow private firms to run public hospitals. Sweden has a universal system of school vouchers, with private for-profit schools competing with public schools. Denmark also has vouchers—but ones that you can top up. When it comes to choice, Milton Friedman would be more at home in Stockholm than in Washington, DC. [Source] However, it is fundamentally incorrect to talk of Scandinavian countries as being socialist. Yes, in casual talk, even I refer to excesses of welfare state as socialism, but socialism is actually quite a different beast. To identify socialism, look at PROPERTY RIGHTS. Look at PRICES. Look at LABOUR MARKETS. Look at TRADE". What are we to make of Maisie's transparently racist supposition? We can certainly ascertain that she is misinformed about a great number of things. The first is that she has no clear understanding of socialism or of racism. In fact she has, in her transparent attempt to denigrate another Democrat presidential candidate been mind numbingly ignorant yet again. I suppose that we should be heartened by the fact that she got away from riding Hillary Clinton for one day. Aside from that nothing else has changed...aside from the fact that she now believes that she has the intelligence and the mental acuity to comment on another nation's political future. |
|||
10/22/2015 6:33 am |
I have a trademark on Queen of Hyperbole, and also Duchess of Deceit. If you are going to use either of these terms in reference to her, please put (TM) after it.
|
×
×