Quote:
Quote by: lsbskins1  Some "regulation" serves the monied interests, it's true. I addressed that above. But not one "government out" talking head on the Conservative side of this issue hates that kind of regulation. And not one Libertarian who hates both types can explain to me how it is better for the buying and voting public to surrender the power they have to halt the abuses of unfettered capitol. It may make it easier for the few to enrich themselves, but it does not serve the public interest. |
I'm just going to select this bit out to respond to now.
Osborn had actually just compiled this for another debate, and it offers mulitple links from both positions, and well as a glaring real world example ( as if they are not everywhere you look ) of socialized, regulated markets vs. freer markets. ( Because let's face it, there has never beee a truly free market. )
He uses Sweden as the example, because it is touted as one of the more successful models operating in Europe. So, enjoy...
The real world comparison is the last link which compares Sweden with Missippi.
-----------
A few facts on Sweden, the model you are touting....
Swedish information: (contrasting views)
2000 Key Swedish Economic Indicators:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/1633.pdf
Swedish economic policy:
A Swedish Economic Policy - The Theory, Application and Validity of the Rehn-Meidner Model
How does Swedish public health policy address determinants of health?
WHO | How does Swedish public health policy address determinants of health?
Government of Sweden offices:
The Government and its Offices
Mises on Sweden:
How the Welfare State Corrupted Sweden - Per Bylund - Mises Institute The Sweden Myth - Stefan Karlsson - Mises Institute
Comparison between Sweden and Missisippi, U.S. State.
CARPE DIEM: If Sweden Left The EU and Joined the US, It Would Be the Poorest U.S. State, Below Even Mississippi Quote:
Here is a short version explaining the internal contradictions of socialism.
Sweden: Poorer Than You Think - William L. Anderson - Mises Institute
"The research came from the Swedish Institute of Trade, which, according to Reuters, "compared official U.S. and Swedish statistics on household income as well as gross domestic product, private consumption and retail spending per capita between 1980 and 1999."
The study used "fixed prices and purchasing power parity adjusted data," and found that "the median household income in Sweden at the end of the 1990s was the equivalent of $26,800, compared with a median of $39,400 for U.S. households." Furthermore, the study points out that Swedish productivity has fallen rapidly relative to per capital productivity in the USA."
Socialism does not create wealth, only consumes it, therefore Eventually Socialism must consume its capital. With no capital there is no revenue. No revenue no welfare state.
Also worth noting in the article is that the government is selling assets to private companies. The Government is not good at running business. British Airways was almost bankrupt, but Thatcher decided to sell anyway against unions wish. Today it is one of the more financial stable companies. To pour more money into a "leaking" company doesn't solve anything, the 1970's proved this beyond any doubt. You can chose not to believe the facts....
(quoted from another site)
http://www.amazon.com/tag/politics/forum...1EGXTRAT5S |