• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Patriotic Americans don't question umemployment numbers?

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Well if you reenact those reforms then you are going to hit the very same economic rock that you hit during the 90s. The thing about socialism is that it doesn't destroy your economy all at once it takes years of mismanagement for the meltdown to occur as yours did in the early 90s.

First you can’t make any broad statement like this, because it just your personally beliefs. I can also make as easy broad statement about capitalism. Like for example that capitalism also have had a lot of crashes. I could also point out that the Swedish economy crashed after Sweden had started implementing neo liberal policies.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Secondly, where have you heard that the U.S. doesn't demand lower unemployment?

Well I just said that it’s not that common to discuses unemployment. For example from this forum it’s seem that it usually only thrown into the discussion like this: liberal ideas will lead to higher unemployment. But of course you had some discussion about unemployment like for example you had it in the presidential debate. But for my second question if you questioned if the unemployment numbers that are used are the most relative. The answers most be no you don’t discuses. Like for example in this thread some agreed that American don’t cared to question the numbers, the rest didn’t understand the question or started to talk about other stuff.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Here's an interesting look at what Sweden actually is rather than how the left portrays it to be:

Well then it comes to GDP you can see from this chart that no country can leave up to the same GDP as the USA. Countries that both have tried right wing politics and left wing politics ends up in the same group. So you can’t say that Sweden don’t have the same GDP as the USA because of leftwing politics. Because countries with right wing politics are as far behind.

http://www.oecd.org/topicstatsportal/0,2647,en_2825_495684_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

Oh and I also put in this sources that are not leftwing (and I think my sources triumph over yours :):

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2005&country=6840

http://www.transparency.org/publications/annual_report


Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Well you're living proof of that aren't you? ;)

Well it’s classic social psychology if you or your countryman is proud of your/his country, you/him is a good citizen and/or patriot. But if a foreigner is proud of his country he is an arrogant b*stard. The same could be said for any in group, out group situation.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
First you can’t make any broad statement like this, because it just your personally beliefs. I can also make as easy broad statement about capitalism. Like for example that capitalism also have had a lot of crashes. I could also point out that the Swedish economy crashed after Sweden had started implementing neo liberal policies.



Well I just said that it’s not that common to discuses unemployment. For example from this forum it’s seem that it usually only thrown into the discussion like this: liberal ideas will lead to higher unemployment. But of course you had some discussion about unemployment like for example you had it in the presidential debate. But for my second question if you questioned if the unemployment numbers that are used are the most relative. The answers most be no you don’t discuses. Like for example in this thread some agreed that American don’t cared to question the numbers, the rest didn’t understand the question or started to talk about other stuff.



Well then it comes to GDP you can see from this chart that no country can leave up to the same GDP as the USA. Countries that both have tried right wing politics and left wing politics ends up in the same group. So you can’t say that Sweden don’t have the same GDP as the USA because of leftwing politics. Because countries with right wing politics are as far behind.

http://www.oecd.org/topicstatsportal/0,2647,en_2825_495684_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

Oh and I also put in this sources that are not leftwing (and I think my sources triumph over yours :):

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2005&country=6840

http://www.transparency.org/publications/annual_report




Well it’s classic social psychology if you or your countryman is proud of your/his country, you/him is a good citizen and/or patriot. But if a foreigner is proud of his country he is an arrogant b*stard. The same could be said for any in group, out group situation.

Here's the deal, all of the empirical evidence and case studies show that when socialist policies are enacted it creates a lack of competition in the market, this leads to stagnation, inflation, and eventual deflation. It happened to the U.S.S.R. in the late 80s early 90s, it happened to Sweden in the early 90s, it happened to Latin America during the mid-90s, it's happening in France and Germany as we speak, and so on and so forth etc etc. And in all of these cases the only solution has been to open up the markets and privatize, the lesson of the 80s and 90s is that socialism is a failed experiment and that laissez faire economics is not.

As for the unemployment numbers, I think the numbers are an accurate reflection, because I think they are only useful for depicting people who are out of work who want to work, since the numbers are figured by those recieving unemployment benefits but not those whose unemployment has run out this is an accurate portrayal of who wants to work, because if you are still unemployed after your unemployment has run out then you are obviously not looking for work.

How do you figure your numbers in Sweden?
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Here's the deal, all of the empirical evidence and case studies show that when socialist policies are enacted it creates a lack of competition in the market, this leads to stagnation, inflation, and eventual deflation. It happened to the U.S.S.R. in the late 80s early 90s, it happened to Sweden in the early 90s, it happened to Latin America during the mid-90s, it's happening in France and Germany as we speak, and so on and so forth etc etc. And in all of these cases the only solution has been to open up the markets and privatize, the lesson of the 80s and 90s is that socialism is a failed experiment and that laissez faire economics is not.


As for the unemployment numbers, I think the numbers are an accurate reflection, because I think they are only useful for depicting people who are
out of work who want to work, since the numbers are figured by those recieving unemployment benefits but not those whose unemployment has run out this is an accurate portrayal of who wants to work, because if you are still unemployed after your unemployment has run out then you are obviously not looking for work.

How do you figure your numbers in Sweden?


Well I could do the same. Say hey look at south ameria who tried neo liberal politics and now are electing socialist leaders instead. Look at all the big crashes capitalist had during 1870-1840. Look at all the african countries that have tried to liberalize there market and the bad effect of it and so on and so on...

Because it is also classic social psychology. Because why your ideas doesn't work in a single case is always because of outside factor and never because of the ideas. While why others ideas doesn't work in a single case is always because of the ideas and never because of outside factors.

No what is intersting is
1. Sweden that is many ways one of countries that with most socialist politics and atleast with the highest taxes in the world are amongst the richest countries in the world except USA and Luxembuorg.

2. Socialist policies like in Sweden doesn't mean decreased politcal and econimical freedoms. Atleast to the conservative organisation freedomhouse that ranks sweden amongst the most free countries both then it comes to economical and political freedom

3. Socialist in the case of Sweden doesn't mean high grades of corruption. Because the independent and well respected trancperancy organisation rank sweden amongt the countries with lowest corruption.

So from that you can atleast draw the conclusion that high taxes and socialist polycies doesn't always mean lower GDP, decreased politcal and economical freedom and high degree of corruption.

Well we compare unemployment them the same way as you do even if it's no time limit on how long time. But in sweden we at the same time debate that if it is the most relavent number. But as I said it as almost gone to far.

But do you don't think you have areas in USA there it is extremly hard to get jobs? Also if you would like to be more drastic you can say that it's not real job if the goverment have to sponser with medicare and other or if the person have to take to jobs.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Well I could do the same. Say hey look at south ameria who tried neo liberal politics and now are electing socialist leaders instead. Look at all the big crashes capitalist had during 1870-1840. Look at all the african countries that have tried to liberalize there market and the bad effect of it and so on and so on...

One country elected a socialist government and it's Venezuela, since that time Chavez has instituted a unicameral legislature, restricted freedom of the press, and is creating a giant militia to control the populace. That's not a very good example.
Because it is also classic social psychology. Because why your ideas doesn't work in a single case is always because of outside factor and never because of the ideas. While why others ideas doesn't work in a single case is always because of the ideas and never because of outside factors.

Socialism is a proven failure it has never worked in any country that it has been implemented in, it ALWAY everytime leads to stagnation, inflation, and deflation.
No what is intersting is
1. Sweden that is many ways one of countries that with most socialist politics and atleast with the highest taxes in the world are amongst the richest countries in the world except USA and Luxembuorg.

And you started privatizing in the mid 90s so what's your point, your economy was in the shitter under the state planned economy.
2. Socialist policies like in Sweden doesn't mean decreased politcal and econimical freedoms.

Yes it does you just said it did when you said that you have the highest taxation rate in the world that is the restriction of economic freedom.
Atleast to the conservative organisation freedomhouse that ranks sweden amongst the most free countries both then it comes to economical and political freedom

Freedom house doesn't rate economic freedom.

3. Socialist in the case of Sweden doesn't mean high grades of corruption. Because the independent and well respected trancperancy organisation rank sweden amongt the countries with lowest corruption.

Good for them, but socialism still failed not because of corruption but because it just doesn't work.

So from that you can atleast draw the conclusion that high taxes and socialist polycies doesn't always mean lower GDP, decreased politcal and economical freedom and high degree of corruption.

No it means stagnation, inflation, and deflation as what happened in the early 90s in Sweden, that's why the privatization was enacted, however, from what I'm hearing from you you want to go backwards rather than forwards, good luck with that, you know what they say about learning from history? I guess you skipped that lesson.

Well we compare unemployment them the same way as you do even if it's no time limit on how long time. But in sweden we at the same time debate that if it is the most relavent number. But as I said it as almost gone to far.

But do you don't think you have areas in USA there it is extremly hard to get jobs? Also if you would like to be more drastic you can say that it's not real job if the goverment have to sponser with medicare and other or if the person have to take to jobs.

Two jobs? I assume that's what you meant, people don't have to take two jobs they choose to so that they can get even further ahead, while they could live just fine off of one job they want to make money and become financially secure rather than just scraping by.

Besides that's the whole point if people worked hard when they were younger then they wouldn't have to take two jobs to get make alot of money, because they would have gone to college and gotten a good job.

It's all about personnel responisibility, choice, and opportunity. There is much more opportunity in American than anyother country.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
No what is intersting is
1. Sweden that is many ways one of countries that with most socialist politics and atleast with the highest taxes in the world are amongst the richest countries in the world except USA and Luxembuorg.

I do know that Sweden is one of the wealthiest nations in the world. However, I wonder if it is actually, in spite of their high taxes and socialist policies. What would you think of this concept?
 
George_Washington said:
I do know that Sweden is one of the wealthiest nations in the world. However, I wonder if it is actually, in spite of their high taxes and socialist policies. What would you think of this concept?

Well I would disagree because of many reaon, like for example that welfare state keep people more healthier so they can work more, daycare make woman more able to work free university gets the best students etc. But that can you debate and don't come to any real conclusions. But that you can see is that you can have high taxes and alot of other things that you like to call socialist and still be amongst the richest countries in the world.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
One country elected a socialist government and it's Venezuela, since that time Chavez has instituted a unicameral legislature, restricted freedom of the press, and is creating a giant militia to control the populace. That's not a very good example.

Cool so you don't think this people is socialism?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4636190.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/1227110.stm#leaders

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4799372.stm

And maybee soon this guy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4861320.stm


Trajan Octavian Titus said:
And you started privatizing in the mid 90s so what's your point, your economy was in the shitter under the state planned economy.


My point is that you or atleast other rightwing american like do describe strong unions, universal healtcare, high taxes and big welfare system as socialism. Sweden have had it all the time. That we have done is privatize things like railways telephon and power. But interstingly the only privatizing that have decreased the cost for the consumer is telephone serices. And there you can argue it's the technological development that have lead to decreased prices.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Yes it does you just said it did when you said that you have the highest taxation rate in the world that is the restriction of economic freedom. Freedom house doesn't rate economic freedom.

You could see economic freedom as a part of civilrights....
 
Bergslagstroll said:
My point is that you or atleast other rightwing american like do describe strong unions, universal healtcare, high taxes and big welfare system as socialism. Sweden have had it all the time. That we have done is privatize things like railways telephon and power. But interstingly the only privatizing that have decreased the cost for the consumer is telephone serices. And there you can argue it's the technological development that have lead to decreased prices.

The reason why prices haven't gone up is because of globalization and cheap labor forces from overseas (exploitation :lol:), however, under your socialist system without any privatization I'm willing to bet that the prices didn't matter because you were experiencing hyper inflation, the same thing will happen if you turn back from the privatization.


You could see economic freedom as a part of civilrights....

Not really sure what you're saying. What I'm saying is that you have no economic freedom because of the excess and unjust taxation imposed on you by the monopolistic state.
 
Sweden has advantages through historical accident that make comparisons between it and other countries unfair. When evaluating its socialist system, account should be taken of these factors, e.g.

- Although one sees immigrants in sweden, it has a largely homogeneous population, avoiding the ethnic and religious tensions of other countries.

- Declining to participate in WWII, Sweden emerged unscathed, a huge advantage over its neighbors.

- Sweden is not flooded by illegal aliens.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The reason why prices haven't gone up is because of globalization and cheap labor forces from overseas (exploitation :lol:), however, under your socialist system without any privatization I'm willing to bet that the prices didn't matter because you were experiencing hyper inflation, the same thing will happen if you turn back from the privatization.

That I'm talking about is industries like telephone services, railway and power. First I don't see the connection to globalization except that you could get cheaper supplys to the services. But as I said this things became privatized so that the cost for the consumers would be lower (not to fight inflation). But instead it have become more expensive. Well I don't think sweden have hyperinflation in modern history even if we have had high inflation. But that does it have to do with natiolazition of vital industries. Most countries have or have it without problems. Even USA there I think things like mail, power and railway ar or have been partly or entire nationalized.

alphamale said:
Sweden has advantages through historical accident that make comparisons between it and other countries unfair. When evaluating its socialist system, account should be taken of these factors, e.g.

- Although one sees immigrants in sweden, it has a largely homogeneous population, avoiding the ethnic and religious tensions of other countries.

- Declining to participate in WWII, Sweden emerged unscathed, a huge advantage over its neighbors.

- Sweden is not flooded by illegal aliens.


Well many European countries have the same homogeneous population and the same or lower immigration then Sweden. Also remember countries like Japan, New Zealand and Australia countries with low or very low immigration. Japan is very homogeneous and also New Zealand and Australia have a mostly homogeneous population.

Also WW2 was 60 years ago so you would think that the other countries would have catch up by now. At the same time you have countries like New Zealand, Australia and Canada that also didn’t get there industry bombed.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
That I'm talking about is industries like telephone services, railway and power. First I don't see the connection to globalization except that you could get cheaper supplys to the services.
Not just services, goods as well you know: "made in China."
But as I said this things became privatized so that the cost for the consumers would be lower (not to fight inflation). But instead it have become more expensive. Well I don't think sweden have hyperinflation in modern history even if we have had high inflation. But that does it have to do with natiolazition of vital industries. Most countries have or have it without problems. Even USA there I think things like mail, power and railway ar or have been partly or entire nationalized.

Dude the whole reason why you guys privatized was precisely because of the high inflation brought on by your socialist policies, that's what socialism does it causes stagnation, inflation, and eventual deflation if things aren't fixed in time. Actually are Nationalized mail competes with our privatized mail, it's called U.P.S.. Our power is not nationalized it's called legalized monopolization, due to this legalized monopoly they are subject to heavy regulation and congressional oversite but in reality they are still in the private sector. I think we may have some public transportation but if I'm not mistaken the subways, trains, and buses are still privately owned but heavely regulated.
 
Last edited:
The whole two income issue does stem from those trying to get ahead, but it has created an issue in driving up prices. Those that do not desire to live like work-a-holics do pay the price for not being as competitive...but they can still live just fine...that is what we do now in our household.

So basically I was agreeing with Trajan from way back.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Not just services, goods as well you know: "made in China."

Dude the whole reason why you guys privatized was precisely because of the high inflation brought on by your socialist policies, that's what socialism does it causes stagnation, inflation, and eventual deflation if things aren't fixed in time. Actually are Nationalized mail competes with our privatized mail, it's called U.P.S.. Our power is not nationalized it's called legalized monopolization, due to this legalized monopoly they are subject to heavy regulation and congressional oversite but in reality they are still in the private sector. I think we may have some public transportation but if I'm not mistaken the subways, trains, and buses are still privately owned but heavely regulated.

Ok I will make it very simple. The only big change in our "socialistic policies" is that some national services like railway, telephone, power is know privatized. This have lead to higher prices for those services then the price was then it was nationalized. I don't see the connection to china at all. Except that you could by cheaper product to maintain the services and that should have lowered the prices.
 
Back
Top Bottom