|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On September 25 2013 08:15 Zaros wrote:
I think the debt is just a false argument, yes the deficit is very high and should be reduced but that is more a symptom of a bigger problem being too large of a state rather than being the problem in itself.
The state is too large? What is the reasoning behind this assertion? Were you really arguing for cutting the budget in half?
Talk like a grown up. This isn't the fucking U.S.
|
On September 25 2013 19:15 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 08:15 Zaros wrote:
I think the debt is just a false argument, yes the deficit is very high and should be reduced but that is more a symptom of a bigger problem being too large of a state rather than being the problem in itself. The state is too large? What is the reasoning behind this assertion? Were you really arguing for cutting the budget in half? Talk like a grown up. This isn't the fucking U.S.
What an oddly hypocritical post.
Can't people disagree with one another without resorting to ridiculous hyperbole?
|
On September 25 2013 19:15 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 08:15 Zaros wrote:
I think the debt is just a false argument, yes the deficit is very high and should be reduced but that is more a symptom of a bigger problem being too large of a state rather than being the problem in itself. The state is too large? What is the reasoning behind this assertion? Were you really arguing for cutting the budget in half? Talk like a grown up. This isn't the fucking U.S.
Reasoning being smaller freer-er states have better standards of living and innovation, as well as a host of other reasons. US is hardly different to us recently anyway they have government at 40% of GDP we have it at 49% borderline socialist. Even norway has a smaller state.
|
The US is pretty damn different. The NHS for a start.
I also question your sources for % of GDP?
|
On September 25 2013 19:15 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 08:15 Zaros wrote:
I think the debt is just a false argument, yes the deficit is very high and should be reduced but that is more a symptom of a bigger problem being too large of a state rather than being the problem in itself. The state is too large? What is the reasoning behind this assertion? Were you really arguing for cutting the budget in half? Talk like a grown up. This isn't the fucking U.S.
You see, this is why i hate british politics (and even just discussing it)
statement: state is too large
response:
cutting budget in half - not what he said, an exaggeration of a minorly related point, strawman
talk like a grown up - unnecessary attack
this isn't the fucking US - hyperbole, unrelated
I mean, can't we just be civil in this thread?
You could bring up something like, i dunno, studies to show correlation between state sizes and prosperity or that kind of thing
But i dunno, i might get labelled a racist again or something
|
On September 25 2013 21:38 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 19:15 Dapper_Cad wrote:On September 25 2013 08:15 Zaros wrote:
I think the debt is just a false argument, yes the deficit is very high and should be reduced but that is more a symptom of a bigger problem being too large of a state rather than being the problem in itself. The state is too large? What is the reasoning behind this assertion? Were you really arguing for cutting the budget in half? Talk like a grown up. This isn't the fucking U.S. Reasoning being smaller freer-er states have better standards of living and innovation, as well as a host of other reasons. US is hardly different to us recently anyway they have government at 40% of GDP we have it at 49% borderline socialist. Even norway has a smaller state. Here is a list of nations sorted by government spending as a percentage of GDP, highest to lowest. Nations like Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and France occupy the very top of list.
Now here is a list of nations sorted by government spending as a percentage of GDP, lowest to highest. Nations like Vietnam, Bangladesh, Rwanada and Pakistan occupy the very top of the list.
Which states do you think have the best living standards? Which have the better standards of innovation?
|
On September 26 2013 00:29 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 21:38 Zaros wrote:On September 25 2013 19:15 Dapper_Cad wrote:On September 25 2013 08:15 Zaros wrote:
I think the debt is just a false argument, yes the deficit is very high and should be reduced but that is more a symptom of a bigger problem being too large of a state rather than being the problem in itself. The state is too large? What is the reasoning behind this assertion? Were you really arguing for cutting the budget in half? Talk like a grown up. This isn't the fucking U.S. Reasoning being smaller freer-er states have better standards of living and innovation, as well as a host of other reasons. US is hardly different to us recently anyway they have government at 40% of GDP we have it at 49% borderline socialist. Even norway has a smaller state. Here is a list of nations sorted by government spending as a percentage of GDP, highest to lowest. Nations like Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and France occupy the very top of list. Now here is a list of nations sorted by government spending as a percentage of GDP, lowest to highest. Nations like Vietnam, Bangladesh, Rwanada and Pakistan occupy the very top of the list. Which states do you think have the best living standards? Which have the better standards of innovation?
I wouldn't call Bangladesh, Rwanda and Pakistan free countries, look to hong kong and singapore.
|
On September 25 2013 19:19 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 19:15 Dapper_Cad wrote:On September 25 2013 08:15 Zaros wrote:
I think the debt is just a false argument, yes the deficit is very high and should be reduced but that is more a symptom of a bigger problem being too large of a state rather than being the problem in itself. The state is too large? What is the reasoning behind this assertion? Were you really arguing for cutting the budget in half? Talk like a grown up. This isn't the fucking U.S. What an oddly hypocritical post. Can't people disagree with one another without resorting to ridiculous hyperbole?
Gosh darn, and I was shooting for entertainingly hypocritical.
On September 25 2013 21:38 Zaros wrote:
Reasoning being smaller freer-er states have better standards of living and innovation, as well as a host of other reasons. US is hardly different to us recently anyway they have government at 40% of GDP we have it at 49% borderline socialist. Even norway has a smaller state.
Might want to add some sources for those claims. I'm especially interested in the metric used to measure "innovation".
On September 25 2013 22:10 BrTarolg wrote:
You see, this is why i hate british politics (and even just discussing it)
statement: state is too large
response:
cutting budget in half - not what he said, an exaggeration of a minorly related point, strawman
This position was implied by Zaros in an earlier post, hence my use of the past tense in the question. And it was a question. Can I be said to be misrepresenting his position in the act of asking for some clarification on it? This might be of use to you: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman . There's a bunch more there too, comb posts, knock yourself out. Also "Minorly" isn't really a word.
On September 25 2013 22:10 BrTarolg wrote:
talk like a grown up - unnecessary attack
this isn't the fucking US - hyperbole, unrelated
Yes and yes. You got me there.
On September 25 2013 22:10 BrTarolg wrote:
I mean, can't we just be civil in this thread?
You could bring up something like, i dunno, studies to show correlation between state sizes and prosperity or that kind of thing
But i dunno, i might get labelled a racist again or something
Why?
Go go, link away.
|
On September 26 2013 03:17 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 00:29 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 25 2013 21:38 Zaros wrote:On September 25 2013 19:15 Dapper_Cad wrote:On September 25 2013 08:15 Zaros wrote:
I think the debt is just a false argument, yes the deficit is very high and should be reduced but that is more a symptom of a bigger problem being too large of a state rather than being the problem in itself. The state is too large? What is the reasoning behind this assertion? Were you really arguing for cutting the budget in half? Talk like a grown up. This isn't the fucking U.S. Reasoning being smaller freer-er states have better standards of living and innovation, as well as a host of other reasons. US is hardly different to us recently anyway they have government at 40% of GDP we have it at 49% borderline socialist. Even norway has a smaller state. Here is a list of nations sorted by government spending as a percentage of GDP, highest to lowest. Nations like Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and France occupy the very top of list. Now here is a list of nations sorted by government spending as a percentage of GDP, lowest to highest. Nations like Vietnam, Bangladesh, Rwanada and Pakistan occupy the very top of the list. Which states do you think have the best living standards? Which have the better standards of innovation? I wouldn't call Bangladesh, Rwanda and Pakistan free countries, look to hong kong and singapore.
It's interesting, hong kong and singapore do kind of jump out from the general pattern. Though neither of them are democracies I don't think and so I'm not sure we can really consider them free.
You still need to provide some source for your original 49% claim. Perhaps a clearer pattern emerges from there.
|
|
|
On September 26 2013 03:17 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 00:29 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 25 2013 21:38 Zaros wrote:On September 25 2013 19:15 Dapper_Cad wrote:On September 25 2013 08:15 Zaros wrote:
I think the debt is just a false argument, yes the deficit is very high and should be reduced but that is more a symptom of a bigger problem being too large of a state rather than being the problem in itself. The state is too large? What is the reasoning behind this assertion? Were you really arguing for cutting the budget in half? Talk like a grown up. This isn't the fucking U.S. Reasoning being smaller freer-er states have better standards of living and innovation, as well as a host of other reasons. US is hardly different to us recently anyway they have government at 40% of GDP we have it at 49% borderline socialist. Even norway has a smaller state. Here is a list of nations sorted by government spending as a percentage of GDP, highest to lowest. Nations like Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and France occupy the very top of list. Now here is a list of nations sorted by government spending as a percentage of GDP, lowest to highest. Nations like Vietnam, Bangladesh, Rwanada and Pakistan occupy the very top of the list. Which states do you think have the best living standards? Which have the better standards of innovation? I wouldn't call Bangladesh, Rwanda and Pakistan free countries, look to hong kong and singapore. Restrict yourself to "free" countries and you still don't find any correlation.
UK has less government spending as percentage of GDP than Sweden, the Netherlands and France. Shouldn't it have the higher living standards? Alas, that's not what we find. In fact, the European countries at the top of that list are consistently rated as having some of the highest living standards in the entire world.
|
On September 26 2013 04:56 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 03:17 Zaros wrote:On September 26 2013 00:29 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 25 2013 21:38 Zaros wrote:On September 25 2013 19:15 Dapper_Cad wrote:On September 25 2013 08:15 Zaros wrote:
I think the debt is just a false argument, yes the deficit is very high and should be reduced but that is more a symptom of a bigger problem being too large of a state rather than being the problem in itself. The state is too large? What is the reasoning behind this assertion? Were you really arguing for cutting the budget in half? Talk like a grown up. This isn't the fucking U.S. Reasoning being smaller freer-er states have better standards of living and innovation, as well as a host of other reasons. US is hardly different to us recently anyway they have government at 40% of GDP we have it at 49% borderline socialist. Even norway has a smaller state. Here is a list of nations sorted by government spending as a percentage of GDP, highest to lowest. Nations like Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and France occupy the very top of list. Now here is a list of nations sorted by government spending as a percentage of GDP, lowest to highest. Nations like Vietnam, Bangladesh, Rwanada and Pakistan occupy the very top of the list. Which states do you think have the best living standards? Which have the better standards of innovation? I wouldn't call Bangladesh, Rwanda and Pakistan free countries, look to hong kong and singapore. Restrict yourself to "free" countries and you still don't find any correlation. UK has less government spending as percentage of GDP than Sweden, the Netherlands and France. Shouldn't it have the higher living standards? Alas, that's not what we find. In fact, the European countries at the top of that list are consistently rated as having some of the highest living standards in the entire world.
France is rapidly going downhill and netherlands and sweden are slightly better living standards than us and not that much difference in government spending.
|
On September 26 2013 05:01 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 04:56 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 26 2013 03:17 Zaros wrote:On September 26 2013 00:29 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 25 2013 21:38 Zaros wrote:On September 25 2013 19:15 Dapper_Cad wrote:On September 25 2013 08:15 Zaros wrote:
I think the debt is just a false argument, yes the deficit is very high and should be reduced but that is more a symptom of a bigger problem being too large of a state rather than being the problem in itself. The state is too large? What is the reasoning behind this assertion? Were you really arguing for cutting the budget in half? Talk like a grown up. This isn't the fucking U.S. Reasoning being smaller freer-er states have better standards of living and innovation, as well as a host of other reasons. US is hardly different to us recently anyway they have government at 40% of GDP we have it at 49% borderline socialist. Even norway has a smaller state. Here is a list of nations sorted by government spending as a percentage of GDP, highest to lowest. Nations like Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and France occupy the very top of list. Now here is a list of nations sorted by government spending as a percentage of GDP, lowest to highest. Nations like Vietnam, Bangladesh, Rwanada and Pakistan occupy the very top of the list. Which states do you think have the best living standards? Which have the better standards of innovation? I wouldn't call Bangladesh, Rwanda and Pakistan free countries, look to hong kong and singapore. Restrict yourself to "free" countries and you still don't find any correlation. UK has less government spending as percentage of GDP than Sweden, the Netherlands and France. Shouldn't it have the higher living standards? Alas, that's not what we find. In fact, the European countries at the top of that list are consistently rated as having some of the highest living standards in the entire world. France is rapidly going downhill and netherlands and sweden are slightly better living standards than us and not that much difference in government spending. And again, you fail to produce so much as a PARTICLE of evidence to support these claims.
You're simply making guesses about France, and the difference in government spending as a percentage of GDP between Sweden and the UK is actually one of about 5% of GDP, just as drastic as the difference between the UK and USA.
The difference in human development index between Sweden and the UK is bigger than that between Greece, Slovakia, Estonia and the UK.
Another way of phrasing it is this. We have the 2nd highest Ease of Doing Business index in the EU (7th highest in the world) and yet one of the lowest human development indices in the EU.
You've already waved off the difference in living standards between the UK and Sweden, so what evidence could you POSSIBLY have to back up the assertions you have made?
|
|
|
Hate to agree with Ghastly, but he's got you there.
It seems like you are kind of hoping that no one calls your bluff with the correlations you are claiming.
|
The HDI includes education and life expectancy as well as income per capita. In education sweden is more free market orientated than we are with for profit schools and lots of "free" schools, this is where Michael Gove is drawing his inspiration from. In life expectancy there are various things at work, like we have many more deaths due to the cold than sweden because of a failing energy market (I would argue caused by government intervention) and badly insulated houses, and other areas i'm honestly not familiar with. Data which i've seen says that sweden is only 1% higher spending ratio from government to gdp. Also singapore hong kong norway australia etc all have higher income per capita with less government and higher HDI.
Of course there are a lot of countries with lower government spending with lower gdp per capita because they are not as developed and therefore will not enjoy the economic benefits that would come with that.
|
It's funny how you can wave off the difference between the UK and Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and France as only a "slight" difference, and yet you try to justify your thesis with considerably less impressive differences in success between Sweden and Norway/Australia. (It's actually not true that Hong Kong and Singapore have higher GDP per capita than Sweden.)
Norway receives over 50% of its imports and 20% of its GDP from oil and gas revenue and the boom in the 60s was well-known to be caused by the discovery of huge reserves of these resources. For Australia, the mining-related economy makes up 20% of GDP and agriculture-related is about 10%. You might want to think twice before tapping these countries for an economic model that can reproduced elsewhere. (Unfortunately, I doubt you will.)
Oh, and is Sweden, where education is free, really more free-market-focused than the UK with respect to education? I haven't read "Atlas Shrugged", so I'm a little sketchy on these things.
|
Anyone else think that Milibands energy policy makes little to no sense?
He's placing the blame squarely on the energy companies when most people struggling with energy bills (defined as spending 10% or more of household income on bills) live in poorly built social housing which leaks heat like a sieve.
If he wanted to actually help people he would've subsidized new insulation, double glazing and boilers for struggling families which would probably reduce their bills more in the long run, but no he wants to put the financial burden on the energy companies whilst building 200,000 more shitty houses, increasing their burden yet again!.
He also wants to cripple future investment into renewables, fucking us over down the line. What a populist twat.
|
On September 26 2013 09:17 GhastlyUprising wrote:
It's funny how you can wave off the difference between the UK and Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and France as only a "slight" difference, and yet you try to justify your thesis with considerably less impressive differences in success between Sweden and Norway/Australia. (It's actually not true that Hong Kong and Singapore have higher GDP per capita than Sweden.)
Norway receives over 50% of its imports and 20% of its GDP from oil and gas revenue and the boom in the 60s was well-known to be caused by the discovery of huge reserves of these resources. For Australia, the mining-related economy makes up 20% of GDP and agriculture-related is about 10%. You might want to think twice before tapping these countries for an economic model that can reproduced elsewhere. (Unfortunately, I doubt you will.)
Oh, and is Sweden, where education is free, really more free-market-focused than the UK with respect to education? I haven't read "Atlas Shrugged", so I'm a little sketchy on these things.
Sweden was actually in trouble until it embraced a bit more capitalism, it also has some of the most forward thinking unions in the world, the accept that layoffs and downsizing are part of a healthy economy and try to work with business as opposed to against it to ensure prosperity.
They have a pretty good balance in my opinion.
It's pretty hard to compare these countries anyway, one issue often ignored for the UK is that we have a very migrant focused economy which just doesn't work with the higher taxes of other EU countries, we already have anti-immigration sentiment and raising taxes only worsens that. You're certainly correct about their prosperity being related to significant geographic factors too, not to mentions Australia's reliance on the Chinese economy as opposed to the failing European one.
Don't read Atlas Shrugged, its utter drivel and there's a reason why Ayn Rand is only taken seriously by a small few in the US.
To quote its wiki:
Nobel Prize-winning economist and commentator Paul Krugman alluded to a quip by John Rogers in his blog: "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." In his commentary Krugman has continually mocked those whose purportedly serious economic ideas come from the novel.
|
On September 26 2013 08:05 Zaros wrote:
The HDI includes education and life expectancy as well as income per capita. In education sweden is more free market orientated than we are with for profit schools and lots of "free" schools, this is where Michael Gove is drawing his inspiration from. In life expectancy there are various things at work, like we have many more deaths due to the cold than sweden because of a failing energy market (I would argue caused by government intervention) and badly insulated houses, and other areas i'm honestly not familiar with. Data which i've seen says that sweden is only 1% higher spending ratio from government to gdp. Also singapore hong kong norway australia etc all have higher income per capita with less government and higher HDI.
Of course there are a lot of countries with lower government spending with lower gdp per capita because they are not as developed and therefore will not enjoy the economic benefits that would come with that.
Free market schools (in Sweden) are shit and I would argue they have nothing to do with it. If I could I would get rid of them, and indeed there's public debate about their usefulness, and the morality of profiting from education like they do, combined with all the cases of abuse of public funds where little of the money is actually put in to the actual education. Free university education and a general respect for education, though, that helps.
Edit: And test results/competency of Swedish primary and high schoolers have been falling steadily since sometime in the 90's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
