Johan Norberg - Swedish Myths and Realities
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 сер 2008
- Johan Norberg, author of In Defense of Global Capitalism, sits down with reason.tv's Michael C. Moynihan to sort out the myths of the Sweden's welfare state, health services, tax rates, and its status as the "most successful society the world has ever known."
I'm from Sweden too, and I agree completetly. Everybody I know, my parents included have abused the generous Swedish health care system to some extent. I know of ton of people that are on paid unemployment leave traveling the world, or are getting paid "under the table". And health care, elderly people are dying in their beds out of neglect. Don't you read the news?
I am from Sweden too, and the Swedish healthcare system is also abusive to its customers -- just wait in line until you die. I know so many that could have lived longer lives, but because of "socialist healthcare" did not get the chance. Sure the line might be available to everyone, but is that what you want?
This is why the democrats get so much support from large companies, especially in the high tech arena. These owners and CEOs know that under socialism, all competition will be eliminated as it will be impossible for young small companies to start-up
The owners and CEOs of these huge corporations know that by supporting the democratic party's socialist/communist agenda, they will need not worry about competition and, as a result, they will be 'kept in place.' Keep donating to the democrats and they will make sure you are not challenged by new and innovative upstarts.
The wonderful innovation and improvements in technology that arise due to competition, will cease to exist. Our economy will stagnate commensurate with the decline in creative and imaginative thinking.
Interesting fantasies you entertain. You don't know anything about Sweden, which is currently a very successful economy, or about Democrats.
Exactly. If the leftists hate the corrupt rich CEOs so badly then they should vote for less government. Because corruption is just a natural result of a bad system.
A little thing about taxes that few people take time to think about: ALL taxes are paid by the end consumer, which means that the poor ALWAYS pay most of the taxes, regardless of your tax scheme.
How is this? All taxes roll down hill. If you tax a business, that tax is just one of many costs of doing business. ALL COSTS of doing business are wrapped up in the price they charge for their product, INCLUDING the taxes they have to pay. So when you pay for anything, you're paying for the tax the seller has already paid, and you're paying for final consumption tax as well. The poor pay all of the upper level taxes AND all of the final taxes.
This is why I say there is no such thing as a business tax. It doesn't exist because businesses pay no taxes. YOU pay their taxes when you buy their products. A business tax is a hidden tax on YOU. When you ask for businesses to "pay their fair share", in reality, you're asking for the government to tax YOU even more.
+ZombieTex It's more complicated than that. A company can be fine with having just 5% profit margin per year, it does not need a higher profit to survive. Thus having a taxation on profits does not necessarily roll down hill. However VAT is always paid by the consumer.
+Maximilian Wicén Even at a 5% profit, that companies taxes are still rolled into the price of their product.
ZombieTex Could have taxation that only taxed above 5% profit...etc etc...but w/e. Just accept taxes like you have accepted death and you'll live a happier life :)
+Maximilian Wicén If you have taxes above 5%, you'll have either one of 2 scenarios occur:
1) Companies will plan to make exactly 5%, and no more, which means no tax is collected ... which means it's a useless tax.
or (the more likely)
2) Companies will earn more than 5%, and the tax will be rolled into the cost of their product, which means the poor will pay it.
The problem I have with business taxes is that the businesses never pay them. Their customers pay them, but when they charge the customer, they don't provide a line item which shows them how much of the price of the product is tax. The customer pays the tax, and doesn't even know it. It's hidden from them. How can they object to paying a tax when they don't even know they've been taxed. It's dishonest.
Cost doesn't determine price.
Why do all successful swedes leave the country?
The rather high taxes, they will make more money if they move to another country
joakim widstrom Sweedish men are, at average, taxed 54% more than women there.
halafradrimx well that's probably because tax is based on your salary and I think that men make more money than women on average in Sweden
Fredric Lundberg I think that feminism have something to do with that as well.
What do you think?
joakim widstrom Because first you get an education payed by the taxpayers and if you move to a country where it is not payed by the taxpayers - you can live like a king without any debt! It's brilliant!
As I Swede, I can vouch for Norberg on these particular issues: Johan Norberg speaks the truth. Sweden is rich and wealthy to the extent that we're free -and we're poor and miserable to the extent that we're unfree. Such is the nature of the mixed economy of Sweden. USA is much more rich and wealthy, because despite it also being a mixed economy, it's not as "poorly" mixed as the Swedish one. The moral and practical ideal would be laissez-faire capitalism. Read Atlas Shrugged!
I assume this was parody? Well played, @swanberger -- I haven't laughed that hard in years.
And has anyone ever seemed to notice how socialism NEVER, EVER shrinks? It only ever grows and INCREASES (even just to *sustain* itself) until it all comes crashing down. Germany can't afford to keep bailing out all of these other failing socialist states, and eventually, even theirs will not be able to sustain even itself, let alone all of these other countries. We must remember that money, no matter in which form it's in, is only worth as much to people as they are willing to allow it to be, through *perceived* (but none the less *real,* therefore) value, according to what society at large perceives it to be, which *through* that worth is what allows for (creates) not only the desire for people to work to earn it in helping to produce the needs of society, but allows them *likewise* to be able to *afford* taking care of *their own* needs. It's one thing if you simply can't do anything for yourself, but.....that is not what we're talking about here...
Hell even Bono admitted that "We need more capitalism." And we DO! FREE-market, FREE-enterprise, that is, whereby people pursuing their own interests inadvertently serve only to RAISE the overall wealth and well-being of society at large, even though it may not be the actual *'intention,'* of entreprenuers, to do so, but becomes the inevitable result none the less.
51MontyPython you are right Norways public sector is now over 50% of GDP. and it will continue growing.
How is that even possible?? Like, seriously? That means the govt literally spends the same amount of every dollar spent or taken in by the private sector! Is that even possible???
I mean, say you have an economy with $100 GDP (just to make it simple) before govt spending is added. If half of that is taken in taxes, and spent by the govt, you would then have a GDP of $150, with 33.3% of GDP as govt spending. So for govt spending to be 50% of GDP, they would literally have to tax and spend the entire GDP! would they not? Surely I'm missing something here.. O_o Or is that from the amount of borrowing??
51MontyPython it is possible thanks to oil revenues. Norwegians tax the oil companies 78%. so there is money. but I guess the real lesson learned is that in no country with great natural resource finding the population has benefitted greatly. it usually ends up with Dutch disease or a huge public sector, every time!
But I mean, even if the entire private sector GDP were taxed at 78%, and spent by the govt, that would give you a total GDP of 178% of the private sector GDP, right? Making govt spending .78 out of 1.78, or, 43.82% of total GDP -- which even at that tax rate would still be less than 50%. Am I right?
"Dutch disease" -- that's a new one for my files :) I shall have to study more on this. Thank you. I always love to learn more.
Look up dysgenics. Socialism is here to stay.
can the Bernie supporters watch this video and realize, capitalism and free market although not perfect it is far more superior to socialism or communism
+Intel Gator Sanders is not against free capitalism but against crony capitalism. Fox news won't tell you that
+Andrew Weeraratne I don't watch Foxnews
Intel Gator Rest of the Media (all owned by a six multinational corps) won't tell you the facts either. The owners of thos corps make huge welfare out of this crony capitalism going on
+Andrew Weeraratne I agree with your comment, the media sucks. But my opinion about Sanders is not shaped by the media in fact I don't watch any mainstream media at all
Intel Gator Scandinavia practices true free enterprise system often govt proving those who wish to begin businesses while providing a social safety net for all since you cannot have a wealthy nation with sick or uneducated people. This is what Sanders proposes. It is the Scandinavian model he advocates.
@radomu1
Ever heard of Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Botswana, Estonia, and Ireland.
25% Consumption Tax on all citizens. Not just the makers.
Jan Edling was an analyst for many years with the LO. He resigned when he couldn't get his report on Swedish unemployment published. He claimed - correctly - that unemployment was close to 20% in Sweden, and that it was a permanent part of the economy, not a passing condition due to someone changing jobs. Many unemployed are hidden in 3 big programs: sick-leave, vocational training, and education. Additionally, many young persons (ages 20 to 39) opt for "early retirement" and live on the dole.
Please, if any of you have primary source documentation of the prior free market Sweedish economy and it's transition to greater social programs, can you share them with me? I'm doing research on this topic and I want to create a well sourced presentation on it. Thanks for any help you can provide.
I love Sweden and Swedish people. You are an inspiration to freedom and equality for any country.
love from Iran
And just how many people pay any mind to the fact that the only reason the somewhat socialistic countries *seem* to do 'okay' (of course that's subjective; some might have a difference of opinion) is because of all of the innovation which comes from the PEOPLE who also happen to live in the most FREE economic environments/societies, when they are actually ALLOWED to operate FREELY (as is everyone's equal right, according to the SAME RULES) in the PRIVATE, *FREE* market.
Those countries who are doing the BEST generally seem to have the LEAST amount of socialism, and likewise those who are doing the WORST generally seem to have the HIGHEST amount of socialism.
51MontyPython the "amount" of socialism is secondary to the "type" of socialism.
Isaakmedextraa
True. Some forms of it have more dire consequences than others.
Plus, they buy and use all the "cheap stuff" that the less socialistic countries produce... like iphone or pc as example... but oh well
Very honest guy, especially when he said everyone uses US Healthcare equipment.
I heard this from a german fellow as well.
Thank you Ryan for that comment, it really enlighten my thoughts about the subject.
Hmmm... Sweden is actually one of the leading countries in science and innovation. And that includes medicine and health care.... The waiting lines are sometimes true though....
+John Morgan The whole world use good innovationservice, wherever they may come from. So we in Sweden , of course, use american innovations. Just as you use Swedish innovations in America!!! Here are some examples : Swedish inventions Swedish research has traditionally been at the front of the field . There are Swedish researchers behind many of the medical inventions that are used today worldwide. Titanium implant was developed in Gothenburg 1965th It was initially used to place dental bridges in the jaw. Nowadays it is also used to attach the prosthetic tissue for diseases such as cancer surgery and burns and to anchor the hearing aids in bone. The first pacemaker surgically inserted into a human being made in Sweden . Radiation knifes/porling knifes , kidney dialysis , ultrasound , microwave and treatment planning systems are other examples of inventions that have been developed in Sweden . So you see! The question was very strange, I think :-)
+Anna-Maj Andersson It sounds like Johan is talking about business development in medicine. I'm not familiar with any Swedish pharmaceuticals or medical device makers. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. If you're a Swedish scientist and you discover a wonderful new treatment for cancer, how are you going to get the funding to develop your drug in Sweden if the business would be far more profitable in the U.S.? The intelligent thing to do would be to operate in the U.S. and export to Sweden
Top Universities in the World: 52/100 America vs The World www.thebestschools.org/features/100-best-universities-in-world-today/
Top Medical Universities in the World: 23/50 America vs The World www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2016/medicine#sorting=rank+region=+country=+faculty=+stars=false
name one invention
Anna-Maj Andersson wrong. Dialysis was a Netherland invention. And elaborate what you mean on “microwave”
How can Sweden be freeriding on American Healthcare when they are 3.4 years ahead. How can you claim that American Healthcare is better when American lives 5 years less than any comparable country.
It's not just a health care, it's a lifestyle. You cannot say health care is the only factor for lifespan.
+aon10003 He meant that they are freeriding on the technology improvements. There is a weaker profit motive for creating new medicine and advancing technology in other countries. My opinion is that the profit motive in the U.S. is actually skewed too high by exclusivity laws. There should be a reasonable patent system that allows innovators to profit without having exclusive rights for 20 years. Anyways, because of international trade law agreements, it's possible for countries outside of the U.S. to benefit more from U.S. healthcare innovation than the U.S. itself.
+'Coondog Chronicles No, the differences in life expectancies are due to very different demographics. Try comparing Swedes in the U.S. to Swedes in Sweden. If you control for the wider range of incomes in the U.S. and the differing rates of access to medical care, you will see the differences narrow.
grantcivyt You better repeat the terms lifetimeexpectiancies and demographics. Thats what we got wikipedia for.
+aon10003 I couldn't understand your comment. Did your message get cut off?
The idea that many countries are being "free riders" depending on the medical technology and innovation created in America is a point that you don't hear very often!
You should also read A Death-Dealing Famine: The Great Hunger in Ireland and other books by Christine Kinealy. She's critical of Cecil Woodham-Smith's "The Great Hunger" but comes to the same conclusion--
Landowners exported a tremendous amount of food during the famine, and the death of millions of Irish is the result of Laissez faire policies and profiteering.
A few half-lies being told here:
1. Not all medical technology in Sweden comes from the US. Right. Here's a counterexample, but there are others. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elekta
2. Good luck waiting for healthcare? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Sweden#Waiting_times
3. No big Swedish companies were founded during the social democrat period? Only Ericsson was founded during the recent neoliberal period. You can't really base a broad statement on a single event. Others, such as Nordea and TeliaSonera, were founded before as a result of mergers during the social democrat period, but nonetheless a vast majority of the really important ones is much much older. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_Nordic_companies
Did anyone notice the disdainful body language?
Important fact: I'm not Swedish, and I was able to figure that out with a 2-minute research on Google.
Now go research about the effects of neoliberal governments on the Swedish society.
My belief: there's a point of balance between these two ideologies that makes the market work without making people suffer. The extremes have been giving poor results throughout history.
Fernando Trebien You can't compare the current economies, dude.
The past was much more financially opportunistic for everyone than it is now.
Also, any man would be disdainful of the place where shit like #manspreading began.
Fernando Trebien 1) Elekta pretty much relies on America to keep them going from wiki - The company trades only in Sweden, but nearly half the sales of the company's equipment are in the United States. They are definitely sharing and working with USA tech.
2) Waiting times- this is done in the USA too, from wiki - Urgent cases are always prioritized and emergency cases are treated immediately. In urgent cases, the national guarantee of care states that a patient should be able to get an appointment with a primary care physician within 3 days of contacting the clinic. This is the problem - The state pays for approximately 97% of medical costs. WTF. can people abuse this service? OH YES
3) Ericsson was founded in 1876, so you are ... wrong? Also you are correct with saying 2 out of 50 companies emerged from the recent period but America beats the theory you have because more than half of these companies on this list were formed in the last 40 years so emerging business come into being and old tycoons get replaced. fortune.com/fortune500/chevron-corporation-3/
Julker Ninesixteen Your logic and actual facts provided for your assertions is sadly rare on youtube. And you didn't even swear at the other guy! Nice job.
It's called Libertarianism
Julker Ninesixteen 1. So? Sharing is receiving or creating? What's your point?
2. If the waiting times are really long as Norberg says, who would go wait 6 months for treatment for, say, a common cold? Given Sweden's excellent health statistics, I guess doctors know very well how to prioritise patients.
3. With the US having 33 times as many people as Sweden, one would expect it to produce 33 times as many worldwide companies during the same period, right? Simple but often ignored math. And that's not considering the effect of capital concentration. It is true that Ericsson was not officially "founded" recently (I used the wrong word), it is true however that it grew a lot during the neoliberal period as a result of cutbacks and its joint venture with Sony. You should read past the introductory section in Wikipedia you know. ;-)
"Ancient myth", clearly this statement should be put in the box of: Johan Norberg is not fluent in the English language, and therefore exused. However, Sweden became wealthy after WW2 because, like America, Sweden didn't suffer from the infrastructural devastation of most of the rest of Europe and Russia: a fact. Sweden did not become wealthy because of free market, or going further, "laissez-faire" (anything goes) policies. Yet, in a way he is in the right on this point: we let Hitler go about his business (laissez-faire, if you will) unlike America (yet they did it too by incorporating nazi friendly German intellectuals after the war). Like Switzerland we were "neutral" during WW2, and THAT is why Sweden became wealthy. Forget all Norberg's libertarian bullshit! Sad but true. ;)
+hampe hjsjdf Ohh really? If you say so, it must be true. I submit.
+hampe hjsjdf I can look it up in the Timbro, a.k.a. the Ayn Rand religion library, and certainly substantiate any claim in favor of libertarian politics. That does not make it true. Dude, explore all viewpoints! No wrong in that! The heart of libertarianism is classical Greek sophism clubs. It's all there in Plato's glorious dialogues... Libertarians are Sophists and they aren't about truth since they, frankly put, don't believe in it. Look it up. And I'm sorry if I came across as hostile! Happy New Years eh! ;)
+hampe hjsjdf Dude, this has nothing to do with taxes. Infrastructure, if you have it, ppl will invest in it, if you ain't got it you don't get shit. Sweden was geographically many miles away from places like dresden, wich was bombed to the ground, there was no infrastructure at all left in places like dresden. You put money in infrastructure because it is relatively safe. Get it? When infrastructure is bombed all that money is lost. Sweden did not get bombed = Sweden ended up relatively more wealthy than continental Europe. Are you an idealist or a free thinking individual?
+hookedonafeeling100 Sorry, I did not mean to lead you on.
+hampe hjsjdf There you go. You though this was a debate over such and such for the sake of winning the argument. That is Sophism in a nutshell. There are good reasons why "Sophism" is a derogatory term in law and in philosophy. Marxism ain't science in the exact same way that libertarianism or Freudianism or New Ageianism ain't science. The yardstick of science is physics, how exact is Marxism (the most exact economical social theory, the most quoted in social science articles) to that of physics, there is no comparison. Marxism therefore is an ideology, and libertarianism is an ideology, it ain't science. Sweden did not get bombed, the factory's, the railways, the highways, they were all intact whilst the whole of Germany was bombed to the ground... You do the math. That is scientific fact, don't go all ideological on me, friend. ;)
I agree with you. It is not the marriage itself (which is an unneccesary governmental intrusion) but the quality of the home relationships that provide comfort to the child. Adults plan their children much better if they have the right incentives to do so. When single mothers get extra money from the government if no man lives with them, many women will engage in unstable relationships for the purpose of pregnancy. They are anxious to leave their own unstable homes, and money talks.
In the U.S., most rich people are financiers, not entrepreneurs.
The people who take real risks--the people who serve in the military and risk their lives; blue collar workers in oil fields and mines--never become rich.
Only financiers who risk other people's money and take a large cut for themselves when things go well--and walk away with no loss when things go badly--become rich.
But you too can have this model in Sweden. Keep listening to Cato and Reason and you can become just like us!
Spot on! I didn't even know these kind of people existed in sweden where individuality has been taunted for over 80 years of social democratic rule.
Doctors were cheap and used to come to your house. I used to pay $25 for a regular office visit 25 years ago. Now they charge $115. Many specialists will now charge $200-400 for an office visit. People are routinely completely wiped out financially when they get ill or go to the hospital. My aunt died recently and the hospital wanted hundreds of thousands of dollars from her "estate" which consisted of a very old small house that she and my uncle paid for over 30 years. Nothing was left.
Kind of perplexed that he didn't mention the other extreme that we face now with the attitude given from our national social insurance agency. "If you can breathe, then you can work, and since you can work, then you don't need benefits" But I guess that sacrificing the 99,5% who doesn't fake illness to get to the 0,5% who do is something that has to be done.....
"We need to be willing to accept some failures in order to have successes."
Who is "we"? Solyndra?
Correction: I meant by 2005, not by 2001.
@radomu1 Would you support a similar tariff like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930? Tariffs are simply destructive, and force consumers to pay higher prices for goods they would not need to produce themselves.
The USSR grew economically as well, but that does not mean heavy intervention is the best way to maximize economic growth. Africa already is protectionist of their infant industries, and yet its disastrous. You say protectionism is great, but you agree it hurts other countries.
Ayn Rand is nice when you're fifteen; but when you grow up, you discover that others actually exist.
blablabla whatever as long as you keep your hands in your own pocket and stay away from my bank account.
@abbadabbadolittle what country?
New York City did see a very steep decrease in murder starting in the 1990s. The murder rate dropped from 30.7 per 100K in 1990 to 5.6 per 100K in 2009.
People continue to debate the reasons, but many think more aggressive policing, including stop and frisk and enforcing gun control, was a major contributing factor.
The NYC decline was much larger than for the rest of the U.S., which saw the rate drop from 9.8 to 5.
You can't just look at laws--you need to consider enforcement.
As for Mussolini, Italian life expectancy went from 51 in 1925 to 57 in 1940, to 49 by by 1943.
It's clear from the data that something pretty bad happened between 1940 and 1943, and that it was worse in Germany than Italy.
Fact of 1991, Following market deregulation, there was a housing price bubble, and it burst. As part of a general rescue as the Swedish banking crisis unfolded, Nordbanken was nationalised for 64 billion kronor. It was later merged with Götabanken, which itself had to write off 37.3% of its creditors, and is now known as Nordea.
*And yes, I am aware that handguns are used in more murders than any other weapons, but it is very much relevant to point out the comparatively lower usage of AR-15s and other "assault rifles" in crime.
Slight correction. Tyler was the president just before the Mexican war who helped provoke it. Polk was the president during the Mexican war. Both were Southerners.
You don't think data can be misinterpreted? Then you're operating on an entirely different plane of reality than I am.
Nobody's saying the AMA should be abolished. They're just saying that others should be free to license doctors.
Yes, private investments that are wasteful may end in bankruptcy. But not before the senior executives have given themselves golden parachutes and retention bonuses.
Often, before bankruptcy, the shareholders sell out to a private equity firm that puts no equity into the company and just borrows heavily. The shareholders don't lose their money, and neither does the P.E. firm.
Employees, pensions, unsophisticated small bond holders (private pensions), the government get hosed.
The truth is that low taxes also reduce investment, especially public investment in infrastructure, education, and healthcare which drives economic growth and shared prosperity.
After large tax cuts in the U.S. in the 1980s under Ronald Reagan, household savings rates declined, and spending shifted from education, health, anti-poverty, infrastructure and research to military, police and prisons.
The cumulative effects on the U.S. economy have been devastating.
I was being doubly ironic: There's nothing like a free market when it comes to arms - just an oligopoly serviced by their home nations and selling on a highly distorted "market" characterised by kickbacks and crooked price setting.
Good ole Ike hit the nail with his military industrial complex departure speech.
They aren't no bid contracts. There can be bidding, but whoever buys the infrastructure requires that the State not construct competing infrastructure--no other roads, etc.
This is done by private companies all the time when they do acquisitions. It's standard market practice--and it drives down investment and increases scarcity.
@uruson
You want the same living standard (for health, entertainement, travel, food) as in 1900?
How humble of you.
@flynn2008 Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea essentially followed the Japanese route by implementing heavy protection of native industries from foreign investment and high tariffs on imports. Many of the infrastructure was state-owned and firms received massive subsidies. Ireland and Estonia had financial liberalization, which is why they're a complete wreck now after the disaster of 2008. Botswana's growth stagnated after the IMF implemented structural adjustment by liberalizations in the 90s.
And within the U.S., those who have medicare (government healthcare) pay the lowest costs per procedure at the lowest administrative costs. Private healthcare providers pay more and have higher overhead costs.
But the worst is people who pay out of pocket without any health insurance. They pay the highest per-procedure price of anyone.
It's procurement 101. Buy in bulk and you get a volume discount.
The smaller the purchaser, the higher the price.
Farm subsidies are actually usually justified on the grounds that having a stable food supply and self-sufficient agricultural sector is a matter of national security.
A "free market" approach to agriculture has been tried in the past and the result was wild fluctuations in commodities prices and periodic periods of mass starvation and political instability.
Perhaps you've heard of the "Irish Potato famine"? Or the "Arab Spring" (caused by rising food prices).
The questions are:
1. How does the U.S., which has a private healthcare sector for everyone except Veterans and those above the age of 65, compare to the rest of the developed world, which has universal public healthcare?
and
2. Within the U.S., how do the public systems (the VA and medicare) compare to the private systems (private health insurance) in terms of costs and outcomes, after controlling for the initial health and age of the patients.
No, they're not word games for the reasons I stated above but also because innocent people are being harmed.
The real constraint on the supply of doctors is residency slots, which are funded by medicare.
Training a competent doctor is extremely time consuming and costly. Without federal funding, there would be even fewer doctors.
There is no private market funding for residencies.
And of course, a market / corporate system means one-dollar, one vote, which means that a small handful of extremely wealthy individuals have all of the power.
Democracy means one person, one vote, which means that power is diffuse and resources are shared more equally.
@TheGrindsprint
It is not an illusion! In 1995 I had to wait a month for a hip replacement operation. I was considered lucky. Then in 2001, when I had to replace the other hip, I was not so lucky anymore, I had to wait for a year. When the day finally came for me to have my operation, the very morning, somebody else was considered more in need, and I was sent home. (I got back some days later and had the operation.)
My pain was no illusion.
Source?
The Fed is meant to be insulated from politics, as is the CEA. They are less political than Congress or a corporate funded think tank.
Thomas Sowell has worked for the government. He was a Marine during the Korean war, so he may have even killed for the government.
He's also worked at two State Universities, Cornell and UCLA. They are insulated from politics, but they are still state government institutions.
Norberg has presumably served in the Swedish military because of the draft.
Guess what. If you type the phrases I mentioned into google, Google will show you reliable educational and governmental websites which will show you data.
It's amazing how technology works.
Stiglitz was a member of the Council of Economic Advisors, which is not a political post. The job description involves providing objective economic analysis to the President. Ben Bernanke, a Republican who was appointed to the post by President Bush, is well regarded as a serious economist.
Alan Greenspan was also head of the CEA in the 1970s, as were a number of well respected, well published, serious economists.
Norberg and Sowell are not in the same league.
A doctor was prosecuted in NY for making an arrangement with his patients that lowered their costs overall and guaranteed him a steady income so that he could focus on patients on an as needed basis. They prosecuted him under state INSURANCE LAW! They said he was acting like an insurance company and wasn't licensed! You see, it is AGAINST THE LAW to freely contract with your doctor! We are FORCED into the cartel system. Laws of economics are thwarted by people with guns.
Makes sense. But I would also note that connection =/= identical views, or identical motivation.
In case you're wondering, Murphy is making stuff up. "The Great Hunger" blames the British government for refusing to interfere with laissez faire capitalism.
Actually, it's extremely hard to get around many private companies. If you want high speed wired internet access in the U.S., there's usually only one or at most two providers per city. In many places, you can't get high speed internet access at all.
The companies divided up the cities and agreed not to compete. And they bought off the government so it wouldn't try to regulate them.
Americans pay more for slower internet access than Europeans, who have governments that promote progress.
The Laffer curve supports a well known empirical law known as "Hauser's Law" named for economist W. Kurt Hauser: in the US, irrespective of tax rates, government always gets as tax revenues about 1/5th of GDP, i.e., about 20% of GDP. Changes in tax rates do not change that 1/5th slice. But changes in tax rates do change the size of GDP, i.e., the size of the economic pie: low rates cause high GDP; high rates cause low GDP. Ergo, low tax rates result in high tax revenues.
I wonder if Johan Noberg will give future interviews that goes further in detail on the differences between anarchism and capitalism and so on. In particular his thoughts on anarchism and why he believes its wrong for society. (It will be nice to hear someone with experience, having been a former anarchist and anarachist-supporter, reveal the truth in regards to the philosphy and all of its sub-forms)
I suggest you read the Oxford University Press publication Social Determinants of Health. Edited by Michael Marmot and
Richard Wilkinson.
The effects of policy on health and life expectancy are in fact quite well understood.
If the U.S. adopted European and Canadian policies, Americans could live years longer.
Not to mention the fact that a consumer-driven healthcare system is unworkable unless every single person in the population has a medical degree or a PhD in Chemistry or Statistics or all three.
Individuals do not know whether a given procedure or test is necessary, or how it compares to alternatives. They do not have the expertise to evaluate it. They judge doctors by their looks and not by their track records.
They are routinely overcharged and defrauded.
The life expectancy in the UK is 80.4. In the U.S. it's 78.2.
People in the U.K. live longer healthier lives, and they spend less on healthcare.
I think that's enough crazy for one day.
Realistically more places accept Euros than dollars. The Euro zone is a bigger economy, with more people. More places within the U.S. accept dollars than Euros. But there are places that will only accept credit cards (i.e., car rental places; some online merchants; some automated kiosks) which are a private payment system.
And bank accounts and checks and other private payment systems are used far more commonly than physical federal reserve notes.
There's no monopoly on money.
There's a private toll road here and there, but overall infrastructure investment levels are very low by developed world standards, and infrastructure maintenance is way behind.
Infrastructure privatization deals typically involve "non-compete" clauses which *prevent* infrastructure investment to increase demand for the privatized infrastructure and get monopoly rents.
Clearly the private sector can't and won't provide infrastructure sufficient for robust economic growth.
Johan
Solyndra received a small loan (i.e., an investment). The overwhleming majority of loans under the DOE program that funded Solyndra have performed. Any portfolio of investments, whether private or public, will have a mix of failures and successes.
We need to be willing to accept some failures in order to have successes.
The department of energy has a tiny budget.
The biggest categories in the Federal Budget are:
1. Military (~25 percent)
2. Medicare
3. Social Security
So we should not believe it simply because it could be used to a certain company's advantage?
There was recently a story out of rural Britain concerning a voluntary collection of residents who are establishing their own broadband system, and planning on bringing in outside investment. It can be done.
And in case you are curious, the NORFED liberty dollar guy (Bernard von NotHaus) was convicted by a jury of his peers (ordinary citizens--not the government), and sentenced to 15 years in prison.
So the Jury agreed with my assessment that NotHaus committed a crime. They deliberated for less than 2 hours, so it wasn't even a close call.
The guy is a criminal.
This same thing happened in the USSR when it was developing. And in Europe. And the United States. If you find a better way to industrialize that can be implemented overnight, please let me know. The good news is that technology is improving that situation.
The answer to question 2 is:
1. The per procedure cost for medicare is lower than the per-procedure costs for private insurance. There is no evidence of differences in outcomes after you control for the fact that medicare patients are older, possibly poorer, and less healthy to begin with.
2. The administrative costs of medicare are lower, even if you look at top-up insurance for those above 65.
3. Medicare officials are paid much less well than U.S. healthcare executives.
4. Costs = profit
But a big part of the problem is that the state has so little influence in the U.S. So much has been hollowed out and privatized, and traditional functions of the state are now in private hands, and run for private profit and not public benefit.
Why aren't weapons manufacturers all state owned and part of the military?
Why do private health insurance companies exist instead of medicare for all?
Why isn't telecom state-owned?
Why is education funded with debt instead of taxes?
It's not a question of whether resources are being developed. It's a question of who gets the benefit.
In the U.S., the benefit of natural resources goes almost entirely to private, for profit oil and gas companies that are showered with tax breaks, pay minimal royalties, and benefit from huge subsidies from taxpayers in the form of U.S. military protection.
Everywhere else, the public benefits from natural resources. We can and should have more benefits for lower taxes w fewer billionaires.
And business leaders operating on free market principles have committed their own share of genocides, for example by exporting food during the Irish Potato famine to sell to the highest bidder, while the poor in Ireland starved to death.
Even in the U.S., there is in effect a slow genocide taking place in higher infant mortality and lower longevity--a genocide caused by neglect.
From Wikipedia: "'free schools' ... are funded with public money from the local municipality, based on the number of pupils they have enrolled, in the same way Swedish public schools are. Consequently, they are not allowed to discriminate or require admission examinations, nor are they not allowed to charge ... additional fees." This is neoliberal corporate welfare, shot through with regulations which forbid the schools from determining prices.
Workers in mines and oil fields rarely spend their whole life doing those jobs. The vast majority of people in the US that are poor at 20 y/o, at 60 are middle-class, and some are rich. Only very few ones remain poor.
Statistics about sectors of society fail to acknowledge that individuals almost never remain in the lower sectors for a long time (in the US of course. This is not the case for some third-world countries).
You are right that for its tax level Sweden is doing well. If we graph tax rate vs hours/week worked, we find that the work ethic of people drops off considerably as taxes increase. This makes sense; all species are lazy (we can call it conserving energy if we wish), but we do work when rewarded. Germany is a notable exception- Germans work much harder than their tax rate suggests. I have not seen data on Sweden, but I have heard from Swedes that Swedes have a strong work ethic culture.
It doesn't have to be the same amount of money. They can give you a "bonus" or deduct a fee.
If you by a metro card in NYC, you'll get a bonus.
Everything is quoted and measured in dollars--including gold--but that doesn't mean it is dollars.
"But in a free market like the United States"
I believe this has already been addressed to you multiple times. The United States is not a free market. In fact, many of the vaunted "social democracies" have higher economic freedom.
A market is based on contracts. Logically, there will need to be some sort of avenue to maintain those contracts. Therefore, courts would exist.
Which laws is a "free market system" against?
If you want to go without health insurance and pay your doctor in cash, there's no law against that. Recently, there's a new tax for people who don't buy health insurance, but it's minimal.
Going without health insurance is asking for bankruptcy or an early death if you ever have a serious health problem and don't have hundreds of thousands in the bank.
It's stupid, but it's not illegal in the U.S.
Patients who pay cash pay more.
You know that Milton Friedman's work on monetarism is a huge influence on the Federal Reserve, right?
And that his work on monetarism is the main thing for which he is known and respected in legitimate academic circles?
Before you were all bent out of shape about anyone having anything to do with the Federal Reserve not being a libertarian.
The US used to have a free market health care system prior to I think 1968, and it worked very well, there were low budget and free health care options provided by private organizations that did a far better job that what government does today. Today's health care system is as far as it can be from free market, the US government has the second largest health care related budget per capita in the world, you are right that is ineffective, but that is not to blame to free market.
Defense and entitlement reforms should be the starting point for reforming the budget. But it's not helpful to be making loans to companies such as that at this time.
On the other hand, US doctors have to worry about litigation to an extent probably unknown in any other country - hence their need for rather expensive insurance and tendency to 'over-diagnostics/-testing/-treatment' (and their concomitant cost and potential adverse health effects). However, this is, in my eyes, a function of the US societal model, and thus next to impossible to change. Note the emphasis on tort reform in the healthcare debate from the involved parties - they certainly know.
You're right about Ayn Rand. I see her calling them "hippies of the right." But I've got to say, I'm not sure I see the difference between Ayn Rand's philosophy and libertarians.
What is the difference, besides Ayn Rand saying mean things about Libertarians?
Yes, the Earth doesn't get 8-10% bigger each year, and yet our standard of living has changed so drastically in the last 100 years. Clearly we are not limited merely by natural resources, but also by governments. People have become freer to use their creativity to improve their lives, and freedom allows for growth.
#correction: since the 20s
4) Most tax revenues come from income and corporate taxes (which are also very high in Sweden). Not just VAT
5) The swedish right-wingers were in govt during the 1990s crisis, and lost the elections afterwards. Only in 2006 did they return
Because the State can be a force for good that provides healthcare, infrastructure, education, funds scientific research, regulates industry to prevent abuse, gathers and disseminates valuable information, and uplifts the entire population, as opposed to corporations which exist only for the benefit of their managers and shareholders, and often engage in destructive and redistributionist actions (i.e., polluting and externalizing costs).
I'm all for shrinking the prisons and the military.
@CusterFlux If you're being sarcastic,can you show us examples of free societies that do not have large elements of capitalism?
And although Italy is doing marginally worse, almost all of the debt in Italy is domestic.
Half of the U.S.'s debt is held by foreigners.
And the U.S. starting going off the rails on debt to GDP when
Ronald Reagan was elected, taxes were cut, and social democracy was abandoned.
@michaeljfreak No. It reduces consumption all together. There is no distinction made between over and under. Consumption tax is regressive and reduces demand.
Apparently, a lot of debaters from both sides of the spectrum fancy using Sweden as an example of this or that when it comes to economic theory.
Instead, you'd better get to know the changes Sweden actually has gone through.
A good starting point is this; why was Sweden the most successful nation from 1870-1970 in GDP growth, one of the least successful 1970-1990, but has for the last 20 years performed better than most, if not all, other industrialized nations?
It does explain Sweden pretty well. What did he say that isn't true? He's not confused one bit. People really thought that for example our telecom systems would fall apart if the government didn't take care of it. Has that happened? Well, no, it hasn't. Didn't people in Sweden stay at home for the smallest cough or became "sjukskrivna" for nothing at all? Aren't the waiting times for certain operations long? I seems our perceptions of Sweden are miles apart.
Yes, and these behaviors are related to stressful work environments and constant job insecurity.
Europeans have laws and regulations to hold work hours down to a reasonable maximum level, mandatory vacation time, and legal protections for workers.
All of which help produce a less stressed and healthier population with more time to live a healthy life.
Not to mention food regulation and zoning laws and public transit to encourage walking.
Policy makes a huge difference.
That’s a yes and no countries like Sweden have a strong union presence and the regulations on food are more to keep obesity down to not put a strain the healthcare system. Japan does not have the same mandatory vacation times that you do yet they have a healthier population than the USA.
Sowell also worked as a low level analyst for the U.S. labor department.
He clearly did not follow the "state line" at UCLA or Cornell, because Universities have appropriate systems in place to insulate scholars from outside pressure, such as tenure and a culture that prizes academic freedom.
Think tanks do not have the same systems in place. There is no tenure and they fire people at the drop of a hat.
That's part of why academics are more reliable.
Imperialism is rooted in conservatism, especially Southern Conservatism. Tyler (the president during the Mexican War) was a Southerner.
Winston Churchill, the conservative British Prime Minister who Bush famously admired, was an Imperialist who lost power after WWII because the British were more interested in having a decent life in Britain than in paying taxes to support a military and giant empire.
Same thing happened to DeGaul--another Conservative--in France.
Presumably both price and quality would increase. You'd drive lemons out of the market.
Without tests of used cars, the market would collapse from the lemons problem. The bad drives out the good. This is classic economics.
Read Akerloff, The Market For Lemons.
Licensing and regulation are necessary for a market to function.