Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Can you choose a source that isn't heavily biased by the researcher who is a Democrat that works on democrat economic policies?
You guys like to cherry pick. That high elasticity is due to a number of factors. One I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that their is intergenerational subsidies and and permanent welfare households compared to an era when their were more available jobs and less liberal policies. Why try for more when you can have those sweet rims and netflix , eat steak, and its all on someone else's dime. In other words the more dependents the state creates the the higher this elasticity.
Strange that France and Spain are so high (but not surprising) considering they are extremely left. I mean France is all about their unions and worker protections, life time employment and pensions. They should be a utopia. Perhaps its the close proximity to Africa and its migrants overloading its system but that would just be racist to mention that and would only point out further the "successes" of the Nordics is cultural and not economic.
Your point about being rich in america is pretty funny considering that globally speaking most Americans are "rich".
|
Yes globally speaking. Out of all the rich countries, where the ones that argue "we can't afford" investment in our workforce.
See you talk about a poorer country to make your point (Spain), because your point doesn't hold up in Sweden or Germany (which isn't actually socialist at all -- It's called corporatism). We don't compare countries with High GDP per capita with countries with low GDP per capita. This is why I'm not up here pointing out how Somila proves how stupid libertarian policies are.
Again to you, there no difference between communism, democratic-socialism, or Barrock Obama. So it's surprising your talking about France when I'm trying to talk about democratic-socialist institutions working better.
We never had a free market in this country. There was always a close relationship between the top of actors and government and top actors in business. Things like the Railroads and slave agriculture make this pretty clear. A free market as described by Smith doesn't exist, never exited, and never will.
Edit: I'm not arguing there has never been a safety net program too generous. France is actually kind of an example -- for they tend to have problems with pension plans being too generous (I would argue corrupt in some cases). Were in no danger of implementing too generous of a welfare state.