White people...

[Raev]

The problem is that ultimately politics is what Wolfgang Pauli would call 'not even wrong'. You can make any idiotic claim between cause and effect and no one can do a controlled experiment to prove you wrong. The fact that socialism has failed nearly everywhere it has been tried (Venezuelans are currently starving to death despite their country possessing more oil than Saudi Arabia) doesn't matter as long as the socialists can point to a few nations that haven't imploded yet.

Take JurisDictum's graph for example. I suppose he considers this rock solid proof that if only we had more social programs like Denmark things would be better. If I claim that inequality is more persistent in the US due to our more diverse cultural and ethnic mix, or because the bankers own the country, or that more social programs are unlikely to work given that we've already increased spending by a factor of 30 since the Great Society, neither of us can truly prove the other is wrong in a scientific way.

The bad news for socialists is that European socialism will implode soon anyway. Europe is already being torn apart by Muslim immigrant, and since the Muslims have many, many more children than the natives . . . . either the Europeans go full on Nazi and kill them all, or the Muslims will simply vote them out of their own homelands (and you are kidding yourself if you think a Muslim state won't have Sharia law). Neither is particularly appealing.

[Nihilist_santa]

You are right. I mean you cant convince someone that believes that a Grandma living on $900 a month is a socialist success to believe that as Friedman said A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."

[Pokesan]

i told you don't argue with libertarians

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

i told you don't argue with libertarians

Depends on the issue as to whether I "lean" libertarian and most of those are economic . I think "libertarianism" requires a cultural change that we wont see without having experienced crushing oppression. Libertarian ideas ring true but Im more of a realist and understand that "might makes right". Minarchist systems are ALWAYS going to be at a disadvantage when dealing with statist systems and so I dont think it is viable. In this way libertarians are as much idealist as the progressives.

[JurisDictum]

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.

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The problem is that ultimately politics is what Wolfgang Pauli would call 'not even wrong'. You can make any idiotic claim between cause and effect and no one can do a controlled experiment to prove you wrong. The fact that socialism has failed nearly everywhere it has been tried (Venezuelans are currently starving to death despite their country possessing more oil than Saudi Arabia) doesn't matter as long as the socialists can point to a few nations that haven't imploded yet.

Take JurisDictum's graph for example. I suppose he considers this rock solid proof that if only we had more social programs like Denmark things would be better. If I claim that inequality is more persistent in the US due to our more diverse cultural and ethnic mix, or because the bankers own the country, or that more social programs are unlikely to work given that we've already increased spending by a factor of 30 since the Great Society, neither of us can truly prove the other is wrong in a scientific way.

The bad news for socialists is that European socialism will implode soon anyway. Europe is already being torn apart by Muslim immigrant, and since the Muslims have many, many more children than the natives . . . . either the Europeans go full on Nazi and kill them all, or the Muslims will simply vote them out of their own homelands (and you are kidding yourself if you think a Muslim state won't have Sharia law). Neither is particularly appealing.

I posted it to dispell the myth the America's policies are no. 1 in social mobility. Why is England even worse if it's about homogeneity?

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Rararboker [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To op's original post, lol college. Good to learn (some) stuff. Horrible for getting a career. Learn marketable skills instead.

Don't believe the articles that look at first year earnings only. Overtime, college educated make far more money. It's simply a fact you will be promoted faster with a degree. 25% of the country gets a B.A. or B.S., its better to be one of those if you don't want to work trades. It's getting less in less common to see smart blue collar people transition into their own business.

[JurisDictum]

It's also worth noting that unions work a hell of a lot better when the government is used as an intermediary before them. The US government is terrible at this -- wildly inconsistent with no institutional structure for it outside the President really.

It works better in countries that have "peak" organizations that represent unions nationally that consult with upper management. The also have formal institutions for the government to insure unions or business is not out of line.

So in this narrow sense, there is real institutional differences between US/UK/Australia etc. and countries with a more institutionalized union set up. There aren't these kind of barriers for healthcare or education that I can see.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

As far as GDP you posted the countries and the argument isnt about GDP its about socialism as a cultural and economic solvent at this point. Your own chart has Denmark listed but they are 37th GDP while France is 6th. Italy would fall in here as well. They have implemented all of the crap safety net nanny state stuff you want and its killing them. You are just trying to sweep the failings under the rug as usual with leftist.

[maskedmelon]

Correlation is not necessarily indicative of causation. Individuals who pursue a college degree may well be more ambitious, hard working or otherwise more desirable to employers than those who do not.

Let us assume though that a the degree itself is the source and that it has nothing at all to do with the individual who earned it. We might reasonably expect earnings to reflect the availability or unavailability of qualified individuals. If we suddenly award a B.A. or B.S. to everyone, what do you suppose that might do to the value it confers upon the recipient?