Govt is corrupt, so why do liberals want bigger govt !?!?

[AuSable River]

I am off for dinner.

had fun, but still not impressed.

For example, I have tried to engage as many liberal fallacies as possible.

And 90% of the responses are inane retorts devoid of fact, logic, and empirical evidence.

the other 10%, I have responded to with facts, logic, and empirical evidence that by any objective measure remains unchallenged.

I will engage and debunk servile big government lovers who believe that surrendering individual rights and responsibilities to a group of politicians playing with other people's money with little or no accountability will lead to anything other than corruption, inequality, and waste ----- at a later date.

amusingly, these same liberals who praise government's efficacy -- lament corporate corruption that is enabled by these same willing politicians who are handsomely paid with special interest votes and campaign contributions.

but when have liberals ever been rational, logical and objective.

See, we discredit you partly due to your arrogant, egotistical pig attitude. No matter how many true facts we feed you, you will ignore them and denounce them all under the, "Oh you're liberal, you're just a statist zombie" excuse.

had fun, but still not impressed.

Okay, cool. However, We didn't give you solid facts and testimonies just to "impress you".

Face it. You came here with a set opinion of far right conservatism with no intentions of being persuaded otherwise.

again, if you have a substantive, factual, logical or empirically supported question or comment --- please submit it.

However, I dont see one in your post.

[Socialdemokraterne]

*flails hand back and forth in the air"

Ooh! Ooooh! Me next! Me----e!!!!

[AuSable River]

Okay, government is corrupt. You don't want to see it bigger.

So. What's your plan? To reduce it? By how much? How will you know when it's just big enough, and still not too big, or then too small?

And if government is too big and corrupt, why not massively curtail the biggest of departments - the Armed Forces?

Slash their budget, and the size of the army, and surely that'd cut down on massive waste and abuse?

EDIT: Op, you should change the title of this piece: HUMANITY is corrupt.

Period.

true dat. NOTHING will stop corruption in the world.

society can be structured where corruption is not rewarded.

for example, a free society creates a framework where politicians cannot use coercion to plunder societal wealth and redistribute this wealth to their cronies in the public and private sector.

hence, without government coercion -- corrupt corporations and special interests will die on the vine because the vast majority of consumers will not support them by voluntary means.

In contrast, government benefits the corrupt and inefficient by using the monopolistic centralized force of tax and regulatory authority to transfer wealth to its cronies.

[The UK in Exile]

true dat. NOTHING will stop corruption in the world.

society can be structured where corruption is not rewarded.

for example, a free society creates a framework where politicians cannot use coercion to plunder societal wealth and redistribute this wealth to their cronies in the public and private sector.

hence, without government coercion -- corrupt corporations and special interests will die on the vine because the vast majority of consumers will not support them by voluntary means.

In contrast, government benefits the corrupt and inefficient by using the monopolistic centralized force of tax and regulatory authority to transfer wealth to its cronies.

decentralized corporate force isn't likely to prove less coercive.

[AuSable River]

With solid foundation to ensure that there is adequate infrastructure for democracy, I will say that government, regardless if liberal or conservative, can be transparent and accountable. If there is any ideology that is more reckless in their thinking, it is the idea that individuals should take control of running the economy of the entire country. This is a recipe for disaster.

absolutely not for the following reasons:

1) a free society is voluntary -- in contrast government is coercive.

2) a free society is decentralized --- in contrast, within a statist society power is concentrated at the top

3) a free society is always competitive,meaning that irrespective of what firm or special interest gains monopoly status an tries to exploit this temporary advantage, any other special interest group or firm can compete --- in contrast, govt is always an unyielding monopoly

4) within a free society citizens exercise far greater due diligence because they are risking their own money, moreover they reap the benefits of sound choices --- in contrast, govt actors are using other people's money and only see direct benefits when they reward special interests and campaign contributors.

5) a free society still has limit govt with judicial powers to check any oppressive private sector entities --- in contrast, since govt has all the guns, gavels, and regulatory power, it is absurd to think that government can 'check' its own power in the economic realm. Indeed, both republicans and democrats share equally in the destructive plunder of Main Street.

the list goes on and on ...... I will add to this in subsequent rebuttals, provided they are reasonably thoughtful and not the typical ad hominems or trollish posts that statists usually contribute.

[Socialdemokraterne]

With solid foundation to ensure that there is adequate infrastructure for democracy, I will say that government, regardless if liberal or conservative, can be transparent and accountable. If there is any ideology that is more reckless in their thinking, it is the idea that individuals should take control of running the economy of the entire country. This is a recipe for disaster.

absolutely not for the following reasons:

1) a free society is voluntary -- in contrast government is coercive.

2) a free society is decentralized --- in contrast, within a statist society power is concentrated at the top

3) a free society is always competitive,meaning that irrespective of what firm or special interest gains monopoly status an tries to exploit this temporary advantage, any other special interest group or firm can compete --- in contrast, govt is always an unyielding monopoly

4) within a free society citizens exercise far greater due diligence because they are risking their own money, moreover they reap the benefits of sound choices --- in contrast, govt actors are using other people's money and only see direct benefits when they reward special interests and campaign contributors.

5) a free society still has limit govt with judicial powers to check any oppressive private sector entities --- in contrast, since govt has all the guns, gavels, and regulatory power, it is absurd to think that government can 'check' its own power in the economic realm. Indeed, both republicans and democrats share equally in the destructive plunder of Main Street.

the list goes on and on ...... I will add to this in subsequent rebuttals, provided they are reasonably thoughtful and not the typical ad hominems or trollish posts that statists usually contribute.

Provide an example of a "free society" for us to examine. Also, address my empirical criticism of your analysis of Sweden.

[AuSable River]

society can be structured where corruption is not rewarded.

for example, a free society creates a framework where politicians cannot use coercion to plunder societal wealth and redistribute this wealth to their cronies in the public and private sector.

hence, without government coercion -- corrupt corporations and special interests will die on the vine because the vast majority of consumers will not support them by voluntary means.

In contrast, government benefits the corrupt and inefficient by using the monopolistic centralized force of tax and regulatory authority to transfer wealth to its cronies.

decentralized corporate force isn't likely to prove less coercive.

it will for many reasons among them ---

1) many competitors -- indeed within a free society, the potential exists for myriad competitors particularly when a firm with a large market share stops satisfying consumer preferences.

IN contrast, govt allows no competitors against itself and often against its cronies --- hence this crony capitalist regulatory and licensing regimes that insulate and protect campaign contributors and make it impossible, if not extremely difficult for small business startups to compete.


2) a free market is just that --- free. Government does not have the power to pick winners and losers.

INdeed, I have challenged leftists on this thread to explain the process by which a corporation can continue to screw their customers without (1) inspiring startup competition, (2) boycotts, (3) substitution goods, (4) continued lost revenue from higher prices and less sales, (5) govt action as a last resort, et al

3) govt has all the guns, gavels, and legislative power --- in contrast the free market would not have these, hence if by some freak chance some company became oppressive -- it could be easily destroyed by a stroke of a pen. Perhaps a constitutional amendment to force breakup if a firm attains a market share of 90% or more to placate the irrational fears of statists

lastly, it is manifestly illogical that statists fear monopolies in the private sector and who insanely advocate creating the very thing they fear (government leviathan) to manage this irrational fear that really has never materialized in the history of the planet.

[AuSable River]

amusingly, the Swedish people and its government have adopted the opposite stance from the one you favor:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mattkibbe/2 ... ally-work/

Anders Borg has been the finance minister only since 2006. And yes, he (in the spirit of a member of a right-wing coalition's cabinet) is well-known for his intentions to slash welfare benefits. But you're really exaggerating his impact, and you'd know that if you looked at the figures, which I will present to you throughout this post.

When I compare the GDP growth rates sure, Sweden comes out on top of the five. But not by a remarkable margin (Sweden only beat Finland by 1.1%, and it's actually down by a full 1.8% from 2010). Also, you might want to stop plugging your ears and closing your eyes whenever someone brings up a country's unemployment rate. Sweden's is tied with Finland's for the third worst (or second best, if you like) out of the five countries I've been comparing. The winner is Norway.

GDP growth rates compared between Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and the USA

Finland: -8.4% (2009), 3.7% (2010), 2.9% (2011)
Norway: -1.7% (2009), 0.7% (2010), 1.7% (2011)
Sweden: -4.8% (2009), 5.8% (2010), 4% (2011)
Denmark: -5.8% (2009), 1.3% (2010), 1.1% (2011)
USA: -3.5% (2009), 3% (2010), 1.7% (2011)

Unemployment rates compared between Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and the USA
Finland: 8.4% (2010), 7.8% (2011), 7.5% (Current)
Norway: 3.6% (2010), 3.3% (2011), 3% (Current)
Sweden: 8.4% (2010), 7.5% (2011), 7.5% (Current)
Denmark: 6% (2010), 6% (2011), 7.8% (Current)
USA: 9.6% (2010), 9% (2011), 8.4% (Current)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/us.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/da.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/sw.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/fi.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/no.html

sourced from the OECD and US statistical abstract:

http://media.economist.com/sites/defaul ... CIN549.gif --- notice that sweden saw a significant decline in govt. spending as a percentage of GDP

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-EMpadQx4hM/T ... sweden.png

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/Govt%20spending.gif -- notice the steep decline in spending as a % of GDP in sweden

I see your magazines and blogs (secondary sources) and raise you data straight from the European Commission (a primary source):

Swedish Government Expenditures as a % of GDP (their code is SE)
2005 - 53.9%
2006 - 52.7%
2007 - 51.0%
2008 - 51.7%
2009 - 55.2%
2010 - 53.0%

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statis ... 1006133248

Your man, Borg, he became the finance minister after the 2006 election. He took office on Oct. 6, 2006. What happened to the numbers after he and the rest of the Alliance for Sweden took office? Hmmm. You might consider new reading material, because Sweden has INCREASED its government expenditures as a % GDP in nearly every year since they took office, and the lowest they've ever sunk beneath the numbers for the two years prior to their reign's initiation was a paltry 1.7%. The contraction that your Economist article (which is 8 years old, by the way) points out? It stopped.

Also, here's the table in general:



Notice that Sweden is actually among the highest spending countries in all of Europe, even after the contraction. That should tell you something, perhaps that the Swedish welfare state is still alive even if slashes to some programs have been made? Or maybe that the benefits package that Swedes enjoy is still relatively large? After all, I did show you that universal tertiary education and healthcare still exist, and that healthcare expenditures as a proportion of GDP have remained fairly steady over the last 3 decades.

Now, for the final nail in your argument's coffin. Hang on to your hat:

% GDP in Sweden Devoted To Social Protection
2005 - 23.0%
2006 - 22.2%
2007 - 21.1%
2008 - 21.1%
2009 - 23.0%

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statis ... 1006134357

Notice the absence of a dramatic decline in that percentage, even after the Alliance for Sweden came into play and Borg became the finance minister?

from heritage which rates sweden's economy as largely free from excessive government influences:

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/sweden

Read your sources before you post them. You just helped me a lot. If you look at Sweden's 2012 "Government Spending" score of 8.8/100 under "Limited Government" (down from a two-year high of only 17.3/100), you'll see that you just shot yourself in the foot. Also, read the paragraph underneath the table and you'll find this:

Sweden’s respect for the concept of limited government has not been particularly strong. Government spending has been expansive. The overall tax regime needed to finance the ever-growing scope of government has become more burdensome and complex, although such institutional assets as high degrees of business efficiency and regulatory flexibility have counterbalanced some of the shortcomings of heavy social spending.

Thought I'd highlight a few key parts for you since you're not in the habit of actually reading things. And here's a pretty picture for you to look at:

http://www.heritage.org/index/visualize ... den&type=4

See the black line? That's the world average score for government spending (the higher it is, the smaller the government). See the orange line? That's Sweden's score.

Oh, and one more thing. See how in spite of all this, Sweden scores a solid 92/100 for freedom from corruption? Yeah. You lose yet again.

in sum, when a socialist nation reduces the size and scope of government -- its economy grows and standards of living improve.

in contrast, when a capitalist nation increases the size and scope of government -- its economy stagnates and standards of living decline.

First of all, not a single one of the Nordic countries is a socialist system. So I'll just go ahead and stop you there on that point. Second, you've done NOTHING to illustrate that Sweden is actually reducing the size and scope of its government since the Alliance for Sweden took command (indeed, the contraction stopped well before they ever got elected and never resulted in anything even close to a "small" government). I just showed you twice that it has been increasing instead (once with your own damn source, for Heaven's sake!) Finally, the assertion highlighted in red (which is the only one which is relevant since the Nordic countries are all mixed economies) is in conflict with the GDP per capita PPP and unemployment data.

___________________________________________________________________________________

I will debunk your arguments in detail, starting with the following challenges.

1) do you dispute the fact that government spending as a percentage of GDP expanded in sweden from 1970 to the financial crisis of the 1990's?

2) do you dispute the fact that government spending as a percentage of GDP has decreased since the financial crisis of the 1990s?

Lastly, the following logical challenge is irrefutable:

Do you believe that politicians using other people's money taken by involuntary means will naturally allocate this wealth in a way to maximize economic growth ?

Or do you believe as I do that when politicians allocate wealth it is largely based on political motives versus economic motives ?

Lastly, do you believe that free market participants allocate their own wealth for primarily economic or political motives -- and which of these goals do you believe will lead to the greatest level of economic growth ?

[AuSable River]

absolutely not for the following reasons:

1) a free society is voluntary -- in contrast government is coercive.

2) a free society is decentralized --- in contrast, within a statist society power is concentrated at the top

3) a free society is always competitive,meaning that irrespective of what firm or special interest gains monopoly status an tries to exploit this temporary advantage, any other special interest group or firm can compete --- in contrast, govt is always an unyielding monopoly

4) within a free society citizens exercise far greater due diligence because they are risking their own money, moreover they reap the benefits of sound choices --- in contrast, govt actors are using other people's money and only see direct benefits when they reward special interests and campaign contributors.

5) a free society still has limit govt with judicial powers to check any oppressive private sector entities --- in contrast, since govt has all the guns, gavels, and regulatory power, it is absurd to think that government can 'check' its own power in the economic realm. Indeed, both republicans and democrats share equally in the destructive plunder of Main Street.

the list goes on and on ...... I will add to this in subsequent rebuttals, provided they are reasonably thoughtful and not the typical ad hominems or trollish posts that statists usually contribute.

Provide an example of a "free society" for us to examine. Also, address my empirical criticism of your analysis of Sweden.

In summary, your advocacy of a political economy is seriously flawed.

For example, it is obvious that a major determining factor in where money is allocated or invested within a statist society is politics. More specifically, politicians divert money to where it will give them more power and privledge irrespective of whether this redistibution will benefit societal economic growth.

In contrast, free market participants are wholly economic actors, hence those that most effectively allocate scarce resources to the most economically effective uses will see their investments grow --- those that dont will see their fortunes decline.

poltiical economy -- far less economic growth because those controlling resources are not guided and checked by economic realities. Capitalist economy, not only voluntary which has moral implications, but all resources are guided and checked by economic realities -- hence far stronger growth.

do you understand this a priori ?

[Mavorpen]

I will debunk your arguments in detail, starting with the following challenges.

1) do you dispute the fact that government spending as a percentage of GDP expanded in sweden from 1970 to the financial crisis of the 1990's?

2) do you dispute the fact that government spending as a percentage of GDP has decreased since the financial crisis of the 1990s?

Lastly, the following logical challenge is irrefutable:

Do you believe that politicians using other people's money taken by involuntary means will naturally allocate this wealth in a way to maximize economic growth ?

Or do you believe as I do that when politicians allocate wealth it is largely based on political motives versus economic motives ?

Lastly, do you believe that free market participants allocate their own wealth for primarily economic or political motives -- and which of these goals do you believe will lead to the greatest level of economic growth ?

Ah, OP. I missed you and your ability to completely ignore posts and then say stupid shit about "challenges."

[AuSable River]

I will debunk your arguments in detail, starting with the following challenges.

1) do you dispute the fact that government spending as a percentage of GDP expanded in sweden from 1970 to the financial crisis of the 1990's?

2) do you dispute the fact that government spending as a percentage of GDP has decreased since the financial crisis of the 1990s?

Lastly, the following logical challenge is irrefutable:

Do you believe that politicians using other people's money taken by involuntary means will naturally allocate this wealth in a way to maximize economic growth ?

Or do you believe as I do that when politicians allocate wealth it is largely based on political motives versus economic motives ?

Lastly, do you believe that free market participants allocate their own wealth for primarily economic or political motives -- and which of these goals do you believe will lead to the greatest level of economic growth ?

Ah, OP. I missed you and your ability to completely ignore posts and then say stupid shit about "challenges."

sorry, we have run out of food for you.

[Socialdemokraterne]

I will debunk your arguments in detail, starting with the following challenges.

1) do you dispute the fact that government spending as a percentage of GDP expanded in sweden from 1970 to the financial crisis of the 1990's?

2) do you dispute the fact that government spending as a percentage of GDP has decreased since the financial crisis of the 1990s?

...this is what you call debunking my arguments in detail? Fine. I'll baby you.

1. do you dispute the fact that government spending as a percentage of GDP expanded in sweden from 1970 to the financial crisis of the 1990's?

I dispute that this is what caused the banking crisis, an argument you've still yet to address. I said that it was the doing of Bildt Dennis' deregulation of credit markets during the 1980s, which led to a housing bubble, which led to a banking crisis.

So...relevance?

2. do you dispute the fact that government spending as a percentage of GDP has decreased since the financial crisis of the 1990s?

I acknowledged the contraction. What I said, if you'd actually read my post, was that even after the contraction Sweden is still among the highest-spending countries in Europe in terms of % of GDP. I also demonstrated that the right-wing coalition whose leg you're humping has not resulted in a net decline in that percentage. Finally, I demonstrated that Sweden's spending on social protection as a % of GDP is still very high.

So...relevance?

Do you believe that politicians using other people's money taken by involuntary means will naturally allocate this wealth in a way to maximize economic growth ?

Or do you believe as I do that when politicians allocate wealth it is largely based on political motives versus economic motives ?

...the fuck? This is your big, "irrefutable" logic? Asking me my opinion and then presenting your own without substantiation? I've already demonstrated to you that there are several countries with low levels of corruption.

Lastly, do you believe that free market participants allocate their own wealth for primarily economic or political motives -- and which of these goals do you believe will lead to the greatest level of economic growth ?

This is not argumentation. This is asking my opinion. Make an argument and substantiate it. Show me a "free society" with a "free market" and I'll examine it and compare it to the societies that I'm advocating for. Get serious.

[Socialdemokraterne]

In summary, your advocacy of a political economy is seriously flawed.

For example, it is obvious that a major determining factor in where money is allocated or invested within a statist society is politics. More specifically, politicians divert money to where it will give them more power and privledge irrespective of whether this redistibution will benefit societal economic growth.

In contrast, free market participants are wholly economic actors, hence those that most effectively allocate scarce resources to the most economically effective uses will see their investments grow --- those that dont will see their fortunes decline.

poltiical economy -- far less economic growth because those controlling resources are not guided and checked by economic realities. Capitalist economy, not only voluntary which has moral implications, but all resources are guided and checked by economic realities -- hence far stronger growth.

do you understand this a priori ?

...so no, you don't have a comment on the numbers and want to bitch about government fucking up the "free market" some more?

[AuSable River]

I dont see why it is so difficult for leftists to understand this graphic.

1) sweden had one of the strongest economies in the world in 1970

2) they got complaisant and expanded the welfare state from 1970 until the economic crisis in the 1990s

3) plainly shown on the graph, they began to downsize the percentage of economy used to fund government in response.

4) they have averted disaster by doing so.

5) this is no guarantee that statists wont regain control of the economy -- indeed that is what they do -- but the oft repeated fantasy that big government is responsible for sweden's 'success' is absurd. Indeed, the heritage supports the notion that sweden's strong free market principles in other areas of the economy, government spending notwithstanding, helps to grow the economy.

in sum, leftists can rarely find the forest through the trees -- hence they fixate on anecdotal and circumstantial in a vain attempt to refute the obvious fact that a government managed economy is nowhere near as strong as a private sector economy.

Why?

again, this is obvious --- politicians react based on political expediency, as a result they are far less governed by economic fundamentals then free market participants.

lastly, the moral implication of a government run economy is anathema to freedom

[Mavorpen]

...this is what you call debunking my arguments in detail? Fine. I'll baby you.

1. do you dispute the fact that government spending as a percentage of GDP expanded in sweden from 1970 to the financial crisis of the 1990's?

I dispute that this is what caused the banking crisis, an argument you've still yet to address. I said that it was the doing of Bildt Dennis' deregulation of credit markets during the 1980s, which led to a housing bubble, which led to a banking crisis.

So...relevance?

2. do you dispute the fact that government spending as a percentage of GDP has decreased since the financial crisis of the 1990s?

I acknowledged the contraction. What I said, if you'd actually read my post, was that even after the contraction Sweden is still among the highest-spending countries in Europe in terms of % of GDP. I also demonstrated that the right-wing coalition whose leg you're humping has not resulted in a net decline in that percentage. Finally, I demonstrated that Sweden's spending on social protection as a % of GDP is still very high.

So...relevance?



...the fuck? This is your big, "irrefutable" logic? Asking me my opinion and then presenting your own without substantiation? I've already demonstrated to you that there are several countries with low levels of corruption.



This is not argumentation. This is asking my opinion. Make an argument and substantiate it. Show me a "free society" with a "free market" and I'll examine it and compare it to the societies that I'm advocating for. Get serious.

I... I just...

[The UK in Exile]

decentralized corporate force isn't likely to prove less coercive.

it will for many reasons among them ---

1) many competitors -- indeed within a free society, the potential exists for myriad competitors particularly when a firm with a large market share stops satisfying consumer preferences.

IN contrast, govt allows no competitors against itself and often against its cronies --- hence this crony capitalist regulatory and licensing regimes that insulate and protect campaign contributors and make it impossible, if not extremely difficult for small business startups to compete.


2) a free market is just that --- free. Government does not have the power to pick winners and losers.

INdeed, I have challenged leftists on this thread to explain the process by which a corporation can continue to screw their customers without (1) inspiring startup competition, (2) boycotts, (3) substitution goods, (4) continued lost revenue from higher prices and less sales, (5) govt action as a last resort, et al

3) govt has all the guns, gavels, and legislative power --- in contrast the free market would not have these, hence if by some freak chance some company became oppressive -- it could be easily destroyed by a stroke of a pen. Perhaps a constitutional amendment to force breakup if a firm attains a market share of 90% or more to placate the irrational fears of statists

lastly, it is manifestly illogical that statists fear monopolies in the private sector and who insanely advocate creating the very thing they fear (government leviathan) to manage this irrational fear that really has never materialized in the history of the planet.

many competitive coercive corporations means much more efficent coercive instruments.

how do you respond to this?

[AuSable River]

In summary, your advocacy of a political economy is seriously flawed.

For example, it is obvious that a major determining factor in where money is allocated or invested within a statist society is politics. More specifically, politicians divert money to where it will give them more power and privledge irrespective of whether this redistibution will benefit societal economic growth.

In contrast, free market participants are wholly economic actors, hence those that most effectively allocate scarce resources to the most economically effective uses will see their investments grow --- those that dont will see their fortunes decline.

poltiical economy -- far less economic growth because those controlling resources are not guided and checked by economic realities. Capitalist economy, not only voluntary which has moral implications, but all resources are guided and checked by economic realities -- hence far stronger growth.

do you understand this a priori ?

...so no, you don't have a comment on the numbers and want to bitch about government fucking up the "free market" some more?

for the second time:

Do you refute the fact that government spending as a percentage of GDP expanded from 1970 until the economic crisis in the 1990's?

Do you refute the fact that govt, spending as % of GDP decreased after the collapse ?

more importantly, due to the infinite number of independent variables influencing economic outcomes within society --- it is more effective to engage in a logical refutation of your statistical anecdotal, circumstantial, minutia.

Hence, do you seriously think that politicians allocating scarce resources will insure more economic growth than private sector participants ??

[AuSable River]

it will for many reasons among them ---

1) many competitors -- indeed within a free society, the potential exists for myriad competitors particularly when a firm with a large market share stops satisfying consumer preferences.

IN contrast, govt allows no competitors against itself and often against its cronies --- hence this crony capitalist regulatory and licensing regimes that insulate and protect campaign contributors and make it impossible, if not extremely difficult for small business startups to compete.


2) a free market is just that --- free. Government does not have the power to pick winners and losers.

INdeed, I have challenged leftists on this thread to explain the process by which a corporation can continue to screw their customers without (1) inspiring startup competition, (2) boycotts, (3) substitution goods, (4) continued lost revenue from higher prices and less sales, (5) govt action as a last resort, et al

3) govt has all the guns, gavels, and legislative power --- in contrast the free market would not have these, hence if by some freak chance some company became oppressive -- it could be easily destroyed by a stroke of a pen. Perhaps a constitutional amendment to force breakup if a firm attains a market share of 90% or more to placate the irrational fears of statists

lastly, it is manifestly illogical that statists fear monopolies in the private sector and who insanely advocate creating the very thing they fear (government leviathan) to manage this irrational fear that really has never materialized in the history of the planet.

many competitive coercive corporations means much more efficent coercive instruments.

how do you respond to this?

i can respond to your illogic this way.

1) a corporation cannot become coercive in a free society -- they get thrown in jail.

2) a corporation cannot screw the consumer in a free society --- because consumers cant be coerced to buy something they think is not valued correctly.

3) a corporation cannot screw the consumer or society --- because I will open a firm to compete against them.

[Socialdemokraterne]

(Image)

I dont see why it is so difficult for leftists to understand this graphic.

1) sweden had one of the strongest economies in the world in 1970

2) they got complaisant and expanded the welfare state from 1970 until the economic crisis in the 1990s

3) plainly shown on the graph, they began to downsize the percentage of economy used to fund government in response.

4) they have averted disaster by doing so.

5) this is no guarantee that statists wont regain control of the economy -- indeed that is what they do -- but the oft repeated fantasy that big government is responsible for sweden's 'success' is absurd. Indeed, the heritage supports the notion that sweden's strong free market principles in other areas of the economy, government spending notwithstanding, helps to grow the economy.

in sum, leftists can rarely find the forest through the trees -- hence they fixate on anecdotal and circumstantial in a vain attempt to refute the obvious fact that a government managed economy is nowhere near as strong as a private sector economy.

Why?

again, this is obvious --- politicians react based on political expediency, as a result they are far less governed by economic fundamentals then free market participants.

lastly, the moral implication of a government run economy is anathema to freedom

You...cannot...be...serious. Do you know what the word "relative" means? If so, what is Sweden's % GDP spending, after the contraction (or even during) relative to any other country on that graph? How about afterward? They're right up there with France, which is exactly what the table I presented showed you. And the contraction tapered off and then flattened out, as I said. So how exactly am I missing the fucking forest for the trees if I've been talking about the very trends you're now pointing out the entire time?

[Mavorpen]

i can respond to your illogic this way.

1) a corporation cannot become coercive in a free society -- they get thrown in jail.

No government, no jails.

2) a corporation cannot screw the consumer in a free society --- because consumers cant be coerced to buy something they think is not valued correctly.

Exactly why monopolies are created.

3) a corporation cannot screw the consumer or society --- because I will open a firm to compete against them.

Which will then be crushed by the larger firms.

[AuSable River]

In summary, your advocacy of a political economy is seriously flawed.

For example, it is obvious that a major determining factor in where money is allocated or invested within a statist society is politics. More specifically, politicians divert money to where it will give them more power and privledge irrespective of whether this redistibution will benefit societal economic growth.

In contrast, free market participants are wholly economic actors, hence those that most effectively allocate scarce resources to the most economically effective uses will see their investments grow --- those that dont will see their fortunes decline.

poltiical economy -- far less economic growth because those controlling resources are not guided and checked by economic realities. Capitalist economy, not only voluntary which has moral implications, but all resources are guided and checked by economic realities -- hence far stronger growth.

do you understand this a priori ?

...so no, you don't have a comment on the numbers and want to bitch about government fucking up the "free market" some more?

you cherry picked data starting from 2005 ??!!

my data was more relevant.

it was from the financial crisis when government spending as a % of GDP had peaked during the welfare state expansion.

you simply picked 2005 which was preceded by significant downsizing of the government --- indeed, your data represents the first modest expansion of government after a long period of significant downsizing.

amusingly, this intellectually dishonest mavoran tried to post data that showed govt expanded very little under obama -- however, his baseline was 2010 and not 2009 when obama passed the biggest spending increase in history.

[The UK in Exile]

many competitive coercive corporations means much more efficent coercive instruments.

how do you respond to this?

i can respond to your illogic this way.

1) a corporation cannot become coercive in a free society -- they get thrown in jail.
by your own argument government is inefficent. if it is forced to compete in the sphere of coercive instruments it will quickly be overshadowed by a a more efficent private competitor. hence it will not be able to throw them in jail. they will be "too well armed to fail"

2) a corporation cannot screw the consumer in a free society --- because consumers cant be coerced to buy something they think is not valued correctly.
it can lie to them, kill anyone who reports the truth, sue or squash lawsuits by brute force lawyering.

3) a corporation cannot screw the consumer or society --- because I will open a firm to compete against them.
only if the compete to sell the best product, rather than to coerce the most customers. or race to make the cheapest product. or form a monopoly.

try reading Jennifer Government, it explains this very well.

how do you respond?

[Liriena]

A) Have some manners.
B) Don't be an arrogant prick.
C) Don't generalize or insult your opponents with every breath and then expect them to treat you with any respect or seriousness.
D) Go to college and read some fricking Economy, Philosophy and History books.
E) Grow up.
F) Fuck you.

MODS, please be so kind to forgive my language and manners. There is only so much my highly-tolerant-to-offense mind can take.

Do you have a substantive, factual, empirically supported or logical question or comment ?

I didn't see one in your post -- perhaps I missed it.

With all the respect due to a disrespectful, arrogant know-it-all with an attitude...you wound't see a "substantive, factual, empirically supported or logical question or comment" if it fell on you like a ton of Economy, History and Philosophy books...starting for Keynes.

Besides, I see no reason to argue with you.

[Mavorpen]

amusingly, this intellectually dishonest mavoran tried to post data that showed govt expanded very little under obama -- however, his baseline was 2010 and not 2009 when obama passed the biggest spending increase in history.

FOr example, he posts a links to images that purport to show that republicans are the biggest deficit spenders -- including an intellectually dishonest link that fails to show deficit increases under obama (his link mysteriously cuts off prior to 2009 when national debt expanded from $10 trillion to a record $16 trillion in 4 years).

Lolwhut? Only one of the links leaves out Obama. The other two include him. Also, I'm tired of the right saying that Obama increased the debt by $5 trillion. No, he did not. It increased UNDER him, not because of him. Here, more evidence you're full of shit:

http://gooznews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/changes_deficit.jpg

Moreover, another intellectually dishonest link begins the obama administration from 2010 instead of 2009 when he pushed through through trillions in new stimulus spending.

2009 was Bush's fiscal year.

In sum, this ideologue is dishonest. His ideological programming allows him to correctly see republican hypocrisy and corruption -- but he is blinded by programming to see at least equally damaging democrat party corruption and waste.

No, it's not. You just don't like facts. I've shown that liberals aren't the ones that make government bigger. You've given no evidence otherwise.

No matter, I will use logic to destroy him starting with the following questions:

1) how can this ideologue explain how bankers earned more profit in 2 years under obama, pelosi and reid then the previous eight years under bush ? And is this any surprise when wall street players dominate the obama cabinet ? (from the leftwing huffpo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/0 ... 79482.html)

It doesn't. My whole post was about how you're full of shit claiming that liberals want to make government bigger. I agree Obama has been shit when it comes to not giving in to corporations.

2) if the obama administration is not corrupt -- then explain why lobbyist spending reached record levels in the immediate two years after he gained power ?? And is Mavorpen surprised that from 2008 to 2010, washington was 'open for corruption to the highest bidder' (from a leftwing thinktank: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/1 ... ?mobile=nc)

What am I surprised about? Enough with the straw men.

3) And lastly, are you so deluded that you think that only republicans are corrupt ?

Nope, but nice straw man.

I will deal with this leftist mavoren and his offensive attitude and move on to the next leftwinger.

You've dealt with nothing, you've dodged everything and refuse to give any evidence.

Here we observe the OP's inability to read.

[Vareiln]

You're one of those "Never trust the government" types, aren't you?