Modernization or union bust?

Originally posted by shavixmir
Why do you consider the rich abusing the poor to be the only valid method of civilization?
Do you not reckon that the friction between these two sides creates change?

And when do you think that change will stop?

The socialists abuse the poor by promising them equality and instead making everyone else poor too.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
The socialists abuse the poor by promising them equality and instead making everyone else poor too.

Why such unsophisticated pronouncements? How have socialist measures made "everyone else poor too" in, say, western Europe or northern Europe or Japan? Schoolboyish slogans do not further the debate one jot.

From a left-wing site:

http://socialistworld.net/eng/2009/10/2601.html



"
But this Swedish model ceased to exist long time ago. "It is a long way from the halcyon days of the 1970s, when the ‘Swedish model’ of cradle-to-grave welfare for all was held up to the world as an example of modernity and progress", reported CNN almost triumphally in 2003.

Nowadays, most capitalist commentators point to a ‘new Swedish model’ of privatisation, deregulation and other market orientated "reforms". They also point to the way Sweden supposedly managed its banking crisis in the beginning of the 1990s. In short, the present Swedish model reads as a capitalist success story to show that neo-liberalism ‘works’.

"To speak of Sweden as socialist today is pretty far off the mark. Neo-liberal reforms have gone much further here in some sectors than in the US. Sweden has become a sort of laboratory for privatization", commented Brian Palmer, a professor of anthropology at Sweden's Uppsala University. Olle Wästberg, a liberal and the former Consul-General to New York, boasted that: "In many fields, we [Sweden] have more private ownership compared to other European countries, and to America. About 80 percent of all new schools are privately run, as are the railroads and the subway system."
"

Originally posted by eljefejesus
From a left-wing site:

http://socialistworld.net/eng/2009/10/2601.html



"
But this Swedish model ceased to exist long time ago. "It is a long way from the halcyon days of the 1970s, when the ‘Swedish model’ of cradle-to-grave welfare for all was held up to the world as an example of modernity and progress", reported CNN almost triumphally in 20 ...[text shortened]... f all new schools are privately run, as are the railroads and the subway system."
"

There's no escaping the fact that "...the socialists abuse the poor by promising them equality and instead making everyone else poor too" is the kind of thing that the thick student in the class says because he hasn't read widely and is still in his sports fan stage. And rather too many of your posts on this Forum are of that nature. The more coherenet and grown up ones appear to be your cut & pastes.

Another source:

http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/1511

"
During the phase when Sweden went from agriculture and poverty to industry and wealth, the economy was very open and flexible. Free traders won in the late 19th Century the battle for free trade, which was very important for exports and industry. Entrepreneurs started up small businesses easily in a dynamic environment with low taxes and strong property protection. In fact, the tax pressure rose only from 10 to 20 per cent of GDP between 1890 and 1950.

During the socialist phase, however, the size of the state exploded. The tax pressure increased to 50 per cent of GDP during the three decades up to 1980. Many companies were socialised by the state. The state interference in markets grew and the ultimate aim was a more centrally planned economy.

The socialist period created problems. Growth decreased and Sweden started its decline in the OECD list of countries in GDP per capita. Inflation soared and so did budget deficits, at times at around ten per cent of GDP. Unemployment reached high levels. Problems with matching supply and demand in markets with state intervention and in the welfare monopolies were mounting. Only one of the 50 biggest companies today has been started before 1970, which indicates which period was successful and which one that was not.

This was followed by a rather intense period of market-oriented reforms from the late 1980s to the mid 1990s. Inflation was reduced and the Central Bank made independent. The EU membership opened up markets and normalised several of the more radically socialist features of the Swedish society. Marginal tax rates were cut, making education and work more profitable. Many markets, such as telecom, taxi, finance and gas - were de-regulated. That led to a telecom success, with Ericsson as the flagship, and vastly lower prices for phone calls. A pensions reform substantially reduced the level of state pensions and allowed citizens to invest part of the state pension in the private market.

Where does that put Sweden today? A neo-liberal country that became socialist and then embarked on market-oriented reforms in several areas. Today, Sweden contains both socialism and free markets. But the same truth as before applies: where there has been free-market reform, there is success, and where there is socialism, there are problems.
"

Gooooooooal! I win!!!!!!!!!!!!!



....again.

Inefficiencies from socialism and debt in Japan...


"
For three decades, overall real economic growth had been spectacular - a 10% average in the 1960s, a 5% average in the 1970s, and a 4% average in the 1980s. Growth slowed markedly in the 1990s, averaging just 1.7%, largely because of the after effects of inefficient investment and an asset price bubble in the late 1980s that required a protracted period of time for firms to reduce excess debt, capital, and labor. In October 2007 Japan's longest post-war period of economic expansion ended after 69 months and Japan entered into recession in 2008, with 2009 marking a return to near 0% interest rates. The 10-year privatization of Japan Post, which has functioned not only as the national postal delivery system but also, through its banking and insurance facilities as Japan's largest financial institution, was completed in October 2007, marking a major milestone in the process of structural reform. The Japanese financial sector was not heavily exposed to sub-prime mortgages or their derivative instruments and weathered the initial effect of the global credit crunch, but a sharp downturn in business investment and global demand for Japan's exports in late 2008 pushed Japan further into a recession. Japan's huge government debt, which totals 170% of GDP, and the aging of the population are two major long-run problems. Debate continues on the role of and effects of reform in restructuring the economy.
"

Goal, goal, goal, goooooooooooooal!

Originally posted by eljefejesus
The socialists abuse the poor by promising them equality and instead making everyone else poor too.

So not only the poor are poor but "everyone else [is] poor too" as a result of socialist policies in Japan and Sweden for instance? Everyone is poor? Everyone? Great. Good for you. Now, what's your favourite in train in Thomas The Tank Engine?

I forget not to bother with the rift-raft sometimes.


🙄

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm not convinced privitization of electrical utility companies provides any serious benefit. Not just because of the Enron debacle, but there are significant scale advantages. They have been privatized here in the 90s and bills haven't gone down.

But is the government spending less on it? Is there more investment from any private business profit? Is the company worsening at a slower pace or at a higher pace.. or is it improving fundamentally?

Rates are not the only measure, but certainly if they stopped increasing by as much as they did under public ownership or costing the government so much money, that's something.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
The socialists abuse the poor by promising them equality and instead making everyone else poor too.

You really haven't understood socialism at all, have you?

Originally posted by eljefejesus
But is the government spending less on it? Is there more investment from any private business profit? Is the company worsening at a slower pace or at a higher pace.. or is it improving fundamentally?

Rates are not the only measure, but certainly if they stopped increasing by as much as they did under public ownership or costing the government so much money, that's something.

I would be curious to get more specific data on this but I haven't seen any. As for the quality of service, there hasn't really been any difference. There were hardly any blackouts before, and hardly any blackouts now (hardly as in: when it happens it's a news item on national TV). But that's probably due to the fact that the company that manages the electricity network is still state-owned.

I only have some data on the privitization of the railways (again, the rail network managing is still state-controlled), where prices have gone up 50% while operating costs and overhead increased as well (but there are some factors which increased operating costs intrinsically, of course, so I don't know what the difference would be if you would correct for this).

Originally posted by shavixmir
I presume that's rhetoric?
If it was an attempt at wit... oh dear.

Well at least you know now about Gorbals Mick,as he was affectionately called by the MPs, most of whom could not understand his guttural attempts to speak English.

Originally posted by FMF
There's no escaping the fact that "...the socialists abuse the poor by promising them equality and instead making everyone else poor too" is the kind of thing that the thick student in the class says because he hasn't read widely and is still in his sports fan stage. And rather too many of your posts on this Forum are of that nature. The more coherenet and grown up ones appear to be your cut & pastes.

It is you who needs to grow up.