Unless the Goal Is Lower Living Standards, Bernie Sanders Has Learned the Wrong Lesson from Europe
. . . at how poor it feels. Oregon, Maddogshome, is number 18 in state to state GDP (PPP) comparisons. Mark Perry has a nice comparison between US GDP per capita by state vs. European countries and Japan, Korea, Mexico and China. I was surprised that Oregon ($54,858.00) beat all of the listed countries, and even beat the US GDP (PPP) average ($54,629). Yes, oil rich countries like Norway at $64,856.00, Luxembourg at $97,661.90, and Switzerland at $57,235.30 are outside the EU, but within Europe and do very well, but small Norway's economy is substantially oil dependent, and both Luxembourg, and Switzerland are small countries with large banking, and financial sectors. These are factors unreproducible for the US. Like Dan Mitchell, I like and respect much of what the Nordic nations have done, but I suspect they will need to follow, and even improve upon Sweden's welfare reforms. Frankly, I suspect that the US, the Nordic countries, Switzerland, and a few other nations are beginning to slowly but surely find the sweet spot here at the End of History. Exactly what the sweet spot is, has yet to be defined, and I suspect that we will find many interpretations. The ultimate question is how much security the people feel comfortable with versus how much liberty they desire. The charts and links above seem to point out that the US has done amazingly well as a large nation in creating the economic liberty/wealth aspect of the equation, while the smaller more homogenous Nordic countries have done particularly well in creating a safety net. Sweden's welfare reforms have been particularly productive. If the US would begin adopting more of the Swedish welfare reforms is seems likely we could move more quickly to define the sweet spot. When it comes to ranking countries by per capita GDP (PPP), The US position is amazing. It comes in at 10th after 5 tiny oil kingdoms, and 4 tiny trade, and/or banking and finance countries. Unless the progressives have their way and the US economic engine is hobbled, it is clear the US will continue to accelerate economically forcing the Nordic nations to continue with welfare reforms. The alternative is to be left behind as The US pulls away economically. I have no doubt the Nordic nations will not allow this to happen. The Southern European nations are another story completely. The graph found in Dan Mitchell's piece show how clearly the southern European nations are falling behind in the economic race for per capita prosperity. This graph clearly shows that there is something about the germanic states, and areas which allow them to become far more prosperous than other parts of Europe. These nations include Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany (although former East Germany seems to have been damaged by its time as a Soviet Satellite), Switzerland, Austria, and the germanic parts of Italy, and France. Also interestingly the north of Spain is particularly prosperous, as is southern Ireland (an historic change). Notice also how the large cities in many of the lower GDP countries are GDP sinks, for example, London, Paris, Lisbon, Madrid, Athens, and Budapest all show up as anomalously prosperous areas against a backdrop of much lower prosperity. While we should not totally discount the tiny super prosperous nations like Switzerland, Luxembourg, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Norway, these offer far fewer opportunities to learn than will the slightly larger to medium sized nations like the Nordic countries. The super tiny tend to be wealthy because they excel at something like banking, or trade, or are sitting upon a large pool of oil. Large nations cannot replicate these specific benefits. At this point the very best thing America can do is continue to drive forward economically, creating prosperity for all of our citizens. This will pressure the other nations of the world to follow suit. The ultimate goal is to create sufficient wealth to fully eradicate world poverty.
Comments
Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
. . . redistribute wealth. "Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015. So what is the goal of environmental policy? “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer. For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn’t really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that “the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.'" All that remains unspoken is the desire to bell the American economy with massive regulations and restrictions. Why? Thank American-style capitalism for this chart - AEI America is economically accelerating away from the other nations, even the wealthiest nations. Note that Sweden began to reform its welfare state just before its economic performance began improving in the 1990s. Sweden 'slimmest Nordic welfare state ' "'The generosity of the system has declined," said Gothenburg University politics professor Jonas Hinnfors. "Much of this already started changing in the 1980s and especially in the 1990s.' In the wake of a banking crisis in the early nineties, Stockholm scrapped housing subsidies, reformed the pension system and slashed the healthcare budget. A voucher-based system that allows publicly funded, privately managed free schools to compete with state schools was introduced, and has drawn attention from right-wing politicians elsewhere, including Britain's Conservative Party. In 2006, conservative Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt's government accelerated the pace of reform, tightening the criteria for unemployment benefits and sick pay while lowering taxes. Income tax in Sweden is now lower than in France, Belgium and Denmark, and public spending as a share of GDP has declined from a record 71.0 percent in 1993 to 53.3 percent last year. Once the darling of progressives, Sweden has become a model for free-market-leaning thinkers including British weekly The Economist, which last year hailed the scaled-down Nordic model as "the next supermodel." "They offer a blueprint of how to reform the public sector, making the state far more efficient," it wrote." Tragically, this is one of the most useful lessons coming out of Europe today, yet neither other European countries nor America's left/progressives are willing to accept this received wisdom, and implement it. The real problem is the old progressive system allowed extensive graft and corruption, and politician find this invigorating, while the reformed system allows little room for graft and corruption. The other received wisdom coming from Europe is that the endemic political corruption, family structure, and business/employment relations of the southern European countries make them a model to avoid at all costs. They will likely return to a sub-first world economic status unless they change. As the article discusses, the budget bite which is affecting nearly all of Europe, and nearly all of the United States is serious, and demands political, economic, and welfare state reforms. Ultimately, I suspect that all will be forced to move to a blend of American and Swedish models. Here at the End of History we are finding that while we understand the macro level pillars of republican governance, free markets, and reformed religions, there is much to accomplish at the micro level implementing the three pillars with respect to each institution. So, applying the End of History received wisdom to education means determining whether vouchers, or some other mechanism works better than public schools, and whether those vouchers should be extended to all schools, or only secular schools, etc. Back to the subject at hand. America is accelerating away from the rest of the world economically. This is causing much consternation among the elite in many nations. Sweden has apparently found a way to maintain a safety net which is greater than that offered by America but also create greater economic growth. Global warming is a policy run amok, its underlying goals are venal. The idea that limiting economic growth, and per capita GDP will somehow be a benefit is wrong. We have seen that over time wealth limits population, and solves problems like pollution. This will continue to happen and improved the lives of all. Limiting economic growth in light of this is a human rights violation of the greatest magnitude. Both Sweden and America can learn much form each others economic models. Europe would do well to forget the punitive attempts to shackle America's economy, and instead take to heart the best options arriving from the American, and Swedish economic models. China tussles over legacy of cultural revolution - FT.com
What could have possibly been worth the deaths of tens of millions of people? "An editorial in the Global Times, the party-controlled tabloid, on Tuesday warned against “small groups” creating “a totally chaotic misunderstanding of the cultural revolution” on the upcoming anniversary, criticizing both those seeking to restore the legacy of the period and those who might be overly critical. “After the party has long ago given an official conclusion . . . discussions strictly should not depart from the party’s decided politics or thinking,” it said. The party’s official verdict on the period is that it was a “leftist deviation” primarily caused by Mao but manipulated by counter-revolutionaries." Oh bloody hell! A detour, a lark, a mere side trip, which resulted in economic disaster, millions murdered, and for a while it was very clear, Mordor was China. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ It simply is not possible to take authoritarian socialism seriously. It is what happens when a country allows a group of psychopaths to play with the levers of power. Never forget progressivism is its idiot younger sibling. A Presidential Rebuke to the Saudis . . . he bows to the House of Saud on his first trip, and now pillories the House of Saud as repressive, extremist, free riders. Unbelievable, American Presidents do not bow to tyrants, dictators, or hooligans. How he now got this correct is a bit beyond my ken.
"Mr. Obama, who has blamed Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab governments for encouraging anti-American militancy, also told Mr. Goldberg that the Saudis should try harder to “share the neighborhood” by achieving “some sort of cold peace” with their enemies in Iran. The Saudis promptly fired back. Writing in the Arab News, Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former Saudi intelligence chief, argued that Mr. Obama does not appreciate all his government has done, including sharing intelligence in the fight against terrorism. But the fact is, this decades-long partnership, born of antipathy to the Soviet Union and an American reliance on Saudi oil, is growing increasingly brittle." Obama's tactic here is appropriate, but long over due. With the USSR long gone, oil prices responding to more rational economic information, we have little interest in standing beside the House of Saud in its quest to dominate the Middle East, and recreate its neighbors as Wahhabi's. Even a cursory understanding of the history of the Middle East, and North Africa shows an ever changing cascade of Sultanates, Empires, Caliphates, and Kingdoms. This will only end once Islam is reformed. The first step in the Islamic Reformation is the reduction of the House of Saud, and the Wahhabi/Salafi. If Obama keeps this up, I might just start believing he knows what he is doing. More likely he has a good advisor who has his ear on a few issues. Regardless, we could use more of this, and less of the Syrian, Libyan, Iraq, Afghanistan fiasco's. Obama vows to bury the Cold War in Cuba - FT.com
. . . looks to the US for salvation, Obama throw a lifeline. This was the correct thing to do, at least the lifeline was correct. The trip to Cuba was an inane photo op for President Golf Pants. Cuba has never been anything but an incompetent economic nation. Without a sugar daddy, Cuba would be Haiti with a better coastline. The USSR stood as sugar daddy until it collapsed, then it was replaced by Venezuela until it collapsed. The US will not be sugar daddy, but will offer trade, tourism, and ideas. Let's see if Cuba can pull this off. President Golf Pants said he would, “bury the last remnant of the Cold War in the Americas” and called on the young people of Cuba to “build something new”. Speaking in a televised address, Mr Obama told the 84-year-old Cuban leader Raúl Castro, who was watching from a balcony of the Gran Teatro in central Havana, that he “need not fear the different voices of the Cuban people”. “Many suggested that I come here and ask the people of Cuba to tear something down,” he said, in a reference to Ronald Reagan’s famous Cold War call in Berlin to “tear down this wall”. “But I’m appealing to the young people of Cuba who will lift something up, build something new.” A generational change was taking place in the country, he said." I might suggest they build a tomb to the Castro brothers, but that might be seen as a bit uppity. The Castro's are smart and know this is a lifeline allowing them to eek their leaky barge past their mortal coils, but then all bets are off. It seems likely within a few years that the Americas will finally be free of the tyrannical grasp of International Socialism. Obama, of course, does not want to give Reagan the credit for this change, but it is primarily his. With Reagan's Berlin speech, helped by low oil prices, and the US-Soviet arms race, Reagan brought down the Evil Empire, without a shot being fired. Cuba would fall, it was only a matter of time, and money. But I will give Obama credit, for once he actually acted, and accomplished something positive. His usual dithering is too annoying to discuss. Obama is also correct to crush the Cold War mentality, later in the article we see instances of this, and it is foolish beyond words. It has been 25 years since the fall of the USSR, and we are only now getting around to changing our political reality? The neocons are simply Cold Warriors written small. People who hunger for war, as a mechanism of change. This is not the way to achieve change in our world. The Cold War long over, it is time to realize America's strength is not military. We need to begin exercising American power through a more moral, and ethical framework. We need to seek change through the parties who are in need of change. Sometimes this will mean standing by while the parties engage in warfare, but more commonly, it will mean playing the parent at the table, demanding conciliation, compromise, and ultimately settlement. Obama has made the correct decision with Cuba, and he does not have the time in office to do too much damage to this change. Pray for the correct successor, in both nations. Update: The AP has a story out about the Cuban reaction to parts of the Obama speech. It seems Obama was channeling Reagan! "Cubans who saw President Barack Obama's speech, which was broadcast on state TV, are jubilant about his calls for greater democracy on the island. Juan Francisco Ugarte Oliva, a 71-year-old retired refrigeration technician, called Obama's address "a jewel." Ugarte says the American president "dared to say in the presence of the leaders, of Raul Castro, that (Cubans) had the right to protest peacefully without being beaten or arrested." Barbara Ugarte, a 45-year-old gift shop owner, says she agreed with everything Obama said. She says Cubans "need democracy, freedom of expression." Cubans expressed a startling degree of openness and anger directed at their own leaders. Anabel Rodriguez, a housewife, says the speech was "very correct." She praised Obama for speaking about human rights, saying what you think and choosing your own president, 'not those that they impose on you.'" How much more Republican could he have been? Hooked on a feeling that Amazon is too addictive by far
"Amazon is taking over my life. Books were the gateway drug, of course, but I got really hooked by the Prime subscription service, with free overnight delivery on everything from moth spray to snow boots. When they boosted Prime’s price but threw in free video services, I was sceptical of streaming and the kids said Netflix had a better catalogue. But I still wanted the free delivery, so we kept on paying the higher price. Now, the kids have basically given up live television in favour of Prime’s old shows. As they predicted, we ran through the free movies quite quickly, but the rental process is so convenient. So we are paying Amazon still more money to rent premium videos. I haven’t even tried the new UK grocery delivery service yet. But, if my current service is late one more time, I just might have to." Quelle horreur! Low prices on everyday products, no additional cost shipping, excellent one time service, free stuff like videos with easy peasy premium video rentals, and grocery delivery too. What's not to whinge about? Except everything. SideBar: [Brook, give each kid a monthly video allowance of $X, you make up the number. Then let them know if they would like to watch more, they can get a job, or even perform services around the house. Offer a reasonable schedule of payments for services, and, well, parent. It really is not that difficult, and it's fun watching the little emperors find out what the real world is like.] So, what's the actual complaint? That is a bit squishy, but this seems to be part of it. "[Amazon] already does a lot of “last mile” local deliveries itself and, this week, the group announced it had leased 20 Boeing 767 jets as it takes even more of the shipping process in-house. Last week, Amazon also unveiled its latest attempt to rule the connected home. Essentially, Amazon is attempting to hook customers with one service and then become the hub for a broader array of offerings." Yeah, apparently Brook has the vapors because Amazon has "discovered" that all kinds of services for the homeowner are absolute crap, and has decided to focus on improving those services by an order of magnitude. Jesus H. Tap-dancing Christ, it is the 21st century, there is no reason to put up with 19th century services levels, and quality. But apparently Brook pines for the quality, and service of the long wait for the crappy product. "Now, there is nothing wrong with having a huge share of a market, especially, as in Amazon’s case, if the company offers good service and reasonable prices for consumers. But competition issues arise when companies abuse their position to disadvantage customers, suppliers or competitors." So, is this an indirect allegation of another complaint? Or is this just nonspecific whinging? Brook, it is best to be specific, otherwise we do not know what you are thinking. Hold on, Brook has an example, "Back in the 1990s, Microsoft got into all sorts of trouble for doing just that. US and EU regulators alleged that the technology group had abused the dominance of its Windows operating system to crush rival web browsers and media players. The US case eventually settled on terms seen as favourable to Microsoft. But the EU fined the company €860m." Huh? Her example is Microsoft 1990s? Look, this is a whinging worry about The M word, you know, monopoly. And Brook's example shows why it is not a worry, and never was. Microsoft was leviathan back in the 1990s. Desktop computers reigned supreme, and the only alternative was the costly laptop. But June 29, 2007 changed everything, with the introduction of the iPhone. Microsoft has been unable to break into the operating system market for smart phones, tablets, and the like. The result? The Death of the PC Has Not Been Greatly Exaggerated And if Microsoft is not careful, the death of Microsoft. Euro government tried to fix a problem in the 1990s, but couldn't because government is not capable of addressing these issues. Apple fixed the problem in one day. Microsoft was never a monopoly, and the European actions against Microsoft in the 1990s had nothing to do with consumers, or value to consumers, it had to do with supporting Microsoft competitors who where not capable of competing in the market. It was nothing more than support for dying, zombie companies favored by government. In the free market, there are vanishingly few monopolies, and those exist only because they provide such excellent services, and prices that no competition can beat. If you do not believe this name 5 monopolies, which are not created, and/or supported by legislation, or other government actions. The cable company, the phone company, don't qualify, they are creatures of government creation, not monopoly arising from the free markets themselves. Not only are there only vanishingly few monopolies in the free market, even the largest corporations come, and go, regularly winking in and out of existence. Remember the US's largest retailer? No, not Walmart, The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company. Go read the history, I am old enough to remember the A&P, and my grandmother shopping there. Remember Pan Am Airline? Hughes Air West? How about American Motors, Brown Shoe, Studebaker, Collins Radio, Detroit Steel, Zenith Electronics, and National Sugar Refining? These were Fortune 500 companies in 1955, but not in 2014. Ok, I don't know about Pan Am, and Hughes Air West, but the rest were. "Comparing the Fortune 500 companies in 1955 to the Fortune 500 in 2014, there are only 61 companies that appear in both lists. In other words, only 12.2% of the Fortune 500 companies in 1955 were still on the list 59 years later in 2014, and almost 88% of the companies from 1955 have either gone bankrupt, merged, or still exist but have fallen from the top Fortune 500 companies (ranked by total revenues). Most of the companies on the list in 1955 are unrecognizable, forgotten companies today (e.g. Armstrong Rubber, Cone Mills, Hines Lumber, Pacific Vegetable Oil, and Riegel Textile)." Fortune 500 firms in 1955 vs. 2014; 88% are gone, and we’re all better off because of that dynamic ‘creative destruction’ Brook who is the Companies editor over at the Financial Times does not see to understand this dynamic. Perhaps she understands it but presumes it only operative in the past? I don't know. But this process continues apace, and I would suspect that the future will be at least as harsh as the past with the creative destruction of corporations which initially provide a valuable service but which later fail to do so. The difference between Brook and Maddog is immense. I believe that what Amazon is doing is the minimum acceptable here in the 21st century. We are, after all, at the End of History. We know what works, politically - republican democracy, economically - free markets with capital formation features, and religion - reformed (Protestant Reformation) religions. Why we would accept 19th or even 20th century standards from our corporations is beyond comprehension. Buy the best products you can at the very best prices you can, do not care about the nationality of the company, or any of the weird local only shopping. These schemes are unwittingly falling into a trap that they will perpetuate low quality products, with high cost, and poor energy, and pollution allocations. Buy the best, and force the rest to either make the shift to the 21st century, or go bankrupt. Happy shopping! UN touts federalism ahead of Syria talks | News | DW.COM | 11.03.2016
"The Saudi-backed HNC has dismissed the "idea of federalism" in Syria, calling it a prelude to partition. But the Syrian government, Moscow and the Kurdish PYD believe it could be key to ending the war." After the invasion, the great failure of the Bush reactivation of the Iraq war was to keep the nation intact over the objections of the people of Iraq. The people should have been allowed to either keep the nation intact, or partition as they desired. The Bush administration kowtowed to Turkey and kept the nation intact. This was to keep the Iraqi Kurds from creating a greater Kurdistan bordering Turkey, and Syria. Turkey believed, likely correctly, that the Turkish Kurds would have split off to join greater Kurdistan. Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript This was once a great document, which was studied by American students. It is simple, clear, and understandable. But it is obviously no longer studied, at least by those running the US. The Kurds in all three nations, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey had valid reason to separate under the concepts embedded in the United States Declaration of Independence, and form their own, new nation. We should have assisted them in this noble quest. The result would have been a much more stable Iraq likely fractured along the lines of a Shia Iraq, a Kurdish Iraq, and a Sunni Iraq. We now have the opportunity to not make this same mistake twice. We need to forcefully stand for the position that the people of Syria should make this determination on their own. It is long past time for We the People, to stand up to our government on these simple matters of choice. The Cold War is long over and these long calcified carbuncles of bad policy should be excised. We need to be the Champion of republican governance, free markets, and reformed religion, we know, here at the End of History, these things work. |
AuthorMaddog Categories
All
|