31–40 of 47 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Didn't work for whom? Everyone from voting public in liberal democracies (Sweden, Canada, Germany), to the voting public in less liberal democracies (India), the Islamic world (Egypt), to communist regimes (China, Vietnam).
What do you mean didn't work for the voting public in Sweden?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean didn't work for the voting public in Sweden?
The voting public didn’t like the slow economic growth and high taxes, which is why they voted for parties who promised to reform the system.
Well I've tried to set up a basic lab in an academic environment twice now. It took months every time and took ages to get tiny amounts of money, at big (European) universities. One out of the two times I did get money ... from a pharma company (and attention from several of their senior employees, which was even more useful than the money). So please, can the public ... well ... pay for drugs once?
If only! Healthcare is somehow not a good or service one should pay for as a normal transaction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sweden's state-owned enterprises were sold purely because of politics. No one reversed course. It's just the right wing got majority and sold what they could when they had the chance including a large amount of public housing, schools and healthcare facilities.
No, it wasn’t some accident of Swedish politics. The same thing happened all over the world at the same time. It happened in India, it happened in China. It happened in Germany. The movement toward state owned enterprises in the 1960s and 1970s was reversed in myriad countries with myriad political systems because it didn’t work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The voting public didn’t like the slow economic growth and high taxes, which is why they voted for parties who promised to reform the system.
So "heavy investment in state-owned industries just doesn't work" is actually just you drawing far-reaching conclusions over shifting economic policies and/or voting patterns. That line of reasoning doesn't even pass the most basic correlation is not causation test.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It surely is. The federal government ran a $880 billion deficit in 2018. You do realise the government is supposed to run a deficit, right? That's quite literally where money comes from. You can make the case that it's too big ... and it is, but it should run a deficit.
That’s not how it works at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not how it works at all.
Care to expand on that?
Moreover, most money is not created by the government printing money, it's created by federal reserve purchases of debt or bank lending. Neither of those are reflected in the deficit. The prior poster is thus incorrect to say that the government "needs" to run a budget deficit "because that's where money comes form."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It surely is. The federal government ran a $880 billion deficit in 2018. You do realise the government is supposed to run a deficit, right? That's quite literally where money comes from. You can make the case that it's too big ... and it is, but it should run a deficit.
That’s not how it works at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it wasn’t some accident of Swedish politics. The same thing happened all over the world at the same time. It happened in India, it happened in China. It happened in Germany. The movement toward state owned enterprises in the 1960s and 1970s was reversed in myriad countries with myriad political systems because it didn’t work.
I didn't say anything about the rest of the world. You made a statement about Sweden, even highlighting that it was "every single country" which, unless you want to qualify that statement, simply wasn't accurate. State-owned enterprises in Sweden weren't sold off because they didn't provide service or even didn't make profits but because of shifting politics in Sweden and the EU. Politicians who never wanted state-ow…
And pray tell, how did that happen? How do people come into power in Sweden? I thought that it has a system where people propose what they will do, and the population votes on whose ideas and proposals they like the most, doesn't it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it wasn’t some accident of Swedish politics. The same thing happened all over the world at the same time. It happened in India, it happened in China. It happened in Germany. The movement toward state owned enterprises in the 1960s and 1970s was reversed in myriad countries with myriad political systems because it didn’t work.
I didn't say anything about the rest of the world. You made a statement about Sweden, even highlighting that it was "every single country" which, unless you want to qualify that statement, simply wasn't accurate. State-owned enterprises in Sweden weren't sold off because they didn't provide service or even didn't make profits but because of shifting politics in Sweden and the EU. Politicians who never wanted state-ow…