An RT wow

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fudzy
  • Start date Start date
DJ... said:
ghoti, we've been down this path before. There is simply not enough data to start any sort of statistical comparison between the two...
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Richer countries have more money, thus they naturally look to spend more trying to uplift their people, which mean richer countries have large social welfare program. This doesn't mean large social welfare programs automatically make nations rich. Causation, correlation games.

Most of these arguments are way too simplified.
 
Zyzzyva said:
Absolutely. Richer countries have more money, thus they naturally look to spend more trying to uplift their people, which mean richer countries have large social welfare program. This doesn't mean large social welfare programs automatically make nations rich. Causation, correlation games.

Most of these arguments are way too simplified.
Click to expand...

You speak a load of crap. Finland was devastated by Soviet pillaging and Sweden had food riots they were so poor (the food charity systems failed). France & Germany were paying off two world wars! Those countries were fked, which is WHY they went welfare. They didnt go welfare in their best moments. They went welfare when they were fked.

Most of these arguments are way too simplified.
Click to expand...
Unlike your arguments which are detailed and full of empirical evidence. /sarcasm
 
ghoti, it isn't about whether or not it works (which it won't in the long run), it is about the most effective adoption of economics. Which welfare systems simply are not. As was adequately explained on many previous occasions, welfare is not a wealth generator. In fact it stifles growth. Anyways - we've done this before too many times. I'm not feeling up to another in-depth thread about the same thing.

Like we agreed, we'll address this again once your lectures begin..:p
 
DJ... said:
ghoti, it isn't about whether or not it works (which it won't in the long run),
Click to expand...
Sorry if I listen to economists who use empirical evidence and mathematical models over this rather than people who dont.

it is about the most effective adoption of economics. Which welfare systems simply are not. As was adequately explained on many previous occasions, welfare is not a wealth generator. In fact it stifles growth. Anyways - we've done this before too many times. I'm not feeling up to another in-depth thread about the same thing.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Your method has nothing to back it up except political ideology. Just like the communists. I wish you could see neither extreme.... Market fundamentalism (extreme right) or Communism (extreme left) is the way to go. A more moderate approach, by taking the best from both worlds I think is ideal. And once again, I am simply emulating what the majority of economists are going with. This is not my idea or a new idea. Its a practical working idea that almost all the worlds successful countries have adopted. The welfare model works... It actually has a mechanism to deal with poverty.

Like we agreed, we'll address this again once your lectures begin..:p
Click to expand...
Yup, but I can guarantee that they wont be teaching me faith based austrian economics :)
 
ghoti said:
You speak a load of crap. Finland was devastated by Soviet pillaging and Sweden had food riots they were so poor (the food charity systems failed). France & Germany were paying off two world wars! Those countries were fked, which is WHY they went welfare. They didnt go welfare in their best moments. They went welfare when they were fked.


Unlike your arguments which are detailed and full of empirical evidence. /sarcasm
Click to expand...

Countries ultimately succeed for two main reasons. They have a population with a culture and skillset able to seize whatever opportunities their circumstance presents, and a circumstance filled with opportunity. There is a lot more to it than simply showing a graph of gdp versus social welfare spending over say 40 years.

How capable were they? What opportunities could they seize? Did they have a culture and people able to quickly ramp up to make use of those specific opportunities? What was the sociopolitical environment at the time, and how did this contribute to their story? You can go on and on. The point is countries succeed for many complex reasons.

In some ways large social programs can be effective, for instance education, but they can also grow to be unwieldy wastes of money, which affects the country in other ways. Look at England.
 
Last edited:
Not getting into it again. Sorry. We've done this all before. Even the progression of the arguments is the same...
 
DJ... said:
ghoti, it isn't about whether or not it works (which it won't in the long run), it is about the most effective adoption of economics. Which welfare systems simply are not. As was adequately explained on many previous occasions, welfare is not a wealth generator. In fact it stifles growth. Anyways - we've done this before too many times. I'm not feeling up to another in-depth thread about the same thing.

Like we agreed, we'll address this again once your lectures begin..:p
Click to expand...

+1
 
DJ... said:
Not getting into it again. Sorry. We've done this all before. Even the progression of the arguments is the same...
Click to expand...

I understand. I look forward to learning my main stream economics and coming back to this :)
 
That lady in the beginning should knock out her last front toof and she can make some good coin.
 
JamSync said:
Well the video clearly states that less educated Afrikaner whites were given a social safety net during the apartheid days. In other words they were given low paying jobs, health care, schooling et cetera as a reward for voting for the NATs.
Click to expand...

They were useless during apartheid, but had money doled out to them. Now that things are more competitive and they can't be cradled, they suffer.

I don't want to go as far as to say they got what was coming to them, but they grew up in a time when they had way more opportunities available than black people. They didn't go for them, and now that the playing field has been leveled, they suffer.
 
Bar0n said:
They were useless during apartheid, but had money doled out to them. Now that things are more competitive and they can't be cradled, they suffer.

I don't want to go as far as to say they got what was coming to them, but they grew up in a time when they had way more opportunities available than black people. They didn't go for them, and now that the playing field has been leveled, they suffer.
Click to expand...

Well you cannot really say the playing field is level. It's not level but there are jobs no doubt.

Well it is more level than it was under the white government i guess for all races.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X