- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Economies and Darwinism - Socialism vs Capitalism - EU vs US - 2012 vs 2019
Posted on 4/4/19 at 9:45 am
Posted on 4/4/19 at 9:45 am
As I listened to a CNBC discussion of economic Socialism vs Free Market, the Lottery Incentive occurred to me. What is the Lottery Incentive? It is the premise that folks understand the risk of "throwing money away" when participating in the lottery. Yet the higher the pot, the more people are willing to shell out to take that risk so that they might attain "the dream".
Free market risk concepts in entrepreneurialism are not dissimilar.
The higher the reward, the greater the chance potential entrepreneurs will risk time and capital to "win the pot". Nowhere is that traditionally more apparent than in the US. The higher the reward, the more people will dream to attain it. The more entrepreneurs, the more new ideas, the more new approaches to problem solving, the stronger the population.
Somewhere amongst those many offerings, "Darwinism of a market economy" will see the cream rise, and the "cream" is rewarded for it. Those are the foundations of American success, markets and capitalism. Those foundations are attitudinal, embedded within our psyche. They are the driver of American Exceptionalism.
The exceptualism psyche applies not just to invention, but extends to innovation. E.g., when a recession hits, American individuals and industry are more likely to seek innovative solution, and then to effectively recover, than are our socialist counterparts, even though the latter are supported by government. It is essentially akin to economic Darwinism at work.
The population as a whole grows stronger as result. It is an important nuance, because in the end GDP is of course a function of the population rather than government making the money. Despite apparent cruelty in attaining the result, a free-market population becomes more resilient. If GDP suffers, so too does the ability of a socialist government to supplement underperformance.
The comparison is of species with wide-exposure to survival-of-fittest in evolution vs populations whose protections prevented such exposure. As the fittest of former survive, they evolve through multiple extinctions, growing stronger through the challenge. Ultimately the "Darwin exposed" population is far more adept than its protected brethren.
All of which bring us to Socialism vs Capitalism - EU vs US - 2012 vs 2019. In 2012, the more socialist EU already under performed the US on a per capita basis. However as a whole, EU GDP outstripped US GDP $17.3T to $16.2T. Fast forward to 2018 and the numbers are $18.8T for the EU vs $20.1T for the US.
Pushing ahead with American Exceptionalism is what MAGA is about.
Free market risk concepts in entrepreneurialism are not dissimilar.
The higher the reward, the greater the chance potential entrepreneurs will risk time and capital to "win the pot". Nowhere is that traditionally more apparent than in the US. The higher the reward, the more people will dream to attain it. The more entrepreneurs, the more new ideas, the more new approaches to problem solving, the stronger the population.
Somewhere amongst those many offerings, "Darwinism of a market economy" will see the cream rise, and the "cream" is rewarded for it. Those are the foundations of American success, markets and capitalism. Those foundations are attitudinal, embedded within our psyche. They are the driver of American Exceptionalism.
The exceptualism psyche applies not just to invention, but extends to innovation. E.g., when a recession hits, American individuals and industry are more likely to seek innovative solution, and then to effectively recover, than are our socialist counterparts, even though the latter are supported by government. It is essentially akin to economic Darwinism at work.
The population as a whole grows stronger as result. It is an important nuance, because in the end GDP is of course a function of the population rather than government making the money. Despite apparent cruelty in attaining the result, a free-market population becomes more resilient. If GDP suffers, so too does the ability of a socialist government to supplement underperformance.
The comparison is of species with wide-exposure to survival-of-fittest in evolution vs populations whose protections prevented such exposure. As the fittest of former survive, they evolve through multiple extinctions, growing stronger through the challenge. Ultimately the "Darwin exposed" population is far more adept than its protected brethren.
All of which bring us to Socialism vs Capitalism - EU vs US - 2012 vs 2019. In 2012, the more socialist EU already under performed the US on a per capita basis. However as a whole, EU GDP outstripped US GDP $17.3T to $16.2T. Fast forward to 2018 and the numbers are $18.8T for the EU vs $20.1T for the US.
Pushing ahead with American Exceptionalism is what MAGA is about.
This post was edited on 4/4/19 at 12:49 pm
5
Posted on 4/4/19 at 9:47 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
EU vs US - 2012 vs 2019. In 2012, the more socialist EU already under performed the US on a per capita basis. However as a whole, EU GDP outstripped US GDP $17.3T to $16.2T. Fast forward to 2018 and the numbers are $1.8T for the EU vs $20.1T for the US
2012...
2012...
vs.
2019
There's something that's changed, but I can't put my finger on it.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 9:52 am to udtiger
Hey; stop with all these numbers. All you need to know is “Orange man bad.”
Posted on 4/4/19 at 9:57 am to NC_Tigah
If Mikhail Kalashnikov had lived in a Capitalist nation he would have made more money than the lottery.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 10:04 am to udtiger
quote:
There's something that's changed, but I can't put my finger on it.
This all happened in spite of Obama. We would have been much higher if we had a President who didn't lead for 8 years and never have a 3.0% GDP growth year.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 10:09 am to udtiger
I have liberal friends that have this romanticism of Europe and their policies. They want our society to mirror theirs. These are the kind of people completely oblivious to the current economic environment over there. Economies are in complete shambles - no growth, confiscatory taxation, overbearing bureaucratic regime with too much control, sovereign debt crisis along with a banking crisis looming in the shadows. It's astonishing there are educated people unable to see that their is nothing desirable about Europe other than their history.
Edit - I forgot to add central banks that are out of ideas/tools and of course the immigration crisis
Edit - I forgot to add central banks that are out of ideas/tools and of course the immigration crisis
This post was edited on 4/4/19 at 10:11 am
Posted on 4/4/19 at 10:17 am to wutangfinancial
I just found this about Ardern, the New Zealand PM, right after her election to office:
quote:
The Independent New Zealand's new prime minister called capitalism a "blatant failure", before citing levels of homelessness and low wages as evidence that "the market has failed" her country's poor. Jacinda Ardern, who is to become the nation's youngest leader since 1856, said measures used to gauge economic success "have to change" to take into account "people's ability to actually have a meaningful life".
This post was edited on 4/4/19 at 10:18 am
Posted on 4/4/19 at 10:28 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
All of which bring us to Socialism vs Capitalism - EU vs US - 2012 vs 2019. In 2012, the more socialist EU already under performed the US on a per capita basis. However as a whole, EU GDP outstripped US GDP $17.3T to $16.2T. Fast forward to 2018 and the numbers are $1.8T for the EU vs $20.1T for the US.
The numbers for the EU went from 17.3 trillion to 1.8 trillian?
The EU isn't socialist by any stretch of the imagination. It is an attempt by European countries to compete with the US, and it might be doomed to failure because of its size and inequality between its members, but I don't see any socialist characteristics. The "four freedoms" of the Common Market are explicit in what the EU was trying to do. Generally there are low-levels of state ownership and high levels of private capital. What do you see as the socialism?
Posted on 4/4/19 at 10:43 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
EU isn't socialist by any stretch of the imagination. It is an attempt by European countries to compete with the US, and it might be doomed to failure because of its size and inequality between its members, but I don't see any socialist characteristics. The "four freedoms" of the Common Market are explicit in what the EU was trying to do. Generally there are low-levels of state ownership and high levels of private capital. What do you see as the socialism?
Thank you.
They believe anything not similar to the American economy MUST be socialism. I'm reality, the EU is just as capitalist as the US. The difference is how they use their wealth versus how we use ours.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 10:44 am to volod
quote:
They believe anything not similar to the American economy MUST be socialism. I'm reality, the EU is just as capitalist as the US.
The EU?
You probably need to talk to Bernie. He's the one claiming he wants to be socialist like the Nordic Countries.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 10:47 am to volod
quote:
They believe anything not similar to the American economy MUST be socialism.
Wrong. The American economy is way too socialist, too.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 10:54 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
You probably need to talk to Bernie. He's the one claiming he wants to be socialist like the Nordic Countries.
Yeah he frames that poorly and also doesn't seem to know the history of Nordic countries. The term developed by the Nordic countries themselves was "Nordic capitalism," or the Nordic model. The Danish PM himself said that:
quote:
he was aware "that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism." "Therefore," he said, "I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."
Sweden and Denmark have overhauled their welfare states, and have been better for it as well.
This post was edited on 4/4/19 at 10:55 am
Posted on 4/4/19 at 11:26 am to crazy4lsu
quote:You're kidding.
but I don't see any socialist characteristics
Posted on 4/4/19 at 11:28 am to crazy4lsu
quote:That's a typo, it's 18.8T
The numbers for the EU went from 17.3 trillion to 1.8 trillian?
This post was edited on 4/4/19 at 11:29 am
Posted on 4/4/19 at 11:54 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
You're kidding.
Be specific. What socialist practices do they have? The means of production is almost squarely in the private sector's hands. They do have robust welfare states, but welfare states are almost always a function of capitalist countries.
Give me some data, or make an actual point.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 12:09 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
because in the end GDP is of course a function of the population rather than government making the money
aka taking your hard earned money. I realize some taxes are necessary but the government does not "make" money, it simply takes from those who make.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 12:10 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 4/4/19 at 12:42 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:The entire healthcare industry ... obviously. In addition there is socialist support for numerous consortiums such as airbus.
Give me some data, or make an actual point.
quote:
Airbus’s Lesson for Young Socialists
Its A380 debacle shows how hard it is for state planners to outguess markets.
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
Feb. 19, 2019
Socialism is currently in vogue.
If the word means anything in today’s context, it means projects of unusual government ambition, built on our globally shared capitalist technological and commercial base. The A380 was exactly such a project. Underwritten by massive European government subsidies, the plane was an engineering sensation. Passengers loved the roomy jet. Yet now it’s kaput. What went wrong? Or to phrase the question more usefully, what technological and commercial realities would its sponsors have had to overrule to assure its success?
LINK
Posted on 4/4/19 at 1:11 pm to NC_Tigah
I can't read the article because it is behind a paywall, so you might need to quote it to relay your point. But having universal healthcare isn't necessarily socialism. You have a wide variety of models on the continent, from Germany's Bismarck model (where they have around 200 healthcare insurance companies, called Krakenkassen I think) uses private insurance, subsidized through employers in the statutory health insurance system, while it also has a much smaller substitutive private health insurance. Countries like France follow a similar Bismarck model with private doctors treating patients who buy their own employer-subsidized healthcare. That differs from the Beveridge model employed in the UK and Italy (I believe), and the Nordic countries, which is free at the point of service with direct government control . The key element of European health systems that do employ private insurance schemes is that those insurance companies have to be non-profit and are required by law to cover everyone.
What other features of the EU is socialist? Norway is heavily involved in oil production, but it isn't necessarily state-owned, as the Norwegian government was explicit when oil was discovered in the Barents Sea that one company (in this case Phillips) could not have singular rights to the oil, as Phillips wanted, and it would have to be multiple companies under close supervision of the Norwegian government.
What other features of the EU is socialist? Norway is heavily involved in oil production, but it isn't necessarily state-owned, as the Norwegian government was explicit when oil was discovered in the Barents Sea that one company (in this case Phillips) could not have singular rights to the oil, as Phillips wanted, and it would have to be multiple companies under close supervision of the Norwegian government.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 1:49 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:But you can say socialized medicine isn't socialized?
I can't read the article
quote:The countries within the EU would obviously be the point of debate there.
What other features of the EU is socialist?
In general though, European GovernmentSpending-to-GDP approaches 50%. That's around 2 1/2 times US spending-to-GDP. It's actually far more if we discount the amount we are covering in defense spending ... no small point as Europe relies heavily on US military power and spending for their own safety.
quote:First off, Norway is not a part of the EU. But It's spending-to-GDP is 50%. If you want to argue that is not socialism exemplified, then we'll simply have to disagree.
What other features of the EU is socialist? Norway is . . .
But IAW your posts and focus on private industry (no matter the tax and/or control), I suppose there is private enterprise in Venezuela as well.
So perhaps socialism doesn't even exist.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News