Yet, reality doesn't jibe with this belief. Take a look at this.
As a whole the EU saw growth of 1% in the second quarter, as did the 16 countries that make up the eurozone. Germany and France, the two engines of the European economy, have both beaten analysts expectations. France's economy grew at a respectable rate of 0.6% in the second quarter. But the real story here is Germany. Not since the Berlin wall divided the country has Europe's biggest country seen growth of 2.2% in a single three month period.
France? Crap, there goes another whipping boy of the Cult Tribe doing something better than us. Shit, that's really gotta suck.
Interestingly, the ruling party of Germany employs a social market economic strategy. The mere mention of the word "social" in here is sure to unleash a volley of wordy squirts below but the numbers don't lie. It's working.
Perhaps that means that the reason why our recovery has been sluggish is because the "liberal commie" Barack Obama has coddled our private sector. Could it really be as simple as this?
The main elements of the Social Market Economy in Germany are basically:
- The Social Market Economy contains the central elements of the free market economy such as private property, free foreign trade, exchange of goods and free formation of prices.
- Other elements shall diminish occurring problems of the free market economy. These elements, such as pension insurance, health care and unemployment insurance are part of the social security system. The payments to the social security system are mainly made by the labor force. In addition, there are provisions to restrain the free market (e.g. anti-trust code, laws against the abuse of market power etc.).
12 comments:
Roughly speaking there are three models:
1) The totalitarian government model, in which all power resides in the government. It controls all industry, which has nominal autonomy but if they do something that opposes or embarrasses the government, the government will literally kill them. This is what China has.
2) The totalitarian business model, in which the government is a tiny appendage of giant corporations, there only to pass favorable regulations for business, build roads and bridges and organize a military that contracts everything back to big business. This is the ideal of Grover Norquist. Though it is not what libertarians say they want, it is the ultimate outcome of their laissez-faire philosophy. This is what the United States had in the 1890s -- when private companies could literally put a price on a man's head -- and it is what we are slowly plodding toward again.
3) A balance of power between government and industry. Systems work best when competing forces are approximately equal in strength. This is the true conservative approach -- don't let either side get powerful enough to dominate the other.
In reality, 1) and 2) are identical systems. A small clique of communist party leaders making all the decisions for a country is no different than a small clique of CEOs making all the decisions.
The only difference is that in 1) we have no illusions about who's in control, and in 2) the fat, dumb, happy cattle think they are making all the choices when in reality the guys in business decide behind the scenes what they'll give us and we have no choices at all.
Care to provide some recent context before I do?
Here's a preview...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.a910dcb6b4dfcd94d6b8c5e432a9465f.571&show_article=1
(the article is from June)..."Germany, Europe's biggest economy, is working on a multi-billion-euro package of spending cuts designed to bolster government finances and recoup market confidence."
Multi-billions of spending cuts happened 2 months ago in order to pay down their deficit? Spending cuts to bolster govt finances and recoup market confidence? I learned on this blog that govt can solve all our nations problems. Looks like Germany is solving their problems by taking measures to recoup confidence in the free market.
There's more where that came from...
No, government solves some problems as opposed to none. No doubt we do need to cut spending and our government has gotten too large to be effective. I'm all for streamlining a whole host of areas in our government but that doesn't mean I will give up on an improved social security system including health care which Germany has at this time.
They have managed to do both. Why can't we?
Oh, and please tell me you are not going to Breitbart now for news...good gravy....
Quick point - Yes, European economies have struggled in recent years and Europe still has their own economic problems.
When I see someone holding up 1 quarter of .6% economic growth as proof of the success of an economic model...it's safe to assume said person may be trying to slide by what the bulk of the economic data before that said. That is, they may be cherrypicking a bit?
You invalidate the source but you did not dispute the claims. Merkel has pursued those spending cuts. Fallacy, as Haplo noted on here recently. Are you giving yourself a free pass to ignore the data presented?
Why are you still asking questions of us? You had ALL the answers before to just about everything during the campaign and while GWB was president. It's easy to be out of power isn't it? You don't have to deliver anything.
All you have to do is google Merkel Spending Cuts to see any number of articles saying the same stuff the breitbart article said.
Sheesh.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-22/merkel-tells-obama-spending-cuts-to-boost-economy-not-put-brake-on-growth.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/da7adf9e-71ac-11df-8eec-00144feabdc0.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/merkel-rejects-obama-warnings-that-cuts-will-damage-global-recovery-2008751.html
All knowledge is on the internet after all.
"You invalidate the source but you did not dispute the claims."
After what happened with Shirley Sherrod, I wouldn't spend a single moment of time on his site. His track record speaks for itself now. Worse, he engages issues of race in such a child-like and baiting way that it's surprising to me that anyone takes him seriously.
Again, I have no problem with spending cuts across the board. That would include defense. What I have a problem with is the tunnel vision that the Right has when it comes to entitlements...as if they are some demonic force that is coming to rape their daughters. We have cut funds from Medicare in order to pay for the new health care bill. Points for that? Probably not.
So, Merkel does indeed get points from me for cutting spending and that is certainly part of the reason why they are doing better. But they also have public run health care through their social security system which has 85 percent of the population covered. In fact, they have laws that prevent certain people from buying private insurance.
Clearly they value "demonic entitlement" spending and yet they are doing very, very well these days according to these numbers. Does that mean that a social market economy works?
You sure seemed to have a problem with Boehner advocating cutting spending.
I have no problem with cutting defense.
You have a problem with the tunnel vision of the folks who are not running the government?
That health care bill isn't "paid for".
No, it does not mean their economic system works. As I said above - you're only looking at the numbers for one quarter. I think I remember seeing a show 5 years ago about how good Irelands economy was doing and their economy is in the shitter now.
My point with Boehner was that he is just anti-stimulus for the sake of being so which is silly and one minded. Nearly all economists have said both of the stimulus plans were necessary.
It doesn't mean that there economic system works? The fastest quarterly growth in more than 20 years coming on the heels of worst world wide slump since the Great Depression. They must be doing something right.
Okay M, you said you wanted my reaction to this post.
No, government solves some problems as opposed to none.
So, are you claiming that I have EVER said that govt doesn't have SOME role, that it doesn't solve SOME problems, that it can't perform ANYTHING properly? Because if you are claiming that, you better DAMN WELL be able to back it up with something I actually said. If not, I will offer you another big, fat, wet fuck you for your petulant posing and flat out lying about what I say.
You want my contributions here, then stop being an asshat and mischaracterizing [ahem, being overly polite] my positions. After all, you certainly don't want to behave in the very manner you ascribe to those you most despise -- the Cult.
I wouldn't spend a single moment of time on [breitbart's] site.
Yeah, that's about how I feel about TPM and Kaos. Of course you continue to use those as primary sources. Maybe you should change the name of your site to Notes From The Hypocrite?
Nearly all economists have said both of the stimulus plans were necessary.
Did you read the CSM article I provided the link for about Japan and the belief in govt spending its way into prosperity? Just for your reference, Krugman is NOT "nearly all economists".
Now, the point you were attempting to bait me with is "social market" economics. Unlike "social justice", this actually describes something without destroying the meaning of one of the words. Based purely on the wiki description, the U.S. has a social market economy. The whole difference then is of degree, not substance. I needn't repeat last's demolition of your cherrypicking one WHOLE quarter of economic performance out of the last 30 years (i.e. Reaganomics versus "social market" Euronomics).
As blk demonstrates as well, the left is ignorant of this, instead caricaturizing ALL thought not-left as corporate-whore, laissez-faire, anarcho-libertarian. The fact that you cannot discern the many differences in thought unlike yours is not a flaw of all those other people or their ideas.
The U.S. has not been anything even approaching laissez-faire since before the Civil War. Hint: start with the Slaughterhouse Cases.
If you want to level the accusation of heartless laisse-faire economy, you need to consult the list of countries that have MORE economic freedom than the U.S. See here.
But they also have public run health care through their social security system which has 85 percent of the population covered.
Personally, I don't give a damn how well it works. The semi-socialist approach and the free market approach both have their strong points and weak points. My problem with it is that it gives complete strangers authority over my choices concerning my body, and likewise makes me responsible for the choices of complete strangers.
Don't think so? If a complete stranger does something stupid that lands him in a hospital, under such a system my taxes pay the price of his stupidity, do they not? Do I have the option to refuse to pay? No I don't. If I get tired of paying for his stupidity, my only other option is to make his particular style of stupidity illegal, and put him in jail for failing to conform to my cost-benefit analysis, is it not?
And you, who oppose "corporate force" and support "a woman's rights concerning her own body", you support this?
http://global.nationalreview.com/video/video_homie_081610_C.html
Post a Comment