pacino wrote:well actual socialism would just be crazy wouldn't it

jerseyhoya wrote:I thought he was suggesting something a good bit different than you were. It might have just been a poor choice of words on his part, but it read like he was suggesting real, actual socialism. Not using the word in the haha Obama's a socialist usage, but in the state ownership of the means of production sort of way.

"...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."

CrashburnAlley wrote:But at least a greedily-run government entity can still benefit the community, whereas a greedily-run private enterprise benefits only those who have some sort of stock in it.

CrashburnAlley wrote:It's just, "socialism sucks" and a finger-pointing to the tribes in Africa. Or Stalin.

"The income from these sales will be used to pay off the government debt and reduce the burden of debt for future generations. The Government's ambition is to sell companies to a value of SEK 200 billion during 2007-2010."

dajafi wrote:Pure systems in general aren't workable in large, heterogeneous societies. The genius of our model, pretty much wherever you want to look in it, is how it holds opposing forces in useful tension: profit motive and public interest, "ambition countering ambition." And ultimately we're able to give a big collective thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any part of it--well, almost any part. Not so much the actions of the Fed, f'rinstance.

I'm very happy to have the free market as our baseline/default position, provided that 1) we're mindful of what markets are and aren't good at, 2) we're willing to watch the performance of both markets and government with a relatively objective eye, focusing on utility and evidence rather than ideology and theory, and 3) we're able to put in the work to make mid-course adjustments (as officials) and keep a watchful eye (as citizens/voters). Ultimately what I think might wreck our country is laziness above and below, and we're all susceptible to that danger.

kruker wrote:It's more fun to point out how Sweden has actually been privatizing many of it's state run industries.

kruker wrote:Yes, it has nothing to do with unsustainable entitlement programs.

*And isn't it weird that privatization is, in your argument, *helping* Reinfeldt win election. What does that tell you?

CrashburnAlley wrote:
Toppling Saddam Hussein for his involvement in 9/11 helped Bush get re-elected.

Also, swift-boating John Kerry.

Your argument that Sweden is privatizing, therefore socialism can't ever work is like saying the U.S. is keeping troops in the Middle East, therefore diplomacy can't ever work.

kruker wrote:I was thinking more of the Sweden of the 90's that had to scale back it's welfare programs and the Sweden of today that is willing to sell off profitable companies in order to keep itself ahead of the curve.

CrashburnAlley wrote:

kruker wrote:I was thinking more of the Sweden of the 90's that had to scale back it's welfare programs and the Sweden of today that is willing to sell off profitable companies in order to keep itself ahead of the curve.

This is not why Sweden is privatizing; it's politics. It's why Pinochet privatized Chile. They're being advised by ideologues who know how to win elections. Pinochet had Friedman and his Friedman-ites; Reinfeldt has Rove and his Rove-ites.

jerseyhoya wrote:

CrashburnAlley wrote:

kruker wrote:I was thinking more of the Sweden of the 90's that had to scale back it's welfare programs and the Sweden of today that is willing to sell off profitable companies in order to keep itself ahead of the curve.

This is not why Sweden is privatizing; it's politics. It's why Pinochet privatized Chile. They're being advised by ideologues who know how to win elections. Pinochet had Friedman and his Friedman-ites; Reinfeldt has Rove and his Rove-ites.

Pinochet didn't have a whole lot of elections.

kruker wrote:I was thinking more of the Sweden of the 90's that had to scale back it's welfare programs and the Sweden of today that is willing to sell off profitable companies in order to keep itself ahead of the curve.

Wizlah wrote:Yeah, but lets be clear, you were saying they had to do that to support the social spending, which does suggest that they're running regularly into deficit. but they've mantained one of the highest percentages in social spending whilst running govt owned companies and still turning in a govt surplus. that sounds fairly sustainable to me.

All industrialized nations are confronted by the same challenge: Their tax-and-transfer pension programs face serious demographic and financial pressures. In effect, policymakers have only two choices. On the one hand, they can raise taxes and cut benefits in an effort to prolong the solvency of government-run old-age systems. Alternatively, they can give workers private retirement accounts. Faced with this choice, Sweden decided that reform was the best option.

Why did Sweden's lawmakers decide that they had to reform the Swedish old-age pension system? Among the key factors were:

*

Long-term deficit. The unfunded pension system liability in 1996 was nearly $500 billion, roughly equal to 200 percent of Sweden's economic output.
*

Demographics. In 1950, there were more than five working-age people for each person over age 65. Now there are fewer than four, and the ratio eventually will drop to three working-age people per retiree.3
*

Future tax increases. Payroll tax rates already were high—nearly 20 percent—but they would have had to rise even more to keep the existing system in balance. According to Swedish government estimates, the tax rate would have needed to be as high as 36 percent by 2025.4
*

Economic impact. The system's high tax rates discouraged output and employment. The adverse effect on work incentives was particularly severe because of a weak relationship between the taxes workers paid into the system and the benefits they expected to receive. In other words, workers had an incentive to work less and to underreport their income since increased pay simply meant higher taxes without an accompanying increase in future pension benefits.
* Fairness. Pension benefits for retirees often varied greatly. Because old-age benefits were based on a worker's 15 highest-earning years, two Swedes with equal lifetime incomes who had paid equal amounts of taxes could receive very different pension benefits. This formula discriminated in favor of higher-paid white-collar workers with peak-earning years at the expense of blue-collar workers with relatively stable earnings.

dajafi wrote:Pure systems in general aren't workable in large, heterogeneous societies. The genius of our model, pretty much wherever you want to look in it, is how it holds opposing forces in useful tension: profit motive and public interest, "ambition countering ambition." And ultimately we're able to give a big collective thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any part of it--well, almost any part. Not so much the actions of the Fed, f'rinstance.

I'm very happy to have the free market as our baseline/default position, provided that 1) we're mindful of what markets are and aren't good at, 2) we're willing to watch the performance of both markets and government with a relatively objective eye, focusing on utility and evidence rather than ideology and theory, and 3) we're able to put in the work to make mid-course adjustments (as officials) and keep a watchful eye (as citizens/voters). Ultimately what I think might wreck our country is laziness above and below, and we're all susceptible to that danger.