France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social market
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From my original source I have a 54.6% growth in per capita GDP in the US and a 50.5% growth in France from 1990 to 2002.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let us play economic General manager and see if we want to make this trade, U.S economy for French economy:

A 4% increase in GDP over a 12 year period in exchange for (note: and this was during a period of relatively strong growth and stability in the U.S. economy!!!):

Far lower crime rates.
A more healthy populace.
4 extra weeks of paid vacation+ paid holidays per year .
Far more economic and job security.
And five less hours of work per worker per week (35 hour work week).

The answer is clear. The French social market is far preferable to the U.S.A's more 'libertarian' market. If you offered this trade to the U.S. population at least 90% of the people would take it. Unfortunately the 10% that would not want it are those who have the most power and influence in the U.S.

Know you can see why most French people get irritated when people in the U.S. make comments about how bad their economy is and how to improve it.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social mark
 

How ever does France hold back the waves of Americans trying to enter this utopia?

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social market
 

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From my original source I have a 54.6% growth in per capita GDP in the US and a 50.5% growth in France from 1990 to 2002.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let us play economic General manager and see if we want to make this trade, U.S economy for French economy:

A 4% increase in GDP over a 12 year period in exchange for (note: and this was during a period of relatively strong growth and stability in the U.S. economy!!!):

Far lower crime rates.
A more healthy populace.
4 extra weeks of paid vacation+ paid holidays per year .
Far more economic and job security.
And five less hours of work per worker per week (35 hour work week).

The answer is clear. The French social market is far preferable to the U.S.A's more 'libertarian' market. If you offered this trade to the U.S. population at least 90% of the people would take it. Unfortunately the 10% that would not want it are those who have the most power and influence in the U.S.

Know you can see why most French people get irritated when people in the U.S. make comments about how bad their economy is and how to improve it.

[/ QUOTE ]

why did you switch? didnt like getting called out in the other thread for speaking for other people when you have no clue what they want?

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social market
 

The other thread= too long.

But more importantly I think this is the most fundemental reply to the 'oh no a few wealthy people are leaving!!! The sky most be falling!!!' arguments against economic security and equality. The reply is, to summarize: big deal. We have more important things to worry about.

That 'call out' was a joke. Emigration is costly; you leave behind your friends and family, move to an unfamilar area with an unfamilar dialect and culture.

I could poll this question in a less ideologically biased area and get numbers similar to this. Just like if I posted it in a forum dominated by lefties I would get over 90% in support.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social market
 

[ QUOTE ]
The other thread= too long.

That 'call out' was a joke. Emigration is costly; you leave behind your friends and family, move to an unfamilar area with an unfamilar dialect and culture.

I could poll this question in a less ideologically biased area and get numbers similar to this. Just like if I posted it in a forum dominated by lefties I would get over 90% in support.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know how many people immigrate to the US from France (relative to it's population)? Do you know the reverse? I would be interested in getting such statistics. Both sets of immigrants face similar issues (although the French are more likely to know English).

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social mark
 

[ QUOTE ]
I could poll this question in a less ideologically biased area and get numbers similar to this. Just like if I posted it in a forum dominated by lefties I would get over 90% in support.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you would with that skewed characterization. Hopefully we don't trade for France's system where 15,000 can die from a heatwave...

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social market
 

[ QUOTE ]
The other thread= too long.

That 'call out' was a joke. Emigration is costly; you leave behind your friends and family, move to an unfamilar area with an unfamilar dialect and culture.

I could poll this question in a less ideologically biased area and get numbers similar to this. Just like if I posted it in a forum dominated by lefties I would get over 90% in support.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if you remember my response you would recognize that DESPITE those costs of emigration, motivated French workers want to move here. Dozens of engineers, mathematicians and translators who would love a 50-60 hour work week for the economic opportunity here for my little 8 man company.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social mark
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you would with that skewed characterization. Hopefully we don't trade for France's system where 15,000 can die from a heatwave...

[/ QUOTE ] This has nothing to do with their economic system.

In France the climate is normally very temperate so most people, especially the elderly, do not have air conditioning BY CHOICE. However, global climate change (global warming, of course) means that they will have to change or risk this. This is a failure to be prepared for a change in the climate by the elderly (primarily), not a failure of the economy.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social market
 

I had not read that. But I know a lot of fortunate people would want to leave; I said the powerful would prefer the U.S. system. But capitalism already arbitrarily favors the well-being of the lucky, so in making capitalism more humane we should favor the well-being of the less fortunate to even it out.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social market
 

[ QUOTE ]
I had not read that. But I know a lot of fortunate people would want to leave; I said the powerful would prefer the U.S. system. But capitalism already arbitrarily favors the well-being of the lucky, so in making capitalism more humane we should favor the well-being of the less fortunate to even it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

no we shouldnt. the less fortunate should work their butts off. They have the same opportunity as the vast majority of the more fortunate.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social market
 

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had not read that. But I know a lot of fortunate people would want to leave; I said the powerful would prefer the U.S. system. But capitalism already arbitrarily favors the well-being of the lucky, so in making capitalism more humane we should favor the well-being of the less fortunate to even it out.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



no we shouldnt. the less fortunate should work their butts off. They have the same opportunity as the vast majority of the more fortunate.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't believe human beings have different natures or nurtures; that is:

You believe all human beings are identical.

I'm baffled.

Right, all people had equal ammounts and quality schooling, equal quality and quantity of parenting, identical genetics, inherited the same ammount of wealth and assets, etc.

Now I'm baffled I even responded to this.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social mark
 

[ QUOTE ]
The big picture is that Americans are much more satisfied with their lives, much more likely to believe that their lives have improved and much more likely to expect their personal situations will improve than most Europeans.

[/ QUOTE ]

link

Clearly it must be all that FoxNews propaganda which is stopping Americans from realizing how awesome it would be if the government would take even more responsibility for their lives.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social market
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had not read that. But I know a lot of fortunate people would want to leave; I said the powerful would prefer the U.S. system. But capitalism already arbitrarily favors the well-being of the lucky, so in making capitalism more humane we should favor the well-being of the less fortunate to even it out.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



no we shouldnt. the less fortunate should work their butts off. They have the same opportunity as the vast majority of the more fortunate.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't believe human beings have different natures or nurtures; that is:

You believe all human beings are identical.

I'm baffled.

Right, all people had equal ammounts and quality schooling, equal quality and quantity of parenting, identical genetics, inherited the same ammount of wealth and assets, etc.

Now I'm baffled I even responded to this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you baffled..you are the one that attributes the same MOTIVATIONS to everyone. I said what they SHOULD do, and have the OPPORTUNITY to do in the US. Nothing in that implies the same nature/nurture, as your assumptions consistently do.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social mark
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The big picture is that Americans are much more satisfied with their lives, much more likely to believe that their lives have improved and much more likely to expect their personal situations will improve than most Europeans.

[/ QUOTE ]

link

Clearly it must be all that FoxNews propaganda which is stopping Americans from realizing how awesome it would be if the government would take even more responsibility for their lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of that is going to be due to cultural differences. If you look, for example at the Germans, they are generally very picky people. We do customer satisfaction surveys, and the Germans are constantly at the bottom of the list. Our Mexican customers are almost always at the top. Those in charge do some type of cultural trend to figure out if it makes any sense.

If you wanted to see who was more satisfied with our lives (myself vs you), is there really any way to tell? This survey may suggest some things, but in reality it's pretty meaningless.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social market
 

Savings and capital accumulation in and among a society give rise to an ever-improving quality of life for that society. The very nature of saving and accumulating capital goods separated hunter-gatherers from farmers, and then separated agricultural societies from industrialized societies in which we now no longer die from a common cold, suffer polio, ride horse+buggies, or read by candlelight, let alone have to trek through the woods with rocks and pointy sticks covered in our poo in a day by day struggle for food.

Does France's policy of intense confiscation of savings and accumulated capital, sometimes exceeding 100% of income, act to decrease the quality of life of its citizens, or does it act to increase that quality of life?

Furthermore, savings (a preservation of produced wealth) stands opposite consumption (a destruction of produced wealth). Consumers always prefer to consume (economic) goods sooner rather than later, so savings represents a sacrifice in current consumption. Absent saving, members of a society can only consume what they produce or have accumulated. If they continue to consume what they have in the past saved, without additional savings, eventually they will consume it all, and will be left only to consume what they at present produce - in essence, back to the day to day struggle for food using rocks and pointy, poo-covered sticks.

Does the severe intensity of France's confiscation policy act to encourage the preservation of wealth beyond the rate at which it is consumed and destroyed, or does it act to encourage the current consumption and hence the destruction of produced wealth at a greater rate than it is being saved?

And on one final note, an investment made by a capitalist or entrepreneur can be characterized as a risk of present capital in order to, at a future point, satisfy consumer demand at that future point (and hence earn a return greater than the initial investment).

With the prior knowledge that upwards of 3/4 of your future ROI will be confiscated, do you think this encourages capitalist/entrepreneurial endeavors to satisfy consumer demand, or do you think such an intense confiscation policy discourages such endeavors (or redirects them to other, more free societies) ?

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social market
 

I'm a Keynesian on this issue and I know the arguments on your side very well; restating this will not change my view.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social mark
 

[ QUOTE ]
How ever does France hold back the waves of Americans trying to enter this utopia?

[/ QUOTE ]
By speaking French and restricting residency permits.

[ QUOTE ]
no we shouldnt. the less fortunate should work their butts off. They have the same opportunity as the vast majority of the more fortunate.

[/ QUOTE ]
1. Who said the poor aren't working their butts off? The U.S. has the tightest welfare provisions in the developed world.
2. If you want to say that poor people have opportunity fine, but lets not say they have the same opportunity as someone who's parents paid for them to go to college.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social market
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a Keynesian on this issue and I know the arguments on your side very well; restating this will not change my view.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't make an argument. Now I am not familiar with the arguments on your side at all, so perhaps by answering, about as briefly as I posited them, the three yes/no questions I can learn and assess your arguments.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social market
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you baffled..you are the one that attributes the same MOTIVATIONS to everyone. I said what they SHOULD do, and have the OPPORTUNITY to do in the US. Nothing in that implies the same nature/nurture, as your assumptions consistently do.

[/ QUOTE ] I demonstrated that they do not have the same opportunity, I believe.

People who are on the fortunate side of the equation in all the things I listed will achieve more with the same amount of 'work' as someone who is less fortunate.

Many coal miners, dishwashers and single mothers work much harder than many millionaires. It is much harder from a kid from a poor area in the inner city to get into college than a wealthy one in the suburbs; and if pops is paying the bill someone is more likely to go then if they must take out loans. It is much harder for someone whose parents instilled good work habits to work hard than one's whose did not, in fact.

Motivations are a result of nature and nurture too. That is what humans are made out of.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social market
 

Most importantly, I must say first that France and other countries have had high (relative to the U.S. today) marginal taxes on high earners and wealth and inheritance taxes before and have them today. Amazingly these countries, when they had a democracy and a solid infastructure and somewhat reasonable monetary and fiscal policy e.g. Western Europe for the past 50 years, have had economies with high rates of innovation and economic growth. Obviously we don't have to worry at this point about going back to the stone age as your extremist worries would have one believe; you must be missing something.

Next, people can't make a rate of return if nobody is buying anything. If nobody is consuming at all nobody will save either. Hence they are in fact complementary to considerable degree and not opposed completely as you seem to imply. If everybody else is saving a person does far more good for the economy by consuming as opposed to saving; demand increases, increasing the rate of return on savings and previously unused productive capacity is put to use i.e. employment increases and capital is utilitzed. Since unused capacity practically always exists, consuming more leads to more output and higher incomes, and that in turn results in more savings later on. This is of course Keynes insight and not mine from the The General Theory. The work isn't perfect (none are) but this argument is correct and is validated by experience.

[ QUOTE ]
Does France's policy of intense confiscation of savings and accumulated capital, sometimes exceeding 100% of income, act to decrease the quality of life of its citizens, or does it act to increase that quality of life?

[/ QUOTE ] The taxes collected from the wealth tax go towards programs which greatly improve the quality of life of the citizens

They also make the society more egalitarian, which improves well-being in and of itself by mitigating the zero-sum (at best) rat race for relative status that is inherent in the nature of most human beings, like it or not. More egalitarian societies are also healthier, and people trust each other far more and cooperate more effectively in them, for this and other reasons. A feeling of trust, solidarity and belonging in a society nurtures the social nature of humans increasing their quality of life.

[ QUOTE ]
Does the severe intensity of France's confiscation policy act to encourage the preservation of wealth beyond the rate at which it is consumed and destroyed, or does it act to encourage the current consumption and hence the destruction of produced wealth at a greater rate than it is being saved?

With the prior knowledge that upwards of 3/4 of your future ROI will be confiscated, do you think this encourages capitalist/entrepreneurial endeavors to satisfy consumer demand, or do you think such an intense confiscation policy discourages such endeavors (or redirects them to other, more free societies) ?

[/ QUOTE ] This answers might seem obvious to you thanks to the mindless assumptions of the increasingly defunct last generation of economists but psychologists in fact have no consensus answer to these questions. Here is a younger economists summary of the countervailing forces at work in someone's mind, which effect different people at different intensities, as presented to economists by psychologists:

"...a person might react to an increase in the return to saving...in two ways. The first way basically ammounts to the person saying, "Hey, now each dollar I save earns a bigger return! That means spending money today implies giving up more spending in the future than it did before! I think I'll spend less today and save more!" The second way goes like this: "Hey, now each dollar I save earns a bigger return! Now I don't have to save as much...I think I'll save less today and spend more!"- Daniel Altman, Neoconomy, PublicAffairs, 2004, Cambridge, Ma; pg. 228.

It follows that what rate of taxation on saving that induces the most saving is an empirical question that can't be answered via abstract logic only. If our only goal is to maximize saving (which is insane, of course, not just because other things are important but because in many cases saving is too high to be good for the economy e.g. Japan's economy was in trouble for a while just recently primarily because people saved too much and didn't spend enough) we don't know for sure right now how to reach it. For example, the people that stay in France might be saving more because of the rates of taxation on saving.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social mark
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How ever does France hold back the waves of Americans trying to enter this utopia?

[/ QUOTE ]
By speaking French and restricting residency permits.

[ QUOTE ]
no we shouldnt. the less fortunate should work their butts off. They have the same opportunity as the vast majority of the more fortunate.

[/ QUOTE ]
1. Who said the poor aren't working their butts off? The U.S. has the tightest welfare provisions in the developed world. <font color="red"> that still doesnt mean they are working, and couldnt earn more working. strawman </font>
2. If you want to say that poor people have opportunity fine, but lets not say they have the same opportunity as someone who's parents paid for them to go to college.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red"> yes, in fact they do, IF they have a family structure that encourages their doing well in school. There is plenty of money available for college. And I dont want to hear Propertarians nonsense about "not being fortunate enough to be born into a family that cares about edcuation". Thats not fortune thats the choice of the parents.</font>

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social market
 

"A 4% increase in GDP over a 12 year period"

???

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social mark
 

You don't understand. Moorbot beliefs "my mother didn't hug me" is a valid excuse.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social mark
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How ever does France hold back the waves of Americans trying to enter this utopia?

[/ QUOTE ]
By speaking French and restricting residency permits.

[/ QUOTE ]
Neither of those stop millions crossing the southern US border.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social market
 

I don't see what the point of your post is.

Are you trying to convince the libertarian camp here that libertarianism doesn't work because the quality of life in America is worse than the quality of life in France?

First of all, how can you even call the American economy "libertarian"? The lower middle class here loses over 20% of their income directly to the federal government (which goes to social services and health care for the poor). The wealthy pay much more (the upper middle pays 40% or more, and I believe the very wealthy pay upwards of 60%). We then lose another 8% on everything we buy in sales tax (depending on your state, I live in NJ), and lose thousands more in property taxes. Businesses are highly regulated, and in most states getting the necessary approvals by the government to run a business is a very long, irritating and costly process (a liquor license in my area, for example, costs $200,000/year). Social freedoms are constantly being trampled, and punishments for victimless "crimes" are far more costly here than they are in western Europe. And anyone holding cash assets gets the enjoyment of having the value of their money counterfeited by 10%+/year to pay for a war that most of the people here don't even want.

In spite of this, I pull a living wage working twenty-five hours a week in a job that doesn't even require a high school education.

What exactly is so free about our market that you would call it "libertarian"?

Moreover, you do realize that almost everyone here that identifies as a libertarian or ACist here thinks that the GDP is a very poor way of gauging the economy, right?

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social market
 

[ QUOTE ]
In spite of this, I pull a living wage working twenty-five hours a week in a job that doesn't even require a high school education.


[/ QUOTE ]

Same here, I work 16-20 hours a week. If I wasnt making money playing poker, I could support my lifestyle on 22 hours a week. I could cut that down to 18-20 if I stopped drinking and eating out. Its really amazing how little you have to work in this country to support yourself.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social market
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In spite of this, I pull a living wage working twenty-five hours a week in a job that doesn't even require a high school education.


[/ QUOTE ]

Same here, I work 16-20 hours a week. If I wasnt making money playing poker, I could support my lifestyle on 22 hours a week. I could cut that down to 18-20 if I stopped drinking and eating out. Its really amazing how little you have to work in this country to support yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on what job you pick. Bartenders and waiters make $20+ easy as long as you're not working in a [censored] hole, plus you usually get food. Anything handyman-related (painting, plumbing, general fixing stuff) will do you pretty well too. Eating is not expensive at all if you shop at Sam's Club (I can maintain a very healthy diet for under $10/day).

If you just want to be alive in this country and you can manage to lay off drugs, you can live really cheap. Hell, even that's not true since you can make good money selling weed (which is probably the single greatest job a college student can have).

Also, I think a lot of people fail to realize just how little work goes into minimum wage jobs. The only person I know who works for minimum wage works in a music store/head shop with a buddy of his. They spend hours on end screwing off and watching TV. Anyone could do that job high, and I'm sure they do.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social market
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most importantly, I must say first that France and other countries have had high (relative to the U.S. today) marginal taxes on high earners and wealth and inheritance taxes before and have them today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly.

[ QUOTE ]
Amazingly these countries, when they had a democracy and a solid infastructure and somewhat reasonable monetary and fiscal policy e.g. Western Europe for the past 50 years, have had economies with high rates of innovation and economic growth.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does one measure rates of innovation and economic growth? I suspect it is done in a similar fashion to measuring the rates of growth in "love" or "confidence"?

Rather, that humans innovate is not amazing, nor that they continually seek more goods, as opposed to less, and present goods, as opposed to future goods, through all of their economic actions that are necessarily aimed at improvement, regardless of their circumstances.

[ QUOTE ]
Next, people can't make a rate of return if nobody is buying anything. If nobody is consuming at all nobody will save either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zero consumption is impossible as a reality and therefore meaningless as a theoretical assumption. Hence nothing. Moving on...

[ QUOTE ]
Since unused capacity practically always exists, consuming more leads to more output and higher incomes, and that in turn results in more savings later on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Increased expenditure != higher productive output. My consumption simply represents my demand for goods, and someone else's corresponding demand for money. That person's consumption then represents their demand for goods and someone else's corresponding demand for money, and on it goes. But my consumption does not simply create a productive output from which I consume, but rather the opposite - my productive output is exchanged for money, facilitating my subsequent demand for goods.

[ QUOTE ]
The work isn't perfect (none are) but this argument is correct and is validated by experience.


[/ QUOTE ]

If experience is the only validation, then to that I echo the sentiment that the "theory" is 'worthless in economics, since it may only be coincidences of complex facts, and not isolable, repeatable law which will hold true in the future.'

[ QUOTE ]
The taxes collected from the wealth tax go towards programs which greatly improve the quality of life of the citizens


[/ QUOTE ]

If the quality of life of the individuals of society can be improved by a particular economic good, *greatly* no less, why then can that good not be provided by the market? I know of no such good in existence.

[ QUOTE ]
More egalitarian societies are also healthier, and people trust each other far more and cooperate more effectively in them, for this and other reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

No matter what the underlying assumption of human nature or their circumstances are, we can say that an individual prefers more goods to less. It is that preference of more goods to less, combined with the diversity of human talents and natural resources that create the division of labor, upon which the necessity of effective cooperation in order to act upon preferences rests. Effective cooperation is utilized to bring goods to the market, ultimately to exchange for other produced goods. Therefore, increased cooperation reflects an increase in the desire for more goods, and sooner rather than later.

Sharing, caring, trust, and health may or may not exist in an egalitarian society, and they are certainly not automatic givens.

[ QUOTE ]
A feeling of trust, solidarity and belonging in a society nurtures the social nature of humans increasing their quality of life.


[/ QUOTE ]

You speak here of a plural "quality of life" but what of the individual who resents violent, coercive interference with his life and his ability to bring goods to the market in exchange for money? What of his feeling of trust, solidarity, and belonging amidst a majority populace that votes to confiscate the product of his talent and effort against his will? Does he not suffer a decreased quality of life and the urge to emigrate from the society he once "belonged" to?

Even the word "quality" should immediately cue the word "subjective" which immediately cues the word "individual." The quality of life of an individual is improved by that individual's satisfaction of his or her desired economic goods, the likes of which are provided most numerously and cheaply on the market.

[ QUOTE ]
This answers might seem obvious to you thanks to the mindless assumptions of the increasingly defunct last generation of economists but psychologists in fact have no consensus answer to these questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

No economic "answers" can be determined from psychoanalysis regarding any individual's ends, for there can be no controlled experiment utilizing any consistent representation of "humans", nor a consistent representation of their (ever-varying) subjective ends to produce any universal results.

[ QUOTE ]
If our only goal is to maximize saving (which is insane, of course, not just because other things are important but because in many cases saving is too high to be good for the economy

[/ QUOTE ]

"My" goal regarding saving does not exist on the same plane as "your" goal regarding saving, and so there is no "our" goal regarding saving. Saving, as I said, is sacrifice of current consumption, which may simply be a question of: "how hungry are you today?"

And on a final note, yes, the answers do seem rather obvious to me. But what exactly are the "mindless assumptions" that lead me to such obvious answers?

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social mark
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In spite of this, I pull a living wage working twenty-five hours a week in a job that doesn't even require a high school education.


[/ QUOTE ]

Same here, I work 16-20 hours a week. If I wasnt making money playing poker, I could support my lifestyle on 22 hours a week. I could cut that down to 18-20 if I stopped drinking and eating out. Its really amazing how little you have to work in this country to support yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

That clearly isn;t representative of the vast majority of people's opportunities.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social mark
 

Like Tom says, cultural attitudes play into this a lot. It's not like the situation in Portugal is actually so much worse that it justifies 15 times fewer people being satisfied with their lives than in Denmark (which incidentally has one of the most statist social models in Europe, much more so than Portgual for instance).

The optimism thing is also interesting; Americans are clearly very optimistic, which is good. But at the same time, if you look at Americans' beliefs about social mobility, their chances of getting rich etc, they're massively out of kilter (ie over-optimistic) compared to the real chances on average of getting rich in America etc. That's a healthy thing in many ways but it also suggests a lot of "optimistic" optimism/poor perception of real prospects. Equally, some Europeans may be understimating the chances of their lives improving and so on.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social mark
 

I wonder how that difference between the expectations of the avg American and avg European affect things like suicide rates, and overall satisfaction/happiness. I could see it going either way.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social mark
 

Scandinavia supposedly very high suicide rates (often blamed on the long winters), despite many of its countries doing much better in the happiness rates in this survey than other European countries. I think it's pretty hard to interpret or compare these figures in a meaningful way.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social mark
 

Two major assumptions you make here are wrong:

1. Psychologists cannot do anything to improve economics. Your argument is worthless; just because people are not identical does not mean they cannot find out what most people are like, are find out the averages amongst a population. In fact it goes the other way around; economics without a solid and non-vaccous view of human nature is not useful.

2. Increases in the ammout of goods always improves people's lives(on a subjective view of well-being).

One of the biggest myths ever, now debunked by scientists at the macro and micro levels based on world wide studies. It is true that when the level of total output and income in a society is very low economic growth will improve well-being. After the point reached by the U.S. in the early 50s it doesn't work. At that point as income and the ammount of quality and goods increase, people's expectations for their own income and tangible-good level increases, and they adapt to their new level of goods as well. Hence increased happiness is not achieved.

A good summary of the findings are found in Richard Layard's
book "Happiness: Lessons From A New Science", Penguin, 2005.



[ QUOTE ]

The work isn't perfect (none are) but this argument is correct and is validated by experience.




If experience is the only validation, then to that I echo the sentiment that the "theory" is 'worthless in economics, since it may only be coincidences of complex facts, and not isolable, repeatable law which will hold true in the future.'


[/ QUOTE ] I never said or implied experience is the is the only validation; logic is important too. However, experience *IS* a necessary validation of all science.

[ QUOTE ]

Sharing, caring, trust, and health may or may not exist in an egalitarian society, and they are certainly not automatic givens.

[/ QUOTE ] More egalitarianism=more sharing, caring, trust, and health, other things being equal.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social mark
 

[ QUOTE ]

Next, people can't make a rate of return if nobody is buying anything. If nobody is consuming at all nobody will save either.



Zero consumption is impossible as a reality and therefore meaningless as a theoretical assumption. Hence nothing. Moving on...

[/ QUOTE ] It was an illustration of a point. Notice the context of my comment.

[ QUOTE ]

The taxes collected from the wealth tax go towards programs which greatly improve the quality of life of the citizens




If the quality of life of the individuals of society can be improved by a particular economic good, *greatly* no less, why then can that good not be provided by the market? I know of no such good in existence.


[/ QUOTE ] Notice that I didn't list off tangible goods here and was not talking about that. The market is all right at producing highly tangible goods but very poor at producing and maintaining intangible ones like the things I've been talking about. In fact if these intagible 'goods' are for sale it demeans them or even turns them into 'bads' (e.g. imagine buying love, friendship, and trust). Unfortunately for libertarians, intangible 'goods' are far more important to human happiness than highly tangible ones. Meaningful work, love, and a feeling of belonging and cooperation in non-profitable activities in fact have all individually been shown to be more important to human well-being than things that are for sale, for example.

And this is without going into externalities.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social mark
 

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately for libertarians, intangible 'goods' are far more important to human happiness than highly tangible ones. Meaningful work, love, and a feeling of belonging and cooperation in non-profitable activities in fact have all individually been shown to be more important to human well-being than things that are for sale, for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate at all how this is "unfortunately for liberatrians". This seems like much worse news for central planners where these intangible goods cannot be arbitrarily divided and must somehow compensate them. Some people value love more than free time, some people value belonging more. Some people value working more. What makes you think you can decide better than they can? Do you even have a point, because I am clearly missing it.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social mark
 

[ QUOTE ]
No matter what the underlying assumption of human nature or their circumstances are, we can say that an individual prefers more goods to less. It is that preference of more goods to less, combined with the diversity of human talents and natural resources that create the division of labor, upon which the necessity of effective cooperation in order to act upon preferences rests. Effective cooperation is utilized to bring goods to the market, ultimately to exchange for other produced goods. Therefore, increased cooperation reflects an increase in the desire for more goods, and sooner rather than later.

[/ QUOTE ] THis is also false. Studies of various forms economies, done by people at least dating back to Karl Polayni to the present, have found that human beings primarily are seeking social STATUS and fulfilling the principle reciprocity in their economic behavior.

If you read up on some non-capitalist forms of economic organization, you can easily see that your supposed universal fact of human nature is based on faulty assumptions.

"The outstanding discovery of recent historical and anthropoligical research is that man's economy, as a rule, is submerged in his social relationships. He does not act so as to safeguard his individual interest in the possesion of matieral goods; he acts so as to safeguard his social standing, his social claims, his social assets. He values matieral goods only in so far as they serve this end." Karl Polayni, The Great Transformation , Beacon Press, Boston, 2001; pg. 48. Note: original edition published in the 1940s.

A few pages Later he talks about several other non-capitalist, non-planned economies and summarizes another finding in direct contradiction to your rationale for cooperation in economics:

"In such a community the idea of profit is barred; higgling and haggling is decried; giving freely is acclaimed as a virtue; the supposed propensity to barter, truck, and exchange does not appear. The economic system is, in effect, a mere function of social organization." IBID, pg. 52.

He goes on to talk about forms of trade in societies in which "no goods are hoarded or even possesed permanently" at all. IBID.

The causal arrow you are using in your last sentence quoted here is backwards; in reality "an increase in the desire for goods", when it comes into being, is caused by a change in the scheme of social cooperation (e.g. to one in which social standing and social relationships are increasingly based on matieral goods).

Redistribution, reciprocity, and the pursuit of social esteem are universal as long as the powerful do not prevent them from occuring. The pursuit of individual accumulation is not.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social mark
 

1st: The market doesn't provide these things. But in a democracy people can ask for them, and the government can then provide them, mostly INDIRECTLY. It is not central planners deciding but the people themselves.

2nd: Hypercapitalism tends to erode these things, while regulations and rules that humanize the market tend to preserve them. Therefore, all the government has to do is limit the market in the correct ways in order to increase well-being, it does not have to do anything to provide them itself.

One reason is that the market encourages the pursuit of social standing via the pursuit of income and matieral goods. Unfortunately, the pursuit of relative status is a zero-sum game, and people find that their pursuit gets them nowhere. They could spend their time doing something more intrinsically enjoyable, but if others are pursuing status during this time they get left behind in relative status, decreasing their own well-being. The government can create rules which help us avoid this prisoner's dillemma by ensuring cooperation instead of defection in this pursuit. Check out the book by Laylard if you want to know more.

Another is the prevalence of market failures, especially externalities. While increasingly defined property rights and a massive increase in the ammount of civil cases can solve externalities that are harmful towards tangible goods, it cannot do the same with intangible goods, because they cannot be priced.

The government my not be perfect in solving these difficulties, but the market causes them, and the government is the best option we have available for mitigating them.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social mark
 

That is fortune from the perspective of the child; of course. Unless he choose his own parents pre-conception.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social mark
 

The American market is 'less social' than the French market; you don't have to call it libertarian if you don't want to.

The problem is, if a market needs to be much more 'laissez-faire' than the U.S. to be considered libertarian, your thinking is utopian or requires a massive ammount of social control and repression of human beings to implement, contradicting the very basis of the main libertarian objection to 'statism'. Extremists talk about how the 'free' market allows people to get what they want, but people do not want the free market and all of its insecurity itself, therefore it must be imposed on humans who do not want it if it is to ever exist. In every country that has ever tried to move towards laissez-faire, massive resistance has occured to the insecurity (etc.) that the market imposes on people. And in no democracy do people freely choose libertarianism. In fact, in all other democracies I know the data for the libertarian party is smaller than the one in the U.S.

Ironic. The libertarian market is defended because it supposedly 'gives people what they want'. But they don't want that market itself. Hence, if our goal is to give people what they want, we shouldn't impose libertarianism on them.

Re: France\'s social market vs. the U.S.\'s libertarian/less social mark
 

Once again, your argument boils down to - "I know how to make people REALLY happy, they sure as hell can't do it on their own".

In a free society, I can choose to spend my time however I wish.

"Not central planners, but people themselves". That is hilarious. People are smart enough as a group but too dumb as an individual to decide whether they want to work 40 hours a week or 20?

Give me a break. At least you haven't tried to disguise your writing style any more.