Welfare State Key To Canada's Successful Future

[Guest eureka]

Because earning power has not risen substantially in that time.

Also, although I have not looked for statistics, there has been considerable reporting of the actual decline in real earnings for the poorer members of both North American societies over the past several years. Added to that is the fact that earnings for this sector declined in the recessions of 1981 and 1990 and for some time on either side of them.

Earnings for Canadian wage earners began to decline in 1978 and did not reach the same purchasing power until about 1998. I don't know bout the US but it is not unreasonable to think they followed a similar pattern.

This affected the lower levels disproportionately and the income of the poorest declined even more dramatically with the rise of the right: the gutting of EI programs and welfare and the static minimum wage.

[August1991]

Also, although I have not looked for statistics, there has been considerable reporting of the actual decline in real earnings for the poorer members of both North American societies over the past several years.

eureka, comparable Canadian data is only available for free to people with access to Statistics Canada. In the US, this is available on the Internet:

The household income (in constant 2003 dollars) which divided the lowest quintile and the next lowest quintile was $14002 in 1967 and $17983 in 2003. The general trend during these 35 some years is increasing.

US Census Real Household Income

You may want to consider this data instead: The family income (in constant 2001 dollars) which separated the lowest quintile from the next lowest quintile was $10662 in 1947 and $24000 in 2001.

US Census Real Family Income

In both cases, we are in effect looking at the family/household with income at the 20th centile. That is, if the US was a village of 100 families, we are looking at the income of the family who is the 80th poorest.

The general trend is upwar with some interesting periods of no change (eg. 1970-85).

One reason I am always suspicious of such data is that early in life, people tend to have low incomes. As they gain experience, their income rises. When we look at a society at a given moment, it is normal that we will have young and old together.

IOW, the poor people today will not be the same poor people in, say, 10 years.

I don't mind discussing this topic with you but it would be helpful if we avoided pre-determined ideology.

[Guest eureka]

Would you interpret those figures as coming anywhere close to a 50% increase since 1970. They do for the top 5% and edge towards that figure for the top quintile. They are not near that for any other.

This is not about ideology: it is about the real world of the Right Wing's creation. If you could find the owest ten percent, then you would find that it is probable that there has been a real decline. There has in Canada.

For example, in real terms, welfare recipients in Ontario now receive approximately 40% less than they did in 1995. The same is true of Alberta, I believe and, I suspect for other provinces.

Why else food banks. The first of these was in Edmonton in 1980 with the recession and the real decline in income. They have grown like Topsy since then with the rapidly growing population that cannot feed itself.

The same is true of the United States though I simply cannot devote the time to research every statistic. Why was one of the Kerry campaign points the real decline in incomes for the average American over the past two years of Bush? He did not even mention the growing army of the poor.

You may also see from your site that there was a decline in real family income around the recessionary periods as now under Bush.

I also suspect those statistics are not too reflective of even a year later since they do not seem to take in the tax increases now being imposed in - at last count - seventeen American states. Nor would they measure the effects of the tax reductions for the rich; the recent acceleration of America healthcare costs and the increasing energy costs. Incomes have not grown to cover these. They also will not consider the inflation that is just around the bend due to the sagging dollar. Hugo would agree, I think, that inflation is inevitable. As usual, the lowest earners have no protection against that.

The next census might show a considerably less rosy picture.

[Pateris]

The problem with the LICO (being half of the average) is that assuming a normal distribution of incomes there will ALWAYS be about the same percentage of the population below the LICO...

And only by making everyone EQUAL will this go away.

For instance, giving the bottom 5% of the population a million dollars each would actually INCREASE the number of people below the LICO (because the LICO would move).

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

I honestly think that the bulk of the redistributist argument stems from petty jealousy and envy. People of this nature see others who are richer than they and they want it for themselves. They see it as unfair that they have less. Karl Marx's writings are good examples, filled as they are with hatred and spite for the upper classes and businessmen. People of this nature are less concerned with their own lot in life than they are with that of others.

Perhaps with Marx, you may be right. However, not for me. I am a small business owner who is by no means rich, but very, very happy. I love to go to work everyday, because I love what I do. An anomaly, I admit.

Japan, last time I checked, offers no state benefits for the elderly at all. Japanese aged simply save for their retirement. Japan has one of the longest life expectancies in the entire world and does not have any problems with poverty amongst the aged beyond those suffered by either Sweden or the USA. The "no benefits = aged poverty" argument is not borne out by this evidence.

As I understand it, most Japanese families care for their own elderly, the 'nuclear family'. It is not like in the US where the individual is tantamount, and the notion of family is becoming a nuisance and an obstacle to personal wealth.

[Hugo]

I have said quite clearly why Bangladesh is irrelevant to the debate

It is not irrelevant, because it proves how your measure of poverty is wrong. According to your methods, Bangladesh should have far less poverty than the USA or Sweden. According to my methods, it should have far more. If your modes of calculation have to have "exceptions" made for them that include probably two-thirds of the planet they are derelict.

I am not at all confused about poverty in the United States.

I'm glad to hear it. Perhaps then you'll tell me how you define poverty, exactly, and how many people in the US you consider to be poor.

There, too, it does not seem to enter your warped thinking that the old should not be poor. They have paid their dues to society and are entitled to rewards.

"The old" is an aggregate. They cannot be said, as a group, to have done anything. There are many old people who haven't worked for a day in their lives. People are individuals, not faceless herds. Saving for retirement will grant people in old age a reward proportionate to what they contributed in life. A state pension grants a reward that in no way reflects what a person has done in life.

This may change as the Japanes economy suffers the same ills as other developed societies.

The Japanese economy is suffering ills because it is a mixed and planned economy, like the Scandinavian countries. Japanese economic growth has been negative for six years because government interference in business will not allow malinvestments to be liquidated and for resources to be reallocated to profitable lines of business according to consumer demand.

Your argument about Japan is fallacious - I won't say what kind of fallacy.

This is not true. You claim that a nation that does not provide a state pension condemns its aged to poverty. Japan does not and its aged are not condemned to poverty. QED.

To say that the poorest 20% in America earn the same as the median of Americans in 1970 is pure and utter rubbish

Comparison of the average expenditure per person of the lowest quintile in 2001 with the middle quintile in 1973. Sources: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey: Integrated Diary and Interview Survey Data, 1972-73, Bulletin No. 1992, released in 1979, and U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditures in 2001, Report No. 966, April 2003. Figures adjusted for inflation by the personal consumption expenditure index.

Perhaps you'll list your sources now.

And, even if it were so, how do you convert that to "the only cure being complete state control of the economy."

Because that is the only way to make all incomes exactly equal, and that is what you say is the only cure for poverty.

What is important is what hundreds of years of the evolution of mixed economies have led sociities to conclude it is.

Most of the important discoveries in the world were made because people rejected popular notions and preconceived ideas. There is no harm in doing so. If the idea is right, it will be borne out anyway. If wrong, an important leap forward may be made.

I am not going to say what studies gave those poverty rates because I am not wasting time to look them up

The Forum Rules clearly state:

If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc).

Since you won't or can't do that, we should disregard what you have said. After all, you can claim absolutely anything if you don't have to prove it.

They are beyond question as is the British action to begin a correction.

I assume you think the invasion of Iraq was justified, then? I mean, if the British government had acted on intelligence that Saddam had WMD, that information must have been "beyond question." Quite the climb-down from your previous position on the matter, I must say.

Bill Gates getting another billion dollars is completely irrelevant. The effect is miniscule and it would not be another billion dollars of income.

If Bill Gates were to acquire an extra billion dollars of income this would, according to your definition of poverty, add several people to the ranks of the "poor" by raising the average income, even though their material circumstances had not changed at all. Stop squirming and explain this discrepancy in your argument. How can a person become "poor" one day when they were not the day before without any change in their material circumstances?

Your paragraph on "confiscation" of people's money needs no elaborate comment. It is the height of absurdity. You still support death and disease for those who cannot afford medical care. You support the notion that such care should cost twice as much for those who can.

There is no point making these sorts of accusations. I could simply say that you support poverty and misery for people because you advocate destroying the economic method by which wealth and prosperity for all is created. However, I know that your motives are not evil, so I wouldn't try to assassinate your character by alleging such.

Government has shown itself to be more efficient; more responsive to social needs; and less costly than your preferred method.

No, it has not. This is why the Nordic states, Japan, Germany and so forth are in economic stagnation, because of government attempts to interfere in the economy. Government lacks the price mechanism for consumer feedback, and because of this it is not possible for government to ever allocate goods as efficiently as in a free market because there is no useful mechanism for consumers to tell producers what they actually want.

There are price signals in public affairs as much as in private.

How can there be a price signal when there is no price, as in state healthcare?

Eugenics did not go in in Nordic countries longer than in North America.

Yes, it did. Sweden only ended its programme to sterilize undesireables in 1976. The sporadic American eugenics programme has been dead since the 1950s.

As I understand it, most Japanese families care for their own elderly, the 'nuclear family'. It is not like in the US where the individual is tantamount, and the notion of family is becoming a nuisance and an obstacle to personal wealth.

The welfare state, unfortunately, destroys the family. By creating state programmes to replace what families previously did for themselves, the state encourages families not to care for each other. In Japan, government has refrained from doing this and families continue to care for their elderly. In Denmark, government programmes to care for single parents, new mothers, the aged, the unemployed, and subsidised daycare, exorbitant taxation on private transportation, and so forth have reduced marriage rates, raised divorce rates, made motherhood happen later in life, reduced incidence of motherhood, increased single parenthood, increased the number of families where both parents work full-time, massively increased the number of children in daycare as opposed to being raised at home, and more (source: Statistisk Tiaarsoversigt 2003; Statistisk Aarbog 2003; and 50-Aars Oversigten (2001) et al).

[Guest eureka]

Hugo, you are beyond redemption. I have tried to indulge you yet you return every time with the same unthinking fixations.

You spout arrant nonsense that flies in the face of facts and experience and expect others to waste their time responding to you.

In your last effort you return to Bill Gates and a "billion" dollars even though I have exposed that as an absurdity.

You claim that I must support the war in Iraq because I have a better grasp of reality than you.

You insist on economic stagnation in the Nordic countries because they do not conform to your idea of the world. That, though the GDP growth rate in both Denmark and Sweden is almost exactly the same as in the USA since 1960 - 2.2%.

You say that I claim that a state without a state pension condemns its citizens to poverty when you know that I did not. I did explain to you the Japanes situation and how they have been an exception: an exception that does not fit your dogmas and, therefore, cannot be true.

Your final paragraph about welfare reveals more about the state of your mind than it does about any ills of a welfare state. You even cite a source for the existence of the many welfare benefits. I have to assume that the conclusion that those goods are actually ills is yours. I would be surorised if a responsible and sane researcher thought they were destroying the family..

Finally, I am a little tired of your juvenile tactic of imputing to me thoughts and ideas that I do not hold: ideas that often are contrary to what I expressed.

I will continue with this discussion if any want to. But, I will not address any of your efforts unless they get back to earth and to honest discussion.

[Hugo]

In your last effort you return to Bill Gates and a "billion" dollars even though I have exposed that as an absurdity.

Where have you exposed this as an absurdity? You said that the impact of Bill Gates upon your perception of poverty would be "miniscule" (the full quote was "Bill Gates getting another billion dollars is completely irrelevant. The effect is miniscule and it would not be another billion dollars of income. Ask yoursel rather should Bill Gates be allowed to acquire another billion dollars of income if it were to be of income.").

However, miniscule or not, it will have a measurable effect according to your methodology. My question is therefore this: how can increased wealth for Bill Gates suddenly plunge even one person into "poverty" (one person being indeed miniscule on a macroeconomic level) without the slightest change in his own material circumstances? You repeatedly fail to address this discrepancy.

You claim that I must support the war in Iraq because I have a better grasp of reality than you.

This is not true. I claim that you must support the war in Iraq because you claimed that nothing more than action by the British government was sufficient evidence for the truth of a given piece of information, be that an assessment of British poverty or an assessment of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

My question is this: if the British government acted on faulty information when it invaded Iraq, why is it inconceivable that it did so when it created a new anti-poverty programme?

You insist on economic stagnation in the Nordic countries because they do not conform to your idea of the world. That, though the GDP groth rate in both Denmark and Sweden is almost exactly the same as in the USA since 1960 - 2.2%.

What is the source for this? The GDP growth this year for the Nordic countries is as follows (from the CIA World Factbook):

Finland: 1.9%

Sweden: 1.7%

Denmark: 0.0%

Norway: 0.6%

And for the USA, 3.1%. Since 1950, Swedish GDP growth has been below OECD average (source: OECD; H.D. Dixon, Controversies in Macroeconomics: Growth, Trade and Policy (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000)). Walter Korpi notes that similar lags began in other countries with initially high GDP growth rates in about 1970, including Denmark (Walter Korpi, "Eurosclerosis and the Sclerosis of Objectivity," Economic Journal, no. 439 (1996): 1731), although the Swedish "lag" has been present since 1950, trailing the OECD average by 0.3 in 1950-1968 and by 0.4 between 1968 and 1973.

You say that I claim that a state without a state pension condemns its citizens to poverty when you know that I did not.

You said:

The number of homeowners in the US poor reflects the millions of elderly poor which is higher in the US than in any developed country since the benefits are pitiful.

Basically, you alleged that the USA has "millions" of elderly poor because state benefits are "pitiful."

I did explain to you the Japanes situation and how they have been an exception

Why - because of a high employment rate and private pension plans? This doesn't exactly make a good argument for state pensions, now, does it?

Your final paragraph about welfare reveals more about the state of your mind than it does about any ills of a welfare state... I have to assume that the conclusion that those goods are actually ills is yours.

This is the allegation of Per Henrik Hansen of the Copenhagen Business School, who has studied the matter in great detail. He shows that there is a close correlation between increasing state benefits and the decline in marriage and childbirth rates and climbing divorce rates and childbearing ages.

[Guest eureka]

Those growth rates are from the same source as the other stats I gave you. Denmark: 1960-1990 2.1%, Sweden 2.2%, the US 2.2%. 1990 - 2003 is 2% for all.

I am not responding to the rest of your post since it contains only the same distortions and evasions.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

and so forth have reduced marriage rates, raised divorce rates, made motherhood happen later in life, reduced incidence of motherhood, increased single parenthood, increased the number of families where both parents work full-time, massively increased the number of children in daycare as opposed to being raised at home, and more

I think you'll find that these are symptoms across the board, and most are caused by individuals worshipping the dollar, not state benefits. Almost all of the above you state are directly tied to the 'upper middle class'. In fact, I have met several teen mothers in Canada that try to stay pregnant, lest social benefits be cut off. When offered a job, I heard one teen mother say "I can't work, Welfare won't let me".

I agree with most of what you say, however, and am an ardent supporter of the notion "Work for Welfare".

[Hugo]

Those growth rates are from the same source as the other stats I gave you.

Which source would that be? The Heritage Foundation? UNICEF? The CCSD? David Orchard? Nationmaster? The CIA Factbook? Or perhaps I have missed one of the sources you alluded to, or maybe you were quoting from these mysterious oracles again that, for some reason, you cannot name?

I am not responding to the rest of your post since it contains only the same distortions and evasions.

I assume that's what your excuses-for-not-answering-direct-questions-rolodex card says for today. When I take the time to copy-and-paste your original words into my post, it's utterly laughable that you would even claim that I had distorted what you had said. It's even more of a joke when you purposely avoid quoting a single word of my posts in your rebuttals.

Oh, and if you're going to evade answering anything with unfounded allegations, it helps if you don't accuse other people of evading you whilst you are evading them. It makes you look even more hypocritical.

I think you'll find that these are symptoms across the board, and most are caused by individuals worshipping the dollar, not state benefits.

The problem these days is that state benefits are now across the board too. Every country is seeing the same situation, and every country is becoming increasingly socialist, with lobbyists and politicians crying for increasing socialist measures every day.

Almost all of the above you state are directly tied to the 'upper middle class'.

Based on what? My source says they are pretty much universal. In fact, he alleges it is more the case for working classes since a 25% sales tax, the lowest income tax rate being 46% and a 205% tax on owning a car (plus biannual weight fees, triple the American cost of gasoline, green taxes etc.) have a far greater impact on poorer people and are a positive discouragement to starting a family - it just costs too much for most working-class people.

[Guest eureka]

You don't copy my words. You copy part of them to suit your ill considered responses which is why I will give no more consideration to your "replies." You simply cannot argue the issues and always try to turn everything to your fixation.

The source you can find from Nationmaster if you really want a source that is not one of your preferred zealots.

[August1991]

Would you interpret those figures as coming anywhere close to a 50% increase since 1970. They do for the top 5% and edge towards that figure for the top quintile. They are not near that for any other.

The growth in income 1967-2003 is about 40%. I am not sure what the difference is between family/household/individual. IOW, I don't know what has happened to the family size (although I suspect that it has gotten smaller. This would imply that poor individuals have gained more than 40%). I believe that this is after-tax income.

Keep in mind, eureka, that the poor people in 1967 were not the same in 1977 or 1987. In each year, you are looking at different people. The US is a country of tremendous social mobility.

I agree with you eureka that the incomes of the richest people have increased, at least in this period, faster than the incomes of poor people.

It has been argued that our sense of self-worth is based not on our absolute position but on our position relative to others. This is the kind of Leftist argument I understand but also disagree with. I have met too many people in poor countries who suffer from various ailments or frustrating situations for the simple lack of money. Money to buy medecine, to pay for an education or to pay rent for a decent place. Having a gas cooker makes life easier and better. And it ain't relative at all.

This is not about ideology: it is about the real world of the Right Wing's creation. If you could find the owest ten percent, then you would find that it is probable that there has been a real decline. There has in Canada.

Now you are engaging in ideology, eureka. Because the data doesn't support your viewpoint, you want to look at the poorest 10%, in hopes that it will support your view.

The current world is hardly the right's creation. The 1960s, in the US, saw the creation of Medicare and expansion of social security (as in Canada).

Why else food banks. The first of these was in Edmonton in 1980 with the recession and the real decline in income. They have grown like Topsy since then with the rapidly growing population that cannot feed itself.

Food banks and homeless people seem to be modern phenomenon. But in the thirties, shanty towns and inviting people in for a meal were common.

I see a tremendous difference with poverty today however. Many of the modern homeless simply want nothing to do with any kind of bureaucracy. As soon as the government gets involved, bureaucratic guidelines must be respected and forms completed. The purpose is to create an audit trail but the effect is to emprison those who prefer freedom.

You may also see from your site that there was a decline in real family income around the recessionary periods as now under Bush.

I agree with you. Americans tend to vote with their wallets. I think Gore should have won in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Admittedly, those elections were close. Nixon, Ford and Carter were economic disasters for Americans but Clinton and Reagan fostered good times.

I also suspect those statistics are not too reflective of even a year later since they do not seem to take in the tax increases now being imposed in - at last count - seventeen American states.

I agree too. The time frame is simply too short to decide whether a given policy is good. (I believe Chou-En-lai said that it is still too early to say whether the French revolution was a good thing.)

The problem with the LICO (being half of the average) is that assuming a normal distribution of incomes there will ALWAYS be about the same percentage of the population below the LICO...

Pateris, I agree. If US GDP grows in the next 200 years as it has in the past 200 years, real GDP per person will be about US $600,000 per person in 2200. But 20% odf the population will be considered in poverty because their per capita income will be below US $60,000.

I honestly think that the bulk of the redistributist argument stems from petty jealousy and envy.

Perhaps with Marx, you may be right. However, not for me. I am a small business owner who is by no means rich, but very, very happy. I love to go to work everyday, because I love what I do. An anomaly, I admit.

I sometimes think the difference between Left and Right can be simplified to "Robin Hood: Good or Bad". I don't think this is petty jealousy. Some of us are lucky in life and some of us are not. Life is a lottery, but if you win, you agree to share.

As to Thelonious, I agree completely. The trick is not to make the most money but rather to maximize the difference between what you earn and what you would be prepared to accept for the job. From what you say, you'd be prepared to work for nothing. Your income then is pure "profit".

----

To follow up Hugo's point, at present, our governments do not act as Robin Hood. If anything, they tend to take from the rich and poor and give to the middle class (subsidies to education and health and a tremendous subsidy to homeowners and car drivers). When people argue in favour of greater government involvement in the economy, I wonder what's on offer.

eureka, I agree that ordinary people should get a decent chance in life. In my mind though, it is more important not to waste the potential resources and chances we have.

[Guest eureka]

The problem with your post, August, is that you are not looking at the right fugures. I am not trying to turn this to the bottom 10% "because the figures do not fit my claims" - which we should be looking at - because the increase is nowhere near 40% or the 50% Hugo claimed.

Just to accept the figures you posted, you will find, as I think I said, that only the top quintile had close to 50% and this was skewed by the obscene increase of the top 5%. The bottom two quintiles are not even 20%. And, for the last 10% or so (figures not provided there) I am fairly sure that there was an actual reduction. I have seen this somewhere. And, this is over a 35 year period of supposed growth.

Part of Kerry's position was the 9% decrease in average family income under Bush and the Bush recession. That does not show up in those figures so we are somewhat in the dark as to the actual increase which will prove to be rather small. 2003 shows the state before the recessionary infuiences took hold.

I would disagree with you that the poor change so rapidly. Poverty is, and always has been a generational thing. Mobility is not nearly so much a part fulfillment of the American Dream. Class is more deeply entrenched in America than it is in Europe because it is a class based on money. It is hard, indeed, for the poor to climb upwards or for their children to acquire the tools needed. It has become even harder in recent years with the decline in educational opportunity.

I also disagree that the concept of self-worth where income comes into it is a Leftist idea. I think that is a sociological reality. The measure of worth, of any kind of worth, can only be against some objective standard (if we leave spirituality out of it). That standard is the society around and the poor are undeniably not in any position to take pride in themselves or their accomplishments.

I am not indulging in ideology, but fact. The data does, I would think, support me. This present social and economic malaise is the consequence of the Right - by that I do not mean Conservatives since there have been none of these since Ted Heath and Diefenbaker. Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney and similar creatures are responsible and the puppetmasters of the corporate world.

For short term gain and the myth of Globalisation, they have destroyed two generations of progress. They have actually retarded economic growth which has been much lower everywhere since the "Right" gained control. At the same time, social programs everywhere have been under attack to feed the Capitalistic maw. Income and wealth distribution has become increasingly wider spaced. The poor truly are poor in a way that the have not been since shortly after WWII while the rich are comparatively richer.

We can do the homeless bit somewhere,if you want. It is not at all what people think it is nor is the constitution of homelessness what most people think it is. It is far worse. The problem is the lack of bureaucracy since there are no programs for bureaucrats to administer.

Homelessness, in England, for instance, was very largely under control with the nassive programs of construction of council housing. Margaret Thatcher decided, apparently, that a good dose of homelessness waa what the nation needed to restore docility to the peasantry. So they got homelessness, and unemployment, and poverty. They got with that increases in violent crime and other ills.

I do not accept that the redistributionist argument has anything to do with petty jealousy and envy. "The labourer is worthy of his hire" and I think that a world that will not accept that hire is, at a minimum, sufficient to confer dignity and that feeling of "Self-worth" is a world that needs to be turned on its head.

Certainly, the poor must envy the rich. There is nothing petty in that. They see some members of society grossly overcompensated simply because they have the power to enforce their undeserved share of collections while they, the poor, are unable to provide for themselves or their children.

Those who hold to the return of Liberal Capitalist dogmas and conditions should ask themselves why did Marx and that kind attract such a willingly supportive response. They did so because they were right in their assessment of society. Wrong in their solutions but not in their sociological assessment.

[Hugo]

I am not trying to turn this to the bottom 10% "because the figures do not fit my claims" - which we should be looking at - because the increase is nowhere near 40% or the 50% Hugo claimed.

I have offered you sources that show expenditure of the lowest quintile today is the same as that of the middle quintile in 1973 adjusted for inflation. I would like to see your sources.

I would disagree with you that the poor change so rapidly. Poverty is, and always has been a generational thing. Mobility is not nearly so much a part fulfillment of the American Dream.

Birkhauser and Finegan find that, on average, a person who starts a minimum-wage job will have increased his wage by 30% within 12 months. Low-income earners become average-income earners within a few years and advance to become high-income earners in middle age. This phenomenon is well-documented. A search on the Cato Institute for "living wage" or "minimum wage" should bring up reams of studies for you.

The measure of worth, of any kind of worth, can only be against some objective standard (if we leave spirituality out of it).

"Worth" is entirely subjective and depends upon the beholder, his preferences and his circumstances. What is a litre of water worth to you right now? What is it worth when you are alone in a desert? If worth was objective, trade would not exist.

They have actually retarded economic growth which has been much lower everywhere since the "Right" gained control.

If you can show me a single laissez-faire government since WWII - or even the turn of the century - I would believe that the "right" had ever been in control. The Western economies have been in the hands of monetarists, Keynesians and socialists for decades.

The source you can find from Nationmaster if you really want a source that is not one of your preferred zealots...Denmark: 1960-1990 2.1%, Sweden 2.2%, the US 2.2%. 1990 - 2003 is 2% for all... the GDP groth rate in both Denmark and Sweden is almost exactly the same as in the USA since 1960 - 2.2%.

Nationmaster measures Sweden's GDP growth 1970-2000 as 1.4%, Denmark as 1.6%, the US as 2.0%. Nationmaster

Perhaps you could be more precise as to where you found these figures.

[Guest eureka]

http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Economy

Try this one for a host of comparisons

[Guest eureka]

http://www.bls.gov/fls/flsgdp.pdf

This one shows 1960 - 2000.

Denmark has a slightly higher rate than the Us and Sweden slightly lower.

There are a myriad sites and whatever the methodology, there seem to be different answers. I don't recall the one I cited, but it is the same one that shoed the number of phone sets and share of national incomes, and infant mortality rates. I will post it if I come across it again.

[Hugo]

http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Economy

This one doesn't seem to show 1990-2003 growth that you cited. For the 1980-2000 growth, Norway posts slightly higher than the US, all other Nordic countries significantly lower. For 1998-2002, Sweden matches the US, all other Nordic countries are significantly lower, although it's only fair to state that the US has had economic disruptions in that time (9/11 etc.) that the Nordic countries did not have. For 1975-2000, all Nordic countries post significantly lower than the US, except Norway at only .6% higher.

In any case, these figures are misleading because of the proportions of public to private sector activity. The public sector is inherently unproductive compared to the private because it lacks price signals and cannot allocate resources as efficiently to consumer demands as the private sector can. In fact, some prominent economists including, I believe, Murray Rothbard and others, have suggested that public sector growth needs to be subtracted from overall economic growth.

This one shows 1960 - 2000.

Leafing through the 1960-2000 figures of per-capita GDP, Denmark never equals the USA. In fact I don't think Denmark ever reached 85% of the per capita GDP of the USA. Norway and Sweden perform a little better but still never come close to the USA.

[I miss Reagan]

maplesyrup,

So explain this - how is it that the United States has been the biggest wealth producing country in the world for nigh on 200 years? And CONTINUES to be the largest wealth producing country....

And that in all the "high-tax" places you mention there are very few people getting rich...

MS also hates to hear that the US is the most generous and giving country in terms of aid within and abroad. It drives her nuts, like a vampire and daylight.

[brianw]

I seen a statistic the other day that said there are 1,000,000 children living in poverty in Canada.

$2,000,000,000 to a useless gun registry works out to $2,000 per child if it wasn't wasted. Then add in all the other "boondogles" (HRDC, ADSCAM, etc...) and it would make one heck of a difference. We are forced to hand money over to a black hole (that does very little to do what socialists claim it's purpose is) when we could do more with that money ourselves.

Our local council just apporved $33,000 to do an arts and culture study and at the same time I seen in the paper a list of people who were being evicted from their homes, because they can't meet the state set quotas for state property rent and shelter tax (anyone who has an acre of land and some form of shelter is an evil rich criminal).

Socialist keep saying that those who wish to keep more of what they work for have a "mine, mine, mine" attitude. Meanwhile the socialist have a "give me, give me, give me" attitude with the pretense of helping others. Very little actually gets to those who need it and what does reach them creates a dependancy cycle that isn't usually broken. These socialist cram people into housing projects (more like refugee camps) where they are demoralized and degraded.

[Common Sense]

Keys to Nordic success

This success can be attributed to four factors: knowledge and education, entrepreneurship, cooperation and solidarity, and the Nordic model of the welfare state.

This is the direction that Canada needs to head in. By keeping our taxes high, we could eliminate poverty and be a shining example on how to have a just society in the Americas, perhaps helping the countries in Central and South America to pull themselves out of their exploited situations..

Raising taxes you commie idiot. We pay a way too much in taxes as it is. That commie jerk Pierre Elliot Trudeau who was the President of the Communist Youth League of Canada started this garbage and it has gotten worse over the years. University professors and jerks like you should be taxed at 80% of your gross salary so that those of us who worked our buns off and are now retired can get some enjoyment out of our remaining years. No wonder more and more Canadians are saying screw you you pinko idiots and have moved to the USA where they can live one hell of a lot better and pay LESS I repeat far LESS taxes.

What grade are you in by the way ? One ??

[Guest eureka]

Have you set a new record for length of stay in school? Retired and still with a JK level of information and less of understanding.

[Guest eureka]

IMR!

The US is not the most generous with aid at home or abroad. Not by a very long way. In its external aid, it is a long way down the list of proportionate aid givers - a very long way. Much of the aid it does give is tied to its own interests, too.

Internally, it is a mean society. Private charitable donations are high as people generously try to make up for the lack of institutional responses to need. They, though, fall very far short of the social requirements.

[Pateris]

eureka,

Have you actually lived in the US or just listened to the CBC and Liberal/NDP propaganda?

The US is not a mean society - they take care of their own when necessary. The average American is BETTER off than the average Canadian and has better access to health care and other services than we do.

Admittedly, the American model isn't perfect, but for once i'd like you socialist pinkos to admit the Americans do do some things right...

[caesar]

Raising taxes you commie idiot. We pay a way too much in taxes as it is. That commie jerk Pierre Elliot Trudeau who was the President of the Communist Youth League of Canada started this garbage and it has gotten worse over the years. University professors and jerks like you should be taxed at 80% of your gross salary so that those of us who worked our buns off and are now retired can get some enjoyment out of our remaining years. No wonder more and more Canadians are saying screw you you pinko idiots and have moved to the USA where they can live one hell of a lot better and pay LESS I repeat far LESS taxes.

Very nice; did you get up on the wrong side of the bed or are you just an angry idiot?

The Americans pay less taxes for now as it doesn't cover many of the services we have; mainly health care. With their rapid increase in deficit and lower valued dollars; they will sooner or later have to bite the bullet and pony up more money to the government to pay for what it is spending