Sweden fares badly in global economic report

"Sweden together with Finland falls at the bottom of their table, excepting even more troubled Western economies–such as Iceland and Ireland. The report stated that living standards in Sweden were 11 percent higher in 2007 than the overall OECD standard, falling to 7 percent last year, Sveriges Radio reports.

"Countries such as the US, Australia, and Canada pulled ahead, said the OECD. The organization noted that Sweden remains a well-off nation."

I concede your point about Sweden. However, Norway and Denmark are doing well, as are Australia and Canada.

"Sweden remains a well-off nation." A better safety net means that unemployment is not the disaster in Sweden that it is in the United States. In the U.S. a lot of people have out lasted eligibility for unemployment compensation, and they still cannot find jobs.

 

Actually, I conceded his 69magpie's point about Sweden.

Now that I have read the essay you recommended, "History of the U.S. Tax System," I would like for you to demonstrate how it discredits assertions I have made.

After you finish that, read The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, and demonstrate how it disproves my assertion that the atomic bombing of Japan was unnecessary to end World War II.

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

 

What matters is that as taxes, and especially taxes on the rich, increased from 1932 - 1944, unemployment decreased. During the Reagan engineered recession of 1982, unemployment reached two percentage points higher than the highest during the Carter Administration. Detroit never recovered from the recession of 1982. As I have pointed out many times, there was less job creation every year under Reagan than under Carter.

Have you finished reading the 32 pages of The United States Strategic Bombing Survey? I want you to explain how it proves that I am mistaken in my assertion that it was not necessary to drop atomic bombs on Japan. Here is the link, once again:
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

 

This is what your essay has to say about the Recession of 1982:

"Simultaneously with the enactment of the tax cuts in 1981 the Federal Reserve Board, with the full support of the Reagan Administration, altered monetary policy so as to bring inflation under control. The Federal Reserve's actions brought inflation down faster and further than was anticipated at the time, and one consequence was that the economy fell into a deep recession in 1982."

In other words, Reagan's economic policies caused the recession. Inflation was reduced because people out of work could not buy things, and bid up the price of consumer items. Another factor contributing to the decline in inflation was the decline in the world price of petroleum. Reagan had nothing to do with that at all.

 

Brother where art thou?

You did it again, you leave out the part that tells of the success.

 

I'm sure this wasn't a surprise to you, Tenguy. Cherrypicker is DL's middle name, and it's got nothing to do with virgins.

 

"As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth. Though the painful medicine of disinflation slowed and initially hid the process, the beneficial effects of marginal rate cuts and reductions in the disincentives to invest took hold as promised."

Most of the economic growth during the Reagan administration went to the richest 20% of the country. Many factory workers who lost well paying union jobs during the recession of 1982 never recovered economically.

 

I look at the big picture. As I have pointed out many times, since Lyndon Johnson, there has always been more job creation per year under Democrat presidents. From 1932 to 1944 the top tax rate went up. Unemployment declined. Per capita GDP increased. This was true even before America's entry into World War II.

 

Keep on truckin', loser.

 

I've never seen you look at the big picture. You've always looked at a tiny part that agreed with your predetermined point of view, and inferred that it indicated the big picture.

 

No you don't. You look at perceived gov't revenues. If they get more of your money you think it must be good, then, you close your eyes. Wrecked economy, don't look at that. Slowed economy, don't look at that. Years and years of people out of work, don't pay attention to that. Tax the rich, Tax the rich, Tax the rich. :roll: You're pro class warfare even if it leaves people unemployed for years and years on end. You just don't care. You have been repeatedly shown that you close your eyes to the consequences of high taxes.

unemployment declined? it went from shit, to just less than shit until the war. 12 year period of time minimal growth until when??? WWII. What is with your love of painfully slow growth? Why would you want to leave so many people unemployed?

 

In other words, you do not have a rational response.

How is your reading of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey coming along? I am waiting for you to explain why I am wrong about claiming that the atomic bombing of Japan was unnecessary. Here is the link again:
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

 

Things got worse under Herbert Hoover. They got better under Franklin Roosevelt. That is why he was reelected three times, and why the Republicans have never been able repeal the reforms of the New Deal.

 

In 2004 the United States spent over half of what the rest of the world spent on the military.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

Nevertheless, in 2006 total taxes as a share of GDP was lower in the United States than in any European country.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/09/tea-party-taxes-opinions-columnists-bartlett.html

Consider both of those facts, and you can see why we are so badly in debt.

 

You just refuse to admit that you were wrong about the effects of tax cuts and the overall economy. Keep throwing gasoline on the fire, it's you that is tied to the stake.

The factory job losses in 1982 were in industries that failed to adjust to new technologies and new competition. Example is the auto industry, how many jobs were lost because labor refused to adjust to the reality of lower costs to produce vehicles at non-union shops? While other manufacturers were using extensive robotics, the US companies, with UAW contracts were forbidden to.

The enormous crash of the US auto industry can be largely attributed to the refusal of the UAW to recognize that the companies would not survive without changes. They finally realized it when Chrysler and GM both declared bankruptcy. But it was then way too late, hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost.

 

Most of the economic growth during the Reagan administration went to the richest 20%. Within the richest 20%, most went to the richest 5%. Reagans' tax cuts tripled the national debt. You blame labor costs for the crash of the U.S. auto industry, but you ignore the fact that upper management earns much more than in countries that produce better cars. Also, who designs U.S. cars? It is not factory workers. Japanese, and European cars are not less expensive than American cars. They are better designed, and they consume less gasoline.

You seem to think that American industry can only be competitive if the United States approximates third world levels of inequality. Finally, job creation per year was not only higher when Bill Clinton was president. It was higher when Jimmy Carter was president.

 

Personally i'd rather look at current data over a biased partisan graph predicting the future demise of our country because of a certain political party. The job losses are slowing, it's a good sign but not good enough. We'll truly be "recovering" when we go from small job losses to mediocre job gains. I know most of you are here trying to push your party line but as a centrist and business owner that's just the way I see it.

If you guys want I can go find some epically biased republican or democratic rhetoric and post it on here so I fit in with the rest of the sheep that blindly support one party no matter what and think the other party is nothing but bad.

 

Oh bullshit. It was not the UAW that came up with "planned obsolescence" which drove the American consumers to buy foreign cars in self defense. It wasn't the UAW who planned and designed ever bigger and more expensive cars, even though trends were for smaller more fuel efficient cars.

Its always the workers with you tenguy, never the bosses or management who can apparently do no wrong in your opinion.