Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, welfare or social security is NOT Keynesian economics. From your own article:
From the beginning, our representatives in Washington have approached this economic downturn with old-fashioned, Keynesian economics. Keynesianism—named after the British economist John Maynard Keynes—is the theory that you fight an economic downturn by pumping money into the economy to "encourage demand" and "create jobs."
Social security is NOT used to stimulate markets. It is guarenteed at all times. There are cuts at one point (Hartz4) but raises in other areas (payments for students went up in the last years).
Social security in Germany started way before the financial crisis. It goes back to the 19th century. Your whole argument is based on a false premise.
Germany is a social democracy with a UHC system, free education (schools and universities!) and unemployment payments, and no one is trying to get rid of this. It is stated in the German Constitution that German is a "social" and a "democratic" state. By Law Germany has to provide a social security net.
If you really believe that welfare is Keynesian economics, and Germany is getting away from it, you'd need to prove that Germany is trying to get rid of its social security.
Also, you are totally ignoring the fact, that Germany used Keynesian economics (still is) in 2009(!!!).
This was the biggest stimulus package since the second world war. How anyone can ignore it is beyond me. Your statement wasn't a hyperbole, it was completly not true.
Edit: And by the way, I live in Germany and I wasn't happy about interventions in some markets by the German government in the last years, SO I know there were big interventions.
One of the things I really can't stand is when someone, who has never lived in my country, will speak as though they are an expert on my country. I would not presume to that and will thus surrender to you on this subject. I still have my opinion based on studying world economies but I will bow out of this argument because I do not want to become that person that believes they know better than the local populace. Thanks for the lively debate and best of luck to you.
Last September, the German electorate decided that even Steinbruck was too socialist, and so elected a coalition between Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats and the Free Democrats, a free-market party that is even more opposed to public spending than Merkel.
That part is so wrong. Steinbruck wasn't "voted off". His party SPD lost the election and it wasn't because of his person. Also, one part of the new coalition, the FDP, has horrible approval ratings and doesn't get much support from its coalition partner, the CDU whereas the more left-leaning Die Grüne and the SPD are gaining political power again.
One of the things I really can't stand is when someone, who has never lived in my country, will speak as though they are an expert on my country. I would not presume to that and will thus surrender to you on this subject. I still have my opinion based on studying world economies but I will bow out of this argument because I do not want to become that person that believes they know better than the local populace. Thanks for the lively debate and best of luck to you.
You can't debate here anymore because of your false interpretation of social security in Germany, your misunderstanding of economics in general and your false claim about Germany's fiscal policies....so you leave.
I hope at least, maybe, you learned something about Germany and you will stop spreading misinformation about it on the internet.
You can't debate here anymore because of your false interpretation of social security in Germany, your misunderstanding of economics in general and your false claim about Germany's fiscal policies....so you leave.
I hope at least, maybe, you learned something about Germany and you will stop spreading misinformation about it on the internet.
I am trying to be magnanimous because of a personal belief I hold but you are making this challenging for me. I surrendered to you based upon the fact that you do indeed live in Germany whereas I do not. I find your assumptions of my motivations very disturbing. I was taught by my very wise mother to stand up for my convictions and to actually do what I say vice just give something lip service.
I am trying to be magnanimous because of a personal belief I hold but you are making this challenging for me. I surrendered to you based upon the fact that you do indeed live in Germany whereas I do not. I find your assumptions of my motivations very disturbing. I was taught by my very wise mother to stand up for my convictions and to actually do what I say vice just give something lip service.
Your false premise that social security is part of Keynesian economics has nothing to do with Germany.
If you look into the history of social security in Europe, you'd understand where it comes from and that it wasn't created for the reasons you stated.
Also, I didn't find your articles very convincing. One neglected the fact that Germany used a big stimulus package; the other gave false information about the election in Germany in 2009.
That was 20-25% of their GNP, not federal spending, which is where the 20-25% figure comes from for American defense spending. When you look at the percentage of American defense spending in that context, the US is at 4%. So, that would make USSR at 20-25% and US at 4%. Hardly an equal comparison.
Like I said, if we scale back to 2000 level, we will save nearly 4 trillion in 10 years. I don't mind paying taxes, but I am not comfortable with the way it is being spent. The reason why the United States is no longer an economic superpower is the military. The United States chews up a spectacular 46.5% of global military spending. But, what has that gotten us?
I certainly don't disagree with you opinion on military spending. But I want to point out that american health care spending was 18 % of GDP in 2010. Compared to 4% on the military.
When other nations spend 2% of GDP on their militaries and 9% on health care, with better results...well health care is a much bigger resource sink than the military.
It is sort of like the prisoners dilemma. One guy reducing wages gets a competitive advantage. Everybody reducing wages gets no advantage, and suddenly the consumers have less money -and the economy contracts!
Yep
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
That is where problems begin and cronyism takes over. But then, capitalism can be expected to work with smaller businesses rather than large ones on a global scale. It also brings into debate the point Adam Smith made about managers of companies versus owners of a business. Owners are passionate about growth of their "baby" whereas money managers can't be expected to be as loyal to anybody but their personal welfare, even at the cost of the business itself.
Yes it does. That is the difference between using cash to start a business and borrowing money. With your own cash you have a stake in the long term growth of the business. With debt you have to make the payment schedule no matter what.
What I see as a tool to combat the problems with outsourcing is the minimum wage law. Upping the minimum wage can to a certain extent replace the wages lost to outsourcing. Upping minimum wage will tend to replace the lost wages from outsourcing and push money back into the economy and may make it expand.
Another tool is getting a high savings rate in credit unions. This tends to drive exports and limit imports.
I certainly don't disagree with you opinion on military spending. But I want to point out that american health care spending was 18 % of GDP in 2010. Compared to 4% on the military.
When other nations spend 2% of GDP on their militaries and 9% on health care, with better results...well health care is a much bigger resource sink than the military.
Yes, our HC system is a horrendous waste, which is why they tried to reform it. The success of that attempt remains to be seen. But once again, if you bring HC spending to 2000 levels, you still won't save that much, but if you bring military spending to 2000 levels we'd save 4 trillion. I am trying to point out the most obvious waste at this time. We can't cut 4 trillion out of HC without seriously affecting the welfare of millions of citizens, but we can cut 4 trillion out of military, and hardly anyone would notice it. There is no justification for the military ramp up in the past 10 years. The figures don't even include the wars.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 01-22-2011 at 10:04 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The reason why the United States is no longer an economic superpower is the military. The United States chews up a spectacular 46.5% of 
