"Enlightened socialist europe" vs "evil free-market US"

Obviously, even by the title, this is a fallacious arguement, considering the US is anything but free, rather it is a heavily interventionist/mixed economy. However, it does have lower taxes and fewer social programs than europe, so on that note, I wanted to share this arguement by a US socialist with the typical "europe has superior, wealthier society because of income distribution.

i’m sure any one of us here can easily dismantle his arguement, especially his claims of “less poverty, less crime” etc, and also attack his fallacious reasoning that the US is somehow “free”. Any suggestions on how to respond “in the face of scientific evidence”, whether or not, of course, this scientific evidence is well substantiated or properly correlated. His strongest arguement is probably the fact that the “middle class” is a larger % of the population in places like sweden, 80% to the US’ 54%. Everything else he offers is either easily disproved or is improperly correlated.

any analysis?

Even if his claims were true, morality is not based upon results.

Where does he get this nonsense from? Is he deliberately ignoring all the problems Europe faces? Is he one of those socialists who likes to fabricate statistics?

A simple example is Sweden:

http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665891.pdf

I fail to see how high unemployment, declining foreign investment etc. are signs of successful societies. Sweden’s GDP/capita is lower than the US’. The only country that is doing well is Norway, by grace of its oil profits. The rest of Europe is not in any way better than the US.

A lot of the problems he mentions are results either of the state’s intervention in the US (it does so, in many ways; it is a joke to say the US is any freer than many of the EU countries), or they are non-issues. That doctors have a higher potential income in the US says nothing to me.

Where to start? The socialist completely misses the point. There are of course differences between the United States and Europe in terms of welfare services and income inequality, but both are equally bad. Both the U.S. and Europe have highly statest economies, which interfere with the free market. It’s just that this interference differs in some respects.

First, their similarities. They are alike in that they both have fiat currencies, they both allow the creation of fiduciary media through a fractional reserve banking system, they both have central banking systems, and they both monetize their debt with the use of a printing press. All of this leads to expansions of their respective money supplies, which not ony results in misallocations of capital, but also a tendency for those individuals who get the newly created money first to become wealthier than those on fixed incomes. Financiers, bankers, the corporate elite, and those who are politically connected prosper, while everyone else is robbed. The rich become richer and the poor and middle class poorer. This problem is a direct result of each governments meddling in the banking system, a meddling that eradicates honest money and increases the size and power of government.

The difference between the United States and Europe is in how they deal with this problem, a problem entirely of their own making. Europe resorts to a highly socialized welfare state, which redistributes the wealth, but introduces further meddling in other areas of the economy. Taxation, government regulation on businesses, state support for workers and a welfare state, level income distribution, but introduce further misallocations of capital and stifle the creation of overall wealth. The United States of course has taxation, regulation and a welfare state too, but in less measure, with the result that the average per capita income in the United States is higher than in Europe, but income distribution remains more unequal. Put simply, they’re both highly statist, but Europe is more socialist, while America is more fascist.

The fact of the matter is that in a truly free-market “liassez-faire” and libertarian economy there wouldn’t be a fiat currency, a fractional reserve banking system or a central bank. People would have to obtain wealth honestly, through the “economic means” rather than the “political means”. Income inequality would exist, but a person’s wealth would be based on merit. It’s probable that such a society would be far more equitable than the corrupt system that exits on both continents today, but in any event, with no government regulation, taxation, and no welfare state, with private enterprise providing existing government “services” far more efficiently and with individuals and families taking personal responsibility for their own welfare, it is an absolute certainty that average wealth would be much higher and overall welfare much greater.

It actually is. [;)]

Doing the right thing yeilds the best results.

The Pharaoh thought he was really smart stealing from the peasants, hording the grain for himself; but the joke was on him. By enslaving his fellow man he inadvertently kept them from more productive activities, dooming himself to die just as impoverished as when he was born.

It’s not clear how this supports your claim. It could be that doing the right thing yields the best results (always? best results for whom?) but also that morality is not based upon results - this could be a coincidence.

However, I’d challenge your claim on the basis of the subjective theory of value. On what basis can you talk about the best results without even saying who the results are best for? What if my preference ranking happens to put theft highest, for its own sake - not having the most money or anything, but the very act of theft?

Never believe statistics at face value. For example if you take the AVERAGE life expectancy of a person from the USA and a person from Sweden you find that magically the Swede has a higher life expectancy. So you say wow Swedes liver longer than Americans, America must suck. But looking underneath: Take out the Americans who die as a result of accidents, especially auto accidents, you get numbers that are very close. Now the real kicker is that if you take people of Swedish decent living in the US you find that these folks have higher life expectancies than Sweeds, What gives? Answer the US ain’t so bad after all.

I agree. The statement “the best results” is a Utilitarian concept that assumes it is possible to calculate the value of all actions that affect all individuals, and then to aggregate these values to arrive at a total result. According to the subjective theory of value this is not valid on a number of levels.

First, since value is subjective, how do you assess the value to each individual? Secondly, values are ordinal, not cardinal, so even if you could assess each actor’s relative values how would you aggregate them?

Guys…

You are using two different definitions of the work “right” - correct vs. moral.

http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf

Not so utopian after all, eh?

No, its causality. That is what morality is. Its an evoluntary understanding about actions and consequences. Killing people is bad, because you’ll get killed yourself.

Best for who? Everyone!

Whoa. I didn’t expect saying that freedom yields the best result would be a controversial statement.

You seem to have gone off on a value tangent. All people do share some commonalities of existence, right? For example, all people have wants, yes?

All people are subject to economic laws, and they are also subject to morality.

You are right in a very narrow sense. If I value dying more than living, then going on a killing spree would yield a better result for me than refraining from murder. But if you look at the entire relationship, not murdering, would achieve a better result, as it would be not produce any victims.

There is a very simple tool that allows us to determine justice even though values are subjective: consent.

In other words: People steal because they want to be rich, but everyone is richest when no one steals. Stealing is not only evil on an interpersonal level, its counterproductive in the aggregate. That is morality.

Oh, that’s why killing is bad? So if I’m really smart and really strong, and won’t get caught, then killing isn’t so bad? What if I’m a doctor, and my patient is new in town and has no family, and is an ex-con besides - and I happen to have 2 patients who need kidney transplants, a patient who needs a new liver, and a patient who needs a new heart. What should I do, if actions are judged only on their consequences?

Saying best for everyone ignores the point. It certainly is not best for everyone for me to refrain from theft - it’s not best for me, or for my family. You can talk about me getting caught, so I’ll just change the example a bit - I’m a government agent, no one can stop me - now what? Systematic theft of this kind will impoverish society relative to not doing it, yes - but the net change for me, assuming I steal enough, can be positive.

Even if it all made sense, I would hate to think that it’s immoral to steal only because people end up poorer - morality needs more force than that, I think. But, luckily I don’t have to worry about that because it doesn’t all hold together. The problem is this aggregate. Stealing is good for me, and impoverishes others. But we are not able to compare my gain to their loss - because utility is ordinal. You simply can’t aggregate utilities like that. If everyone is richest when no one steals, it doesn’t follow that I’ll be richer if I don’t steal. For one, my actions don’t determine the actions of others, so there may still be theft even if I refrain. Furthermore, “society” might be poorer if I steal, but I won’t be. Don’t try to tell me that the effect of my one bank robbery (no, I’m not a bank robber, I’m making a point) is enough to make me worse off than I would have been otherwise, now that I have $10million in my pocket.

Wouldn’t it be a good idea to start a separate thread on this, as it doesn’t really pertain to the original topic?

Alright then. Stealing has no negative consequences for the stealer, only the victim. Good work.

But seriously,

I never said anything like that. You’re the one bringing up utility. I’m talking about human action, and the probability of an action causing the desired result, not utility.

You are trying to disprove a trend through an antidote, which doesn’t work.

Without security in property, production will not exist.

Stealing harms individuals, which harms society as a whole, because societies are just a collection of individuals. No person can survive on his own labor, only through trade and division of labor can humans produce enough subsistence to survive. So by harming the society(ie economy) the thief is actually reducing its ability to support him. An example that one can receive more direct compensation from the theft than the harm one does to himself through the stealing proves nothing.

Throw in that stealing will get you excluded from the economy all together, and yes, its in your own interest to act morally.