We are getting old.

[David Horn]

(09-26-2016, 01:07 PM)Galen Wrote:

(09-26-2016, 11:05 AM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(09-26-2016, 02:25 AM)Galen Wrote: As for economic failure the worst seems to be North Korea, Cuba and, my personal favorite, Venezuela.  Eric the Obtuse and his ilk are too fucking stupid to figure out that the MIC is a product of statism and big government.   As for Clinton, his only concern was getting laid and so he went where the chicks were.

North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela are basket cases, but they are also straw men; I don't know anyone from the "left" who sees those nations as ideal.  Bernie Sanders and his ilk tend to point to countries like Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, nations that do have their issues but on the whole are prosperous and functioning well, despite having a robust set of government services (health care, parental leave, unemployment benefits, and the like).

Sweden has had to scale back their welfare state in nineties.  They are not doing so well now that a large portion of the Middle East has shown up on their doorstep.  In any case all of these countries have the same problems with debt that the rest of the west has.  In any event the more central planning is done then the less well your economy does.  The left generally doesn't understand economics at all and so completely discounts these effects.

Sweden chose to scale back in the '90s.  It was a choice that has been reversed since then.  But let's get to your underlying, though unstated, assumption that these economies lack dynamism.  Actually, they are among the most entrepreneurial due in large part to the low cost of failure.  Sure, they can lose their investments of time and money, but it won't devastate those entrepreneurs or their families.  They will have the safety net to rely on, and will be able to recover fairly easily ... and they know it.  How else is it possible for such small nations to have such huge economic impacts in the world?