No, Obama doesn’t want to wreck the economy; he’s just clueless about how to fix it. He — and many of his supporters — really do believe Keynesian theory.
And, no, Republicans don’t want to “wreck the economy” in order to hurt Obama’s reelection prospects. We just don’t think big government schemes will work to effect a sustained and robust recovery. And have evidence to back up our contention. Large public sectors really do reduce economic growth.
He — and many of his supporters — really do believe Keynesian theory.
I disagree. I don’t think Obama believes in much of anything, aside from “Barack Obama should have more power.” This is the real value of Keynesian theory… it puts an intellectual facade over the tired quest to increase political power by bribing voters.
I read a question a little while ago:
If Prsident Obama WAS trying to wreck the economy, what would he be doing differently?
I would sleep a lot better if someone could prove this conclusion.
Everyday, I am more drawn more to the Alinsky chaos theory by the actions this man takes, whether on his own initiative or as the puppet of other conniving sources.
Obama does not live in reality. Remember the sales pitch for Obamacare.
1. We will cover more people.
2. We will provide them with more medical services.
3. It will cost less.
Unless they were planning to turn doctors, nurses, and pharmacists into slave labor, there was no possible way all three of these things could be true.
It’s a fine line. Obama wants to socialize the economy.
Obama wants to Europeanize the economy. Obama wants to control the economy. We know, from theory and overwhelming historical evidence, that those things are tantamount to wrecking the economy. Does Obama know? If not, why not? Is his ignorance and cluelessness, at least in part, a choice?
(continued) Perhaps the point is that we do have to answer the question; not just assume Obama wants to wreck the economy. He seems to believe that his policies will improve it. He’s incredibly wrong. To what extent would his wrongness be willful?
As a card carrying member of the Chicago School,(MBA University of Chicago) I find myself in awe of the ineptness of the current administration’s economic team. I think even Keynes would be stupefied. This is the first time a US Administration has really tried to make a pure Keynesian model work…and boy has it not.
Hi Dan,
I checked out the article from Cato, and read Chp 7 that the Cato economist used to make his argument. Unfortunately, Dr. Mitchell, finds it convenient to not look into an interesting paper, for information that casts a more complex light on his findings. The bugbear, of course is Sweden. At 59% of GDP and a commensurate growth rate to the US, Sweden is a bit of a handful to explain. And the paper spends a great deal of time trying to understand why the Swedish “bumblebee can fly” given the model that the paper has in mind to trumpet. It is an interesting answer, you might want to read it; in a nutshell, the paper that Dr. Mitchell supports and to which you link argues that Sweden has a BIG, HIGH QUALITY government. This finding does not fit within Dr. Mitchell’s framework, so it is discounted, especially since one argument being made by the administration is that we have to get government to be of higher quality. It is a far simpler (but less helpful, I think) argument to say instead: Bigger Government = Badder. You can still use the paper, Dan, but it will offer a much more nuanced view than the one that Dr. Mitchell offers on first blush.
Here is another tid-bit:
No, it isn’t. We’ve been over this before, Cas. It’s about the direction of policy.
When Sweden moved in the *direction* of ever-bigger government, it entered its period of crisis as its growth rate slowed down. Now that Sweden is moving in a *direction* of less-big government, its fate is improving. As your own source says, “Nordic countries have streamlined their welfare systems and reduced incentive costs over the last two decade.” There you go.
Now do the math. For the U.S. to be going in a *direction* of bigger government, is to drag down the U.S. economy. Conversely, the U.S. going back in a *direction* of less-big government will improve it.
Let’s hear a citizen of Sweden explain it…. she’d know: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvtxT0qPJoQ
And that was the time when government’s share of GDP grew to over 50%. In other words: Big Government equals malaise.
Hi! Cas,
Sweden operates within this framework, so lets be open and above board. OK?
Which, Heliotrope, is nonetheless an improvement from 25 years ago. Hence, their economy is not as bad as 25 years ago. With us, it’s the opposite.
And, I notice that Sweden’s taxes are in certain respects lower than ours… for example, the lower corporate tax rate.
“Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.” -Grey’s Law
ILC,
You did include the VAT in your musings about the size of the tax bite, right? In the 1980’s Sweden taxed itself to the brink with a tax bite at the over 84% confiscation level.
When you pay the average 58% income tax and slop 25% VAT on top of that, the poor Swede schlub is still paying at the 58%+25%= 83% level. So, by shifting the source of the gouging, the Swedes have dropped their bite by a whopping 1%.
I sat in a very modest back street cafe in Stockholm and paid about $15 US for a cup of coffee and piece of dry toast. However, the students around me were chowing down. As in Paris and other socialist countries, they paid with some sort of student food stamps. Luckily, I was able to haul food from the US commissary on the following days and I made sure to make it back to US territory for serious eating.
Sweden is way down the list of countries in home ownership. Same with automobile ownership. What you get in Sweden is a fairly comfortable life with a little allowance left for your pleasure, But the country has been plagued for decades with some of the young, like some who post here, who settle for the welfare and do little if anything to share in carrying the load.
“No, Obama doesn’t want to wreck the economy”
How about: “Obama is willing to risk wrecking the economy, if it means he can move America farther toward socialism.”
Hi ILC and HT,
I don’t actually see you address my argument. I understand that you want to hold to the “right direction” argument, but it is not enough to make the point I understand you wish to make along with Dan and Dr. Mitchell (bigger government is bad and needs to be cut …). The point of the World Bank Report (I urge you to read it, as it makes for interesting reading), that I emphasized is that it GRANTS the very thing you both resist–that Sweden is the “bumblebee that flies” in the face of established doctrine about government size and footprint. By all means argue about “direction,” but also grant that even with its larger government footprint it has done well–something that should be IMPOSSIBLE in the models you two have, of how economies work. And the reason why, according to the report that Dr. Mitchell quoted with such joyful glee in a different context, is that it has a BIG HIGH QUALITY government. I know that idea/argument is quite unpalatable to many conservatives, but it is an interesting one to me (hence the long quote).
By all means quote tax rates at me, but at least acknowledge that this is the central claim of the Report, with respect to Sweden, at least. After all, it gives a rationale for why that is; I would still like to know why you BOTH think Sweden did so well in the past, and even now, given that it had, and still has a government footprint LARGER than the US and many other poorer performing OECD countries.
And Dan, that question is directed at you as well…
Cas,
The “bumblebee that flies” is also known as “the exception that proves the rule.”
Fine. Let us stipulate, for the sake of argument, that the World Bank report and its author have found a perfect model of big government working like a charm is to be found in Sweden.
So, what is the game? To create a big government that works?
Out of curiosity, are there any limited, small governments that work? Or, are you positing that only Sweden “works” and it is because it has a huge government that defies the conventional wisdom about huge governments?
You might suck on your own comments for a little while and try to figure out what your point is.
Right now, it would seem by your comment, that the US needs to turn socialist and try to replicate Sweden in every way possible, because that one example is as close to socialist utopia and has ever succeeded.
Or, are you just tossing dross into the atmosphere in order to foul up the guidance system?
But of course you don’t, Cas. For you to actually comprehend and acknowledge the other guy’s refutation of you, would end your game.
Because it’s true. I understand that you *don’t* want to hold to it… because you have no real answer for it.
Again, Cas: You have clearly failed to understand my comments. And I think your failure is willful. Your problem.
Want to talk about arguments that people have no answer to? Let’s try you, Cas, having absolutely no ability whatever to answer this:
(For the brighter kids and FTR: Nothing in my arguments says, or has ever said at any time whatsoever, that Sweden improving its economy is an impossibility. Any country can improve its economy, no matter how messed up and bad off it is… by choosing to move in the right direction.)
(One more FTR: Economists call it “equilibrium theory”. Given a set of inputs, including policy inputs, the economy will tend to a certain equilibrium of outputs, living standards, jobs, prices, etc. Worsen the inputs and the economy tends toward a worse equilibrium. Change to better or less-bad inputs, and the economy will tend toward a better equilibrium. The historical evidence, including Sweden, is overwhelming that smaller government is the direction to go in, if you want a better economy. We established in another thread awhile back, that Cas, in the manner of “green” social-fascists, actually does not want a better economy: that, to her, inflation and lower living standards are a normal, expected and acceptable result of proper economic policy from wise leaders such as Obama. To me however, they are not: they may be a phase that country X must go through like a cancer patient must go through an unpleasant and dangerous surgery, but the proper object of economics is prosperity, i.e. HIGH, AND EVER-INCREASING, PHYSICAL-MATERIAL LIVING STANDARDS.)
Hi ILC,
I get what you say. Sweden did well when it cut its government sector after its 1990s crisis (and most importantly, continued devaluing its currency). Yes, I can grant you all of that (even as it had done well in the post war period with a larger government footprint). We can argue about the optimal size of government, and you can make the case for less government being helpful in Sweden. We can talk about improving incentives to work and having more flexible workplace rules; getting rid of subsidies for failing industries so as to lower taxation. Sure. It certainly helped free up the economy. But, you studiously avoid the issue I raised (based on the World Bank Report) of a BIG HIGH QUALITY, government.
Further, I do not understand why you won’t address the issue of why Sweden is doing well NOW, with a larger government sector (spending and transfers/welfare) than the US and other OECD nations that have lower government footprints than it does. This is a comparative question, and not one about “direction.” Do you have an opinion on this, even as it doesn’t appear to support your position? Or are Swedes just super-special to be able to have a government sector that large and apparently helpful to economic growth, compared with other countries?
True, nothing in your argument addresses the COMPARATIVE question I am offering you the opportunity to answer. If you want to narrowly look at the question solely in terms of government size and its direction alone through time, feel free, but you do not address the comparative question.
Hi HT,
Government is a means to an end. It can be big or small depending on the time, place, and people involved.
I think the answer to that question, HT, is in the quote I provided in the original post. If you check it out, you will see that there are some interesting ideas that are not conservative in nature (the “universalist” word is a real party-pooper, I know), but they are worth consideration. The idea is to think of thoughtful approaches that make government programs respond more rationally and efficiently to the needs of its country’s citizens. The idea that a government footprint can be big, and yet help economy wide efficiency, is not an idea commonly found on this website. And it is worth exploring why that might be the case. Maybe there are things we can learn; maybe not. But to dismiss it out of hand, well… That is one of the messages I take from the WB Report.
So, how do you explain the comparative differences, then? Do you think that big high quality government is possible? Or is the WB Report just plain wrong on that?
No, you can’t, Cas.
Where ILC and HT have you cornered is that Sweden directly DISPROVES your argument that creating more and more and more government always works.
You are spinning now because that is your whole point. You are mentally incapable of acknowledging the inability of government to fix every problem, and the superiority of the free market to maximize individual productivity.
The answer to you is very simple, Cas. You define a good economy as one in which you receive the maximum benefit with the minimum amount of effort or work. Therefore, to you, the welfare state is ideal; you want for production and consumption to be completely decoupled from each other, and for those like yourself who choose not to produce to be entitled to and given the same level of consumption as those who do.
The downfall in socialist and communist thinking like yours comes from your inability or unwillingness to recognize what happens when no one is producing and everyone is consuming.
Cas,
You can not debate a premise based on connotative terms.
Silly Cas. Can you, will you, would you, may you, should you ever think about what metrics are used to measurably define HIGH QUALITY government?
Meanwhile do you think that a HIGHER QUALITY is possible in my immeasurable intellect, phenomenal good looks and sweet, attractive breath? Also, my mom made the world’s best spaghetti. Also, the Morris Minor was totally superior to bagpipes with air assist.
Geez, Sweden is a small, ethnically homogenous country, with a population about equal to North Carolina that’s 95% Scandinavian. (North Carolina has a bigger GDP, for what it’s worth.) You can’t really compare a small, ethnically homogenous country with a continental-scale country of 300 million, (about a quarter to a third of whom are welfare parasites.)
If you want an idea how well big-state socialism works in the USA, check out California, New York, Michigan, or Illinois… high-tax, heavily regulated states drowning in debt, unemployment, and business destruction.
Sweden built up enormous momentum as an educated, wealthy and successful country when it had 80-100 years of free enterprise, sound currency and relatively small government.
Sweden suffered, when it turned to 30-50 years of smothering big government, and ended up nearly on its deathbed.
Sweden has gotten better, in the 10-15 years that it has pulled back from the worst of its big government.
Why is this picture difficult to understand? Or is it?
Cas says, in effect, “Look! We took a small country that had previously built itself up as educated, wealthy and successful, and when we put a smothering big government on it, it did not die completely! It just barely able to pull itself back from the brink, in time! So Big Government works!”
Leftism is mentally disordered.
Hi HT,
HT, go read chp 7. Its the WB’s terms…
#28: “Cas says, in effect, ‘Look! We took a small country that had previously built itself up as educated, wealthy and successful, and when we put a smothering big government on it, it did not die completely! It just barely able to pull itself back from the brink, in time! So Big Government works!’ Leftism is mentally disordered.”
Correct as always, ILC. When libs like Cas bring up Sweden, I just replace the word “Sweden” with “not Greece,” because the only reason they bring it up is because its citizens aren’t currently rioting/dying in the streets over proposed reductions in government spending. Of course, when the subject actually IS Greece, their argument is that the proposed ‘austerity’ measures are misguided and what the bankrupt nation REALLY NEEDS is a good healthy dose of government ‘stimulus’ spending.
You can’t win with these fools. They’re hopeless. Even if they will concede (FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT ONLY) that out of control government spending is ONE factor that MAY HAVE caused a country’s economic woes, the solution is always ‘smarter,’ ‘targeted,’ and/or ‘streamlined’ government spending to achieve that ever-elusive ‘HIGH QUALITY GOVERNMENT’ (which is just their way of avoiding the admission that they really favor more/higher government spending in every case).
Poison as food, poison as antidote.
Hi VK,
So, if I understand you, your argument is that Sweden is a special case because it is small and homogenous.
OK, can you describe for me why those two characteristics make a difference?
Hi ILC,
Similar to VK,
You add a “previously” well educated workforce. And wealth.
So, what is the argument that suggests that this was an inoculation against poor growth due to excessive government? Further, if a big government footprint was toxic, how do you explain that for a generation after WWII, that big government footprint was correlated with excellent growth for so many years, commensurate with the US after WWII?
Hi SA,
So, what your take on the comparative success of the big government footprint in Sweden vis a vis other countries? Are you following VK or ILC, here?
Hi NDT,
Same question as I asked of SA
Cas,
You bumbling ditz. No matter who framed the stupid standard, it is still a totally invalid premise which can not lead to any possible valid conclusion.
You brought it here, so obviously you are nowhere near smart enough to understand neither you nor anyone else can detail what metrics are used to measurably define HIGH QUALITY government?
Now, say you are sorry for being so goofy and go back to your computer and try to find something worth examining.
#32: “Hi SA, So, what your take on the comparative success of the big government footprint in [NOT GREECE] vis a vis other countries? Are you following VK or ILC, here?”
Cas, for ‘my take’ on this issue, please see ILoveCapitalism’s comments nos. 10, 11, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 28. See also Heliotrope’s comment no. 34, paragraph 1, sentence 1 (“You bumbling ditz.”)
That’s easy, Cas.
The United States was never bombed or had its industrial and manufacturing base compromised in any way during World War II.
Sweden was neutral during World War II, and as a consequence came out of it with its industrial base nearly intact and unbombed.
In contrast, the rest of Europe and almost all of Asia was a smoking ruin, with virtually all factories and industrial production capability destroyed.
In short, you can get away with a lot when you have no competition.
But when one does have competition, one can no longer support the Cas model of using the government point of a gun to take from the productive and the earning to ensure that Cas and its fellow non-productive and unearning friends can have identical standards of living.
I already explained how the Swedish example doesn’t apply to the USA. If you can’t keeo up with the conversation, Cas, perhaps you should repair to the kid’s table.
Hi NDT,
Interesting idea. You know, of course,that the generation after WWII was also a golden era of growth in Europe, right? And an era of bigger gov’t footprints? Even for all those places that had been left smoking ruins by the war? I don’t think that is relative neutrality helps here to explain the effects you want them to. Other “ruined” countries in Europe had growth rates comparable to and greater than the US (e.g., France, per capita GNP, 1950-1980); and also had bigger gov’t footprints. Also, when would you allow for these other “ruined” states to be able to be in competition with Sweden–1950? 1960? 1970? Today? So I remain unconvinced by your claim.
Hi HT,
Insults, the last refuge. I guess if you can’t be bothered to go and read the World Bank’s metrics for their use of the claim, good luck to you. And even if this is a subjective measure, the point behind the claim, still remains unanswered by you, HT: That a gov’t with a far larger footprint than you are comfortable with appears to be doing quite well, relatively speaking, thank you very much. You ignore the comparative question. And that question is an obvious one to ask, and a much harder one to answer. Fine; may your eyrie of questioning keep you safe. At least VK (#27), NDT (#36) and ILC (#28) had a go at it, unsatisfying as I thought their answers were.
By the way, the “High Quality Government” is the WB conclusion, not a premise. You would get that if you read the article.
And SA,
If you cannot be bothered to answer the question; or choose to not tell the difference between a change through time and a same time comparison, then so be it.
Yes, because the industrial base of Europe had been bombed back to zero during the war and naturally there was rapid growth as it was rebuilt. Duh.
Cas,
I will try to do this sweetly.
You bring articles here and insist we have a study session together in Miss Cas’ salon. It doesn’t matter if the topic is Nazi Germany or Sweden or whatever else, Miss Cas chooses the topic of discussion and plays the role of moderator. And, my how she scolds when one of her students does not prepare for the exercise.
However, Cas, there is a little something missing in your style. You have not established that your salon is anything more than a polemic den where you get to go off on a tear and all the students are goats.
The World Bank is a hyper-political institution which has managed to become a laughing stock in how it creates the metrics to have the numbers reach the conclusions it seeks to find. Like the Congressional Budget Office, it is guided by the truth that the numbers do not lie, so the liars have to manipulate the numbers.
So that your world might be a bit more balanced perhaps you should be aware of the Bretton Woods Project which checks the work of the World Bank.
No, I am not sending you off on an assignment. I am merely giving you a tool to help assuage your endless thirst for knowledge.
My point still stands. “Big high quality government” can not be a conclusion. “High quality” is not a measurement in and of itself. Neither is “big.” A great many in the Western world were mesmerized by Mussolini at the beginning of his “big high quality” government. In terms of controlling a vast sea of people, Mao certainly created a “big high quality” government that reached into every single rice bowl and set out to kill birds that ate the grain of the people until the insects blossomed and it became necessary to import birds because the people couldn’t kill the insects fast enough and run on sentence forever……
Good golly, this is not complicated. You deal heavily is subjective terms and insist that we join in the game of seeing how some other person does the same.
Hi HT,
I appreciate your “sweeter tone.” Clearly, you still cannot bring yourself to read the article. Thank you for the link; I’ll check it out. The WB has a perspective–true, but it is not a rational argument to condemn the work it offers for your perusal, on the basis that that perspective disagrees with your own. If all followed your “metric” the only people who would come to this website would be “true believers” only looking for a healthy dose of the “correct perspective.” Or, anthropologists looking to get a sense of one cultural perspective. Open-mindedness requires reading various sources, including those whose perspectives you disagree with–my opinion.
Also, I point out that the link was provided by Dan’s polemical statement against big governments, and even if Mitchell used the article for his own purposes, at least he read it. His ideological investments emphasized certain things the WB said, and ignored others. It is probably too much to ask people to look at the issues with an open-mind,
To answer your observation, “sweetly.” I don’t buy the argument you make. You may not like the term “big, high quality government” because it sounds subjective to you. But the idea behind it, IS a direct challenge to the cozy ideas that you have regarding what the size of government ought to be and how it ought to act. I think that trying to work out what it is about the Swedish experience and the role its government policies play in that process–for good and ill–is a worthwhile experience.
Out of curiosity: I would love to hear what your objectively measurable metric is for the right size of government. Or would you allow that the notion of the “right size of government” is a bit fuzzy, subjective, and not necessarily easily quantifiable. ILC might have one. If so, would you agree with his quantifiable take?
So, as for a Salon? No, I don’t think so. A salon is currently not possible here.
Really, Cas? “Clearly”? Why? Do you have spies watching Heliotrope every minute? Are you tracking his clicks? What evidence are you producing to back up your claims?
Or are you merely making the ASSUMPTION that, since Heliotrope does not agree with your interpretation, that he has not read it?
You are asserting, Cas, that the fact that one does not agree with something means that they have not read it.
That is sheer ignorance and bigotry at work. It is also a psychological defense mechanism by which you attempt to make yourself feel superior by believing that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and uninformed.
Cas,
Forget the sweeter tone. Are you tone-deaf or do you not have the intelligence to understand the basic principle involved?
1) I did not condemn the work the World Bank offers. I said and continue to say that any writing that arrives at the topic of “big high quality government” as its purpose is a waste of time.
There are zero metrics to arrive at supporting the concept of “big high quality government” or damning “big high quality government. Such language is a clear signal that the reader is mucking around in a polemic.
2.) I don’t have a perspective on “big high quality government” or “little high quality government” or “burgeoning high quality government” or “slipping high quality government” or “potential high quality government” or “high quality government” or “quality government.”
The whole exercise is subjective no matter who conducts the exercise. “High quality Bantu government” is of little consequence to any casual reader and any effort to achiever “higher quality Bantu government” is of no more consequence. It is a fool’s errand from beginning to end.
Cas, would you tell me how your neighborhood interaction with government could be of “higher quality” if that government were “smaller” or “bigger” without setting forth a series of subjective opinions as the basis of the judgment being undertaken? Where do you begin to nail down all the Jello involved in defining “big” and “high” and what constitutes “quality” and the varying meanings of the combination of these subjective stinker words?
P-f-f-f-f-f-f-t! Right past you again. Right?
Hi HT,
1.
#43
#40
OK.
2.
I get that you don’t want to go anywhere near the concept of a BHQ government. You have made that clear. Also, that the idea of an objectively quantifiable metric of a “good sized/quality (or right sized/quality) government” is not possible, in your view. But, what lies behind it–that is a direct challenge to the cozy ideas that you have regarding what the size of government ought to be and how it ought to act. I think that trying to work out what it is about the Swedish experience and the role its government policies play in that process–for good and ill–is a worthwhile experience. Sorry for repeating it, but…
So, let us look at your claim, shall we? As to an example, consider the quote I pulled from the article, and which I first mentioned in #8:
A smaller, more individualized bureaucracy, delivering targeted and timely assistance to individuals (by law and government policy), as opposed to a slow, unfocused bureaucracy that doesn’t do that. Hmm? Which is the higher quality government activity. Golly, …How can we possibly know?
Could possible metrics of comparison be–comparisons of time unemployed; number of contact hours between U/E individual and the bureaucracy in job search activity; likelihood of re-employment in the same/different industry; wage at re-engagement; cost, in $ terms of bureaucratic help in finding one job (most likely average, so not as helpful as marginal information, but still); impact of work training programs… etc.
That is one example. I grant that we may not actually keep those kinds of stats. And I grant that my quick assessment is not as good as something worked out in more depth and with more time… But can you design metrics to see if government departments in various sectors of government activity are doing better than in other countries? Yes. Enough, at the very least, to be able to argue, qualitatively (with some quantitative number crunching) that something is higher quality or not–in that area of government activity. For the big picture–that would be a big exercise–I grant that. So, if your point is that it would be a large amount of work, and that practically it would be very difficult to do, I agree.
Oh, silly Cas, it’s not that the statistics aren’t kept; it’s that you ignore them.
Repeatedly.
And as for quality metrics? They don’t matter:
That’s your “loving, responsive, targeted” and “high quality” government at work, Cas. And it’s an abysmal failure.
We understand, Cas, that you don’t want to go anywhere near the idea that big government could fail. We get that you can’t be bothered to do actual research. We understand that you are not interested in sources that contradict your unfailing religious belief in the magical power of big government.
And we also understand that you will spin and obfuscate desperately as long as we choose to play.
Whew!
Cas really can’t figure it out. Or won’t try to figure it out. Or is allergic to trying to figure it out. Or is so dependent upon government to herd the sheeple “effectively” that Cas has no concept of getting off the government teat. Can’t imagine no permanently connected umbilical cord. Has no feel for just guardrails instead of being publicly transported within the state cocoon. The state as helicopter mom ready to swoop down and kiss the boo-boo. But, efficiently, mind you. And with panache.
Cas, you have been bought and paid for and you have got all you are ever going to get. Have a nice day on the commune plantation. Stop dreaming. You are already there and there isn’t any other there on your horizon. For you, you have got it as good as it gets. So don’t waste your time leaving your grease print on shop windows.
Hi NDT,
Thanks for the links on US gov’t deficiencies. Since I am talking about comparisons with Sweden, I think I will pass on chatting with you about them, except to say–thank you for at least considering the idea of the possibility of metrics, with regard to government efficiency/quality. HT cannot bring himself to do so.
Actually, Cas, Heliotrope is as far ahead of you when it comes to knowledge, understanding, and ability to calculate and assess government metrics as the F-35 is ahead of a model airplane.
But, as he has aptly pointed out and I have just demonstrated, metrics are meaningless in your case because you simply are incapable of processing ones that do not provide you the outcome you want.
The degree to which big government bigots like yourself will deny and obfuscate metrics is aptly illustrated by Barack Obama/Nancy Pelosi’s magical charts, put out with the full authority of the US government and by the order of Barack Obama — despite their being flat-out lies.
So let’s review, Cas:
1) You refuse to review metrics that do not confirm your predetermined conclusions
2) You obfuscate and create deliberately-deceptive metrics to push your predetermined conclusions
This is not ethical. This is not scientific. This is, in fact, using mathematics in a deliberate attempt to lie and deceive in order to push an ideological agenda.
And that is why Heliotrope is not bothering with you.
I did not condemn the conclusions or “metrics” of the work that Cas dragged through the door because I did not bother to read it. I did not read it because any fool (except Cas) knows that “big high quality” government is advertising lingo that has no meaning. It is no different from a “big high quality” hamburger that has 16000 calories, three pounds of fat dripping meat, a jar of mayonnaise, a pound of bacon, and bread that has been jacked up with gluten and loads of butter, cheese, slabs of delicious, exquisite, aged to perfection cheese. All the ingredients are of the “best” in their class and you get a heart attack on one plate. Argue as you might, it is one “big high quality” hamburger and you are an idiot for taking it in. Literally.
I condemned the World Bank for its well-known role in creating polemics to back its agenda. When you read World Bank stats, you had better be prepared to check them for validity, because the World Bank creates the way they do stats to fit their needs.
You might just as well drag Mother Jones in as your source.
Heliotrope, I agree. “High quality” is meaningless blather. The more so when applied to government, because government is a gun… by its nature, it relies on forcing people to do things and so closes off freedom and opportunity, whenever it does anything beyond the impartial protection of rights to life, liberty and property. The “high quality” government is the one that restricts itself to impartial protection of individual rights to life, liberty and property.
“By its nature.” The government that goes beyond its legitimate functions is a cancer. It doesn’t produce… it lives off the production of society. (Even when government X literally does produce a good like shoes or cars, it invariably does so badly – again, no profit motive – and its production is parasitical on its best employees and managers, who in that case fail to receive their just rewards.)
Thus, Cas is asking in effect if we believe there can be such a thing as “high quality” cancer.
When you understand the question clearly, it answers itself.
P.S. There can be such a thing as benign cancer… a cancer that *does not grow*. What makes cancer fatal is when it grows without stopping. But, even a “benign” cancer is still a caloric/metabolic drain on its host, i.e. a parasite, that the host would do better with less of.
As for Sweden – again:
– They built themselves up during 80-100 years of relatively small government.
– They did enlarge their government in the postwar period… a period in which they also enjoyed the benefits of (1) being Europe’s only non-communist industrial country and (2) little defense budget.
– As those advantages dissipated (at least number 1) and as time wore on, the inevitable “big government rot” set in nonetheless.
– Now that they have stopped the cancer’s growth – including the fact that their currency is now considered one of the last remaining “hard-ish” currencies, giving them “safe haven” capital inflows and “buying power” on international markets – they have pulled back from the brink of death. Good on them.
Again, why is this picture so difficult to understand? Or is it?
Hi NDT,
Let me break down my comment at #47. Let me be clear–HT’s claim, #34, was that
My eventual reply, at #44, suggested some obvious metrics about what might constitute quality. HT, didn’t want to engage. The bottom line of your posts is to argue that I don’t like metrics that show government in a bad light. Feel free to continue posting links to articles that deal with apparent government failures, based on explicit and implicit metrics. Because if you can develop and use metrics to determine if governments are doing poor quality work, then surely it is possible to develop and use metrics to determine if governments are doing good quality work. So, thank you, NDT, in helping me to make my argument, in the face of HT’s objections.
And HT, thank you for helping to relieve NDT’s unnecessary anguish at #42, even if it was obvious to both you and I.
You have taken your clothes off in public and none of us wants to take a peek.
If the government is charged with maintaining the infrastructure, it is entirely possible to tell whether any particular job has been done and to grade it. Engineers are pretty good at rating the soundness of a bridge.
If the government is supposed to improve “social justice” none of us has any idea what the heck “social justice” is, let alone know how to grade it.
If the government is supposed to protect spotted owls, we can (probably) count the dead owls and evaluate the program.
If the government is supposed to increase diversity, we need to have a clear, workable understanding of what constitutes diversity and what does not and how “diversity” is known and how some things that seem to be diversity are deemed not to be diversity and what counts as an increase and why an increase is of value or static or a negative. (Imagine an increase in the diversity of bigotry.)
You either follow this or you are willfully ignorant or helplessly ignorant.
I have no idea what constitutes “big” government. We certainly had “big” government during WWII which rationed our food, fuel, and goods and controlled our lives in a wide variety of ways. Would I accept the WWII big government, but not accept a peacetime government that rations my choices concerning diet, lightbulbs, religious principles, access to “unbiased” public education, etc? You bet.
You can not measure subjective values.
I did nothing of the kind and I am made temporarily distraught to imagine that NDT was insisting I did read your vaunted article. He was simply telling you that you know nothing of what I did.
I did not read the World Bank stuff for all the reasons I later expressed. But you wrote @ #41:
NDT was merely pointing out that there was nothing to clearly indicate that I did not read the article. My points were never about anything within the article and NDT fully knows that. But you jumped to a correct conclusion with no effort to display how reaching that conclusion was “clear.”
What has been “clear” in every comment I have posted on this thread is that arguing about the “metrics” of what constitutes “big high quality” government is sheer idiocy.
You can’t express your own markers for what constitutes “big high quality” government. You prefer to direct us to read your selected pap and pretend that it has salient points. That, Cas, is unprincipled, unscholarly and a lot of hot air obscured and reflected with smoke and mirrors.
Now, go suck a lemon drop.
Actually, Cas, you blew up your own argument.
You have been blathering about metrics all day — and then, when you were shown actual metrics of the kind that you demanded, insisted that they were irrelevant and didn’t matter.
And thus is Heliotrope’s point proven. You and your fellow “progressives” have no interest in metrics other than those that support your predetermined conclusion, regardless of how much engineering is required to produce them. You cannot honestly compare and evaluate across countries because you have started with your predetermined belief that big government is always best, ignored information that stated otherwise, and tried to rig statistics accordingly.
Science works from the data to develop and support hypotheses, which are subject to dispute, change, and discarding. You do the exact opposite.
Courts taking bribes, crime rates up, criminals not behind bars, and/or cities bombed.
Courts not taking bribes, crime rates down, criminals behind bars, cities not bombed.
That’s really it. Truth be told, your question is of the “wife-beating” variety. It has a false premise built into it, designed to trap the one being asked. The false premise is that it is somehow up to government to do “good work” and all we should care about is whether its “work” is good enough. For example, if the government produces cars, we should not object to the government taking on such an inappropriate, illegitimate mission (which is in fact the right answer); rather, we should merely evaluate whether the cars’ quality is good enough compared to, say, Toyota. Bzzzzzzzzzzt….Wrong question.
To be explicit: It is not up to government to “do good quality work” or “do poor quality work”, because it should not be up to government to “do work” at all. Government is a gun (as all leftists know perfectly well, and indeed they count on it; see Chairman Mao’s quotes on the matter). The right purpose of government is to exercise a territorial monopoly on the use of physical force, for the strict and limited purpose of protecting people’s rights. Once government does it (and IF government can be restrained from doing more), then THE PEOPLE “do good quality work” or “do poor quality work” (as the case may be), in the private economy.
Well, that’s easy, Heliotrope.
According to Cas, one of the things involved with “social justice” would be the elimination of “income inequality”.
So if the government were to simply state that everyone’s salary should be exactly the same, then impose a massive government bureaucracy to ensure that every dollar was taken in and allocated to ensure that everyone received the same amount, by Cas’s metric, the degree to which the government was able to suppress individuality and ensure no funds leaked out of the state would constitute the quality metric.
And, since the Soviet Union and Cuba were and have been, by all reports, very good at eliminating income inequality, then their governments by the Cas metric would have been “high quality” and something the United States should emulate.
NDT,
I thought social justice means every one gets to have a piece of the social disease that is going around. And, if you are resistant, they break you down until you break out with full blown social justice.
In my world, it is time for Cas to take her case down the hall to the Dean’s office to see if anyone there shivs a git. Quite possibly, the diversity officer can arrange an understanding intervention. After all, when is it ever permissible for a bleating lamb of innocent intent to be beaten forcibly about the head and shoulders with a big common sense stick?