# Hey, Starving Artist! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 30, 2010, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-starving-artist/537906 "2010-04-30T21:49:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-starving-artist/537906/161 "2010-05-06T22:35:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > **Rand Rover** , the general sense of the question that I think you’re not answering is: why are Canada’s social programs a ready source of blame for the unemployment numbers, but can’t be credited for other, favorable statistics? This. And as a hypothetical, if Canada’s unemployment numbers were ever lower than the US, could we point to social programs as having a positive effect? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-starving-artist/537906/162 "2010-05-06T22:43:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > **Rand Rover** , the general sense of the question that I think you’re not answering is: why are Canada’s social programs a ready source of blame for the unemployment numbers, but can’t be credited for other, favorable statistics? Bricker, I’ve never said what you are saying I said. I never brought up Canada at all. I’m just responding to EP’s mention of Canada. I’m just discussing general features of countries with large social programs, and one of them is higher unemployment. I don’t think you can look at one stat from one country and say definitively that large social programs are the cause. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-starving-artist/537906/163 "2010-05-06T22:50:42Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > The graph went as far as 2008. Are you not aware of the current values? > > Canada at 8.2% > US currently at 9.7% > > That proves you wrong. I don’t understand why you would point to old data to suggest that you’re right, when current data proves that you’re wrong. Perhaps facts really do have a liberal bias. Yeesh. Canada had higher unemployment for years and years and years. Then it switches and you think that proves me wrong. That is ridiculous. You are ignoring the years and years and years before the switch. > [@](#): > > One might conclude that it took Canada’s social programs a generation or two to really make positive effects and eliminate the negative effects of “free market.” I agree. One might conclude that if they had other data to support it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-starving-artist/537906/164 "2010-05-06T23:07:40Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Bricker, I’ve never said what you are saying I said. I never brought up Canada at all. I’m just responding to EP’s mention of Canada. > > I’m just discussing general features of countries with large social programs, and one of them is higher unemployment. I don’t think you can look at one stat from one country and say definitively that large social programs are the cause. OK, fair enough. And as it happens, my confirmation bias is right there with you: I have an intuitive sense that what you’re saying is correct. But the question being framed here is, I think, a valid one: what is the objective evidence in support of the claim? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-starving-artist/537906/165 "2010-05-06T23:33:29Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I agree. One might conclude that if they had other data to support it. Funny you should mention that. Here’s an interesting site - [International Macroeconomic Data Set](http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Macroeconomics/) It is packed full of tables in Excel that can be downloaded. Looking at the table of worldwide GDP figures, one can compare Canada with the US. For the 40 year run of GDP growth in the table, 1970 - 2009, Canada has annual growth of 2.94% compared to the US 2.81% For the past 10 years, 2000 - 2009, Canada’s annual GDP growth is 2.14%, compared with the US 1.82% I would argue that this is one more piece of evidence that the statement “higher taxes caused by large social programs have negative economic effects”, is a simplistic, and non-useful statement. The fact that Canada has a working Universal Health Care program does not result in lower GDP growth., either over a long term (40 years) or during the past 10 years. ETA: Thank you **Bricker**. I am open to any objective evidence that **RR** wants to bring to the table in support of his claim. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-starving-artist/537906/166 "2010-05-07T00:24:03Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Yeesh. Canada had higher unemployment for years and years and years. Then it switches and you think that proves me wrong. That is ridiculous. You are ignoring the years and years and years before the switch. > > I agree. One might conclude that if they had other data to support it. Okay, just so we’re clear: case: socialist policies lead to higher taxes which leads to higher unemployment when Canada had higher unemployment, that proved your assertion. Now Canada has LOWER unemployment than the US, which should disprove your assertion. Except for some reason you claim that the historical numbers outweigh the current numbers. So what is it that I’m ignoring? Why are you so willing to ignore the current numbers? What does it say about your theory when Canada ends up with lower unemployment rate than the US? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-starving-artist/537906/167 "2010-05-07T01:38:01Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > You sure can beat the shit out of a straw man. I never said that Canada’s higher unemployment rate is due to its social programs. You sure use the phrase “I never said that” (or variations) a lot - maybe you should think more carefully about what you post so you won’t be so misunderstood so often and so unfairly. > [@](#): > > I said that higher taxes caused by large social programs (in any country) have negative economic effects, one of which is higher unemployment. So is it high taxes alone that cause this, or does what the tax money gets spent on matter? Would any large expensive government program have the same effect? Defense? NASA? Debt servicing? > [@](#): > > You’d better keep an eye out for straw men seeking revenge. That’s another phrase I see you using quite a bit. How tragic for you that it seems not a single person here can understand your philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-starving-artist/537906/168 "2010-05-07T01:57:46Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Okay, just so we’re clear: > > case: socialist policies lead to higher taxes which leads to higher unemployment > > when Canada had higher unemployment, that proved your assertion. > > Now Canada has LOWER unemployment than the US, which should disprove your assertion. > > Except for some reason you claim that the historical numbers outweigh the current numbers. > > So what is it that I’m ignoring? Why are you so willing to ignore the current numbers? What does it say about your theory when Canada ends up with lower unemployment rate than the US? Le sigh. I think you are framing the inquiry all wrong, and using “proves” and “disproves” in this context is not correct. I just said that you would expect to see certain negative economic effects in countries with large social programs. Lo and behold, we see one of those effects in Canada. A country’s unemployment rate is influenced by lots of factors, so it may be the case that Canada’s relatively higher unemployment compared to the US has nothing to do with its higher taxes. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > You sure use the phrase “I never said that” (or variations) a lot - maybe you should think more carefully about what you post so you won’t be so misunderstood so often and so unfairly. It takes two to tango. I can’t control what goes through a liberal douche’s peanut brain when he reads what I write. > [@](#): > > So is it high taxes alone that cause this, or does what the tax money gets spent on matter? Would any large expensive government program have the same effect? Defense? NASA? Debt servicing? High taxes alone. But social programs are a special case for the creation of high taxes because of the ratchet effect–once something is promised to someone, the government must deliver. Wars and space exploration ebb and flow. > [@](#): > > That’s another phrase I see you using quite a bit. How tragic for you that it seems not a single person here can understand your philosophy. Thank you for recognizing the tragedy. Can I get a hug? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-starving-artist/537906/169 "2010-05-07T02:08:01Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > It takes two to tango. I can’t control what goes through a liberal douche’s peanut brain when he reads what I write. True, so when an intelligent person like myself misunderstands you, there must be something else at work. I figure it’s your tendency to make vague claims boldly, then when confronted with questions, you either retroactively redefine the claim, cite some previously unmentioned nuance, or just just ignore the question entirely. > [@](#): > > High taxes alone. But social programs are a special case for the creation of high taxes because of the ratchet effect–once something is promised to someone, the government must deliver. Wars and space exploration ebb and flow. So Germany should be an economic basket case, right? > [@](#): > > Thank you for recognizing the tragedy. Can I get a hug? Not from me, thanks, but I’m sure there are some guys in the park who will let you blow them for a fee. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-starving-artist/537906/170 "2010-05-07T02:22:33Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > True, so when an intelligent person like myself misunderstands you, there must be something else at work. I figure it’s your tendency to make vague claims boldly, then when confronted with questions, you either retroactively redefine the claim, cite some previously unmentioned nuance, or just just ignore the question entirely. Oh shit, you’re on to me . . . Tricks are for kids, man . . . > [@](#): > > So Germany should be an economic basket case, right? Hehe, the liberal douches are lovin’ them some Germany these days. You know that the workers have a say in the direction of the company and everything, right? Man, those Germans are freaking awesome! > [@](#): > > Not from me, thanks, but I’m sure there are some guys in the park who will let you blow them for a fee. Shiiiiiiiiit, that’d cost 'em twenty (twenty-one if I gotta supply the condom). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-starving-artist/537906/171 "2010-05-07T02:23:53Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > …I can’t control what goes through a liberal douche’s peanut brain when he reads what I write… Well, bless your heart, of course you can! Rather the whole point, isn’t it? Allow me to demonstrate: an elephant. I just made at least one tighty righty douche think of an elephant, along with a diverse collection of geeks, nerds, pervs, 'tards, and at least one normal person. More or less. Its a matter of choosing the right set of words to invoke what goes through the target’s head! And arranging them in the proper order, can’t emphasize that enough! Was it Chesterton who said “The words lie about, thick upon the ground, anxiously awaiting the assemblers will”? No, probably not… ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-starving-artist/537906/172 "2010-05-07T02:27:53Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Oh shit, you’re on to me . . . Tricks are for kids, man . . . Heh, silly me, I completely forgot about the “make infantile comment in effort at deflection” response. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-starving-artist/537906/173 "2010-05-07T02:34:27Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Heh, silly me, I completely forgot about the “make infantile comment in effort at deflection” response. . . . and shit . . . ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-starving-artist/537906/174 "2010-05-07T02:34:45Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Heh, silly me, I completely forgot about the “make infantile comment in effort at deflection” response. He’s got the “ignoring new data in post #165” part down pretty good too. My favorite will be in the future in a different thread, where he pulls the “I already proved in a past thread that countries with social programs like UHC suffer economically! I totally owned you!!!11!!” ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-starving-artist/537906/175 "2010-05-07T03:03:39Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Instead of comparing the American, Canadian and British health care systems all the time, maybe we could step outside the Anglosphere for a little while and see if France and Germany have anything to teach us about delivering health care. France? OK: [ > [@](#): > > The World Health Organization has named the French health care system the best in the world. (The U.S. ranked 37th). It’s physician-rich, boasting one doctor for approximately every 430 people, compared with a doctor for every 1,230 residents in the U.S. (and French docs tend to charge significantly less). The average life expectancy is two years longer than the U.S. And while the system is one of the most expensive in the world, costing $3,500 per person, it’s far less than the $6,100 spend per capita in the U.S. ]([The Health Care System I Want Is in France - ABC News](http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4647483&page=1)) ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-starving-artist/537906/176 "2010-05-07T14:19:00Z")
[Canada adds another 100k jobs, jobless rate falls to 8.1 percent.](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ik6tvLU9PxAXeEwHshNCifpC2SLgD9FI19TG0) [US Jobs Up 290,000, but Jobless Rate Rises to 9.9 %](http://www.cnbc.com/id/37015227) ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-starving-artist/537906/177 "2010-05-07T15:09:06Z")
> [@Yookeroo](#): > > France? OK: Thank you! Now, the next time somebody just has to bring up the subject of universal health care, could we please quit yammering about Britain and maybe talk about examples we could actually learn something from? Ain’t bitchin’ at you personally, but folks defending UHC really shouldn’t let themselves get stuck defending the NHS all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-starving-artist/537906/178 "2010-05-07T17:53:52Z")
Here’s another bit of data that seems to fly in the face of **RR** ’s supposition that > [@](#): > > “More social programs mean higher taxes, which means higher unemployment, less innovation, brain drain, and slower growth.” A countries debt/GDP ratio can be used as a measure of the economic health of the country. [This article](http://www.cbc.ca/money/taxseason/story/2010/02/17/f-debt-gdp-budget.html) discusses this ratio in G7 countries in more detail. It would seem that Canada is doing quite well by this measure: > [@](#): > > “Canada’s net debt-to-GDP ratio is the lowest in the G7 economies,” said Scotiabank president and chief executive officer Rick Waugh back in February 2009. This ratio should not get too high, otherwise the economy will suffer: > [@](#): > > U.S. economists Kenneth Rogoff and Carman Reinhart believe the danger point is a debt-to-GDP ratio in excess of 90 per cent. > > “That level has historically been associated with notably lower growth,” the two economists wrote in the Financial Times newspaper in January. > > Once a country’s debt measure pops above that level, the national GDP loses a percentage point of economic growth, they estimated. It would seem that Japan, Italy and the United States are most at risk here: > [@](#): > > Using the Rogoff-Reinhart line, Japan, Italy and the United States would appear to be the most at risk here, while Canada is doing significantly better. > > The World Bank estimates that Japan’s debt-to-GDP level will hit 227 per cent in 2010 while Italy’s will rise to 121 per cent in the same year. > > Even the United States, which has spent billions on its various stimulus packages, could see a debt ratio of 97 per cent by 2010. > > By contrast, the World Bank figures Canada’s debt-to-income measure will edge up to 77 per cent in 2010. Hmmmm… Canada… “doing significantly better”. And this, despite the social programs including UHC, that **RR** assures us are bad for the economy. I await his well reasoned and mature response. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-starving-artist/537906/179 "2010-05-07T17:58:17Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Hmmmm… Canada… “doing significantly better”. And this, despite the social programs including UHC, that **RR** assures us are bad for the economy. I await his well reasoned and mature response. By the time you get it, Canada will have 50 new provinces. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-starving-artist/537906/180 "2010-05-07T17:59:27Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Hmmmm… Canada… “doing significantly better”. And this, despite the social programs including UHC, that **RR** assures us are bad for the economy. I await his well reasoned and mature response. You’ll be waiting a while, he’s busy using horribly tortured logic to justify horrible torture. I believe I can sum up his potential response: “We are we, they are they. Therefor, our economy is great, and there economy sucks. And a judge has to say so. Liberal douche purple monkey dishwasher.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-starving-artist/537906.md?page=8)