To be fair to Rand: He’s in a Starving Artist-targeted thread so he may have simply decided to adopt SA’s debating tactics in tribute.
Hey mbossa, emacknight, VT, and 42fish, care to actually make an argument instead of just making a meaningless drive-by post?
I said that huge social programs have certain effects on the economy, one of which is highjer unemployment. I provided cites for a number of countries (including Canada) in another thread. EP provides a cite for Canada in this thread, and it show higher unemployment in Canada. EP then tries to make some obtuse point about the fact that the gap is narrowing, which doesn’t respond to my original point at all.
In short: I win, EP loses, and you guys look like idiots for making non-substantive drive-by posts supporting the loser.
Its a prejudice, Rand, people tend to assume that you’re wrong if you are a totally smug, self-righteous knob.
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. Maybe even Mexico.
Right, I’m the smug and self-righteous one. Liberal douches always have an idea for a new government program to save people from some coming catastrophe. I think the government should not do much and should let each individual sort things out for themselves according to what they think is best. I don’t elevate my ideas for a person running their lives over anyone else’s. Sounds to me like liberal douches are the ones that are smug and self-righteous.
A note? That was a symphony.
Mr. Pot meets Mr. Kettle.
There does not appear to be a strong correlation between higher unemployment in Canada than the US, and differences in Canadian social policies.
The “gap” as stated in the table starts basically at parity in 1980-81, increases through the 1980s and 90s to reach a peak in the late 90s, then decreases again from the late 90s to now - with higher unemployment in the US.
As far as I’m aware, Canada did not go from being equally “socialist” (in terms of social programs) as the US in 1980, become more “socialist” in the 80s and 90s, and then less “socialist” in the 00’s.
Thus, it would appear, other factors quite independant of the relative degree of social programs probably explain the difference in unemployment figures between the two nations.
I don’t think it’s stupid as much as it is utterly, utterly trollish.
I’m looking at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-222-x/2008001/sectionp/p-unemployment-chomage-eng.htm
It shows two lines. A black line (US unemployment) and a yellow line (Canadian unemployment).
Except for a tiny slice in 1976 and a brief period in the 1980-82 time frame, the black line is well below the yellow line. So I take that graph to mean that US employment rates are and have been consistently below Canada’s unemployment rates.
I take no position on the rest of the discussion, but can someone explain what makes Rand Rover wrong when he says this?
eta:
Never mind. I see. EP’s claim is that the gap-, the delta, is getting smaller, not that the absolute numbers are smaller.
I’m not sure what the employment figures have to do with it - Canadian pay higher taxes and get better government services, in many cases better than the private equivalent many Americans can afford to buy with their greater income after taxes.
Maybe the ~3.5% difference is due to social programs, but to hear Rand Rover tell it, UHC is such a ginormous disaster that if there was a link, I’d personally expect the disparity to be a lot more dramatic.
The old ‘Other people called me names, therefore I declare victory’ bit. Told ya Rand was doing a Starving Artist tribute.
Do you take requests? Next time you call liberals ‘douchebags,’ could you preface it with a lament that liberals destroyed civility. Thanks – it’s one of my SA favorites.
But EP’s response is not on point with what I said (and neither are the other responses).
All I said is that large social programs bring with them a whole host of negative eeconomic effects, one of which is higher unemployment. I never said that all countries with large social programs experience all of the negative effects or experiences them all equally, or that the negative effect is fully explained by the large social programs.
So large social programs are provably bad, except when they’re not?
In addition, you may have missed this comment and link:
Rather that large social programs have bad effects as well as good.
Why is this so hard for you?
Regards,
Shodan
Whoa! Those goalposts went whipping by so fast, I could hardly see them.
I guess this means that I won’t bother showing you the statistics that show 9 budget surpluses in a row in Canada - this will just be “explained away” as well. And the IMF report that predicts that Canada will have the highest growth of any G7 country in 2010, and 2011? That probably does not count either.
The great thing about this, is that Rand Rover can simply cherry pick a statistic from each country to prove his point. (Country “A” has higher umemployment, Country “B” has lower growth, etc.)
In reality, the economies of different countries are vast and complex. Disparities between economic factors between the US and countries with UHC cannot be explained with the simplistic notion that their “social programs” will inevitably lead to high unemployment, slow growth, etc.
To trot out this simplistic explanation to a complex system simply reveals the poster’s dogma.
Wrong. I haven’t changed anything I’ve said all throughout this multi-thread exchange on this point.
Exactly, which shows the ridiculousness of your idea that burdening an economy with higher taxes to pay for social programs will have absolutely no negative effect on it.
And to blindly harangue and nitpick my very limited and obvious point reveals YOUR dogma.
You know, I don’t believe I have ever said that at any point in time. I don’t have that “idea”, nor have I ever said what you attribute to me. I am merely disagreeing with your broad, sweeping, generalized statement that:
I posted a series of datapoints that clearly show that the unemployment rate in Canada has decreased over time, relative to the US. This refutes your theory above.
I can’t put it any better than Malthus:
But that graph says at the bottom that it was already corrected for that discrepancy.