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?
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.
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.
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?
Funny you should mention that.
Here’s an interesting site - International Macroeconomic Data Set 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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
It takes two to tango. I can’t control what goes through a liberal douche’s peanut brain when he reads what I write.
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.
Thank you for recognizing the tragedy. Can I get a hug?
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.
So Germany should be an economic basket case, right?
Not from me, thanks, but I’m sure there are some guys in the park who will let you blow them for a fee.
Oh shit, you’re on to me . . . Tricks are for kids, man . . .
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!
Shiiiiiiiiit, that’d cost 'em twenty (twenty-one if I gotta supply the condom).
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…
Heh, silly me, I completely forgot about the “make infantile comment in effort at deflection” response.
. . . and shit . . .
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!!”
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.
Here’s another bit of data that seems to fly in the face of RR’s supposition that
A countries debt/GDP ratio can be used as a measure of the economic health of the country. This article discusses this ratio in G7 countries in more detail. It would seem that Canada is doing quite well by this measure:
This ratio should not get too high, otherwise the economy will suffer:
It would seem that Japan, Italy and the United States are most at risk here:
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.
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.”