Europeans don’t spend nearly as much on healthcare as Americans do–because they have national healthcare.
And American *productivity *has been rising since the 70s, but *wages *have been stagnant. That’s why almost every household now has both parents working, whereas in the 60s a single breadwinner could provide a comfortable existence for the family.
How are they going to cut spending? Eliminate medicare and social security? Eliminate medicaid? Eliminate defense?
The GOP has gotten called a little on this lately (not nearly as much as they should) because gov. spending is not all waste, despite that being the official line everyone spouts.
The GOP has basically said they aren’t touching mandatory spending, but are willing to cut non-defense related discretionary spending. That only frees up $100 billion or so. The Obama health bill cuts the deficit by more than that.
The GOP has no idea how to cut the deficit. They will cut some minor programs and pass massive supply side tax cuts, and the deficit will become even bigger.
Not that the thread is about US politics, but out of curiosity, how will the Dems cut the deficits, since you say the Republicans can’t or won’t? Increase taxes and…?
-XT
Oh yeah, we’re doing fantastic here in Ireland. cite Our “relatively free” economy “continues to boom” alright.
The Irish Financial Crisis
And to say Germany’s economy is performing poorly is just nonsense. Compared to who?
This is like sitting around in 1932 saying “America’s GDP for 1928 was the highest yet! We MUST be doing something right!”
And yet, the many people who said that the Great Depression proved that capitalism was a dead end were very much wrong…
(Hint: there’s a difference between short- and long-term)
Americans should be angling to be more like Canadians, frankly.
Capitalism will never die because socialism will always be there to save it.
Hear that toot toot sound? That’s the sound of the AARP bearing down on them like the Midnight Express. 
Wasn’t Ireland also a sort of tax haven for foreign companies? I mean, not like the (bankrupt) Cayman Islands or Dubai, but still…
Well, it kinda sorta was proof that capitalism was a dead end.
It proved to be a dead end for the unregulared laissez-faire BS that reigned before 1929. It brought us Social Security, the FDIC, and a whole host of other things that no self-respecting Capitalist would ever approve of.
But then that depends on your definition of Capitalism…
Our corporation tax has been 12.5% for the last twenty years or so. Here’s a graph comparing it with the rest of the world.
It doesn’t give the figures, but Ireland has the lowest rate of the thirty or so countries featured. The UK, by comparison, is at 30% (on the graph anyway, in the last budget they reduced it to 24%)
It’s funny that in general it’s worked out the other way, no? 
-XT
“It is better to be poor under socialism than rich under capitalism.” – China Cultural Revolution
“I don’t care if it’s a white cat or a black cat. It’s a good cat so long as it catches mice.” – Deng Xiaoping
… and now China’s capitalist reforms are eating our lunch.
Well, I don’t know if they are eating our lunch or not, but certainly China has done better, economically speaking, under their current quasi-capitalist system, than they did under Maoist Communism. Personally, I think if they can ever make the additional steps to get rid of all of the Communist/Feudalistic remnants and move towards a more Democratic system they really might eat our collective lunch. Of course, doing that won’t exactly be easy, so…
-XT
Kind of off topic, but China’s still extremely poor by per capita GDP standards - still lower than El Salvador, for instance. So yeah collectively it may end up larger than the US in the near future (when its per capita GDP is 1/3 that of the US), but in terms of quality of life the American Way still has a good bit of life left.
Well, yeah, that’s the point. Most self-proclaimed believers in capitalism and the free-market are very quick to abandon their principles once the shit hits the fan.
FDR’s liberal (not really socialist) policies pulled the country out of a depression caused by the free-wheeling pro-Wall St 20s. And now, the banks gladly grabbed all those TARP billions and Treasury trillions, after 30 years of deregulation (culminating in 8 years of fiscal insanity). Of course, the difference this time around is that it’s only socialism for the rich; no foreclosure moratoria, rent-to-own conversions, adequate jobs programs, infrastructure projects, funding for green energy, etc.
That’s why people are furious, both here in the U.S. and in Europe. The message is simple: if the government can afford to rescue the financial elites, it should be able to help the working people who are the victims of those elites’ recklessness.
I’m not a wealthy European plutocrat, but if I were, I’d wait out the riots in my villa in Gstaad; or if that’s too close to the rioters, Tahiti. I’d think the only people the strikers are hurting is their fellow middle class citizens.
Of course “the government” also rescued the unions and insulated government employees from the wage shocks felt by private sector workers. I see the divide as not between “The Rich” and “The Poor,” but rather between the politically well connected and the politically unpopular. Public sector unions and Goldman bigwigs alike benefit from political connections; entrepreneurs and non-unionized private sector employees are shafted by their lack of political influence.
“Austerity” is one of those things you say to Euro tighty righties to get them hot. Italy to England, Spain to Germany, instant boner.
History has shown that excessive socialism has required capitalist-style reforms to bail them out.
History has shown that excessive capitalism has required socialist reforms to bail them out.
Neither wet dreamers of the hard core socialist or laissez-faire types seem to understand that society cannot stand with pure socialism or pure capitalism. It can and has only survived with a mix of both.
China will devastate their economic advantage by allowing a (representative or otherwise) democratic system to flourish. Democracies mean human rights, pollution controls, workplace safety and pushes for higher wages*. Corporations in China are growing up addicted to higher profit margins due to a lack of these perks that we in the West take for granted - if China becomes a democracy they will promptly move further south in Asia and then to Africa in search of easily exploitable natural resources and labor.
But the odds of China, inherently a Confucian society (which strongly values the group over the individual), moving to a democratic system is pretty much a pipe dream.
Actually Americans have been raised on the idea that freedom means the rich can take their ball and move to another country. The poor get to stand at the dock and wave goodbye to the taxes and jobs the rich generated.
There isn’t any inherent reason why democracy couldn’t flourish under such circumstances. One might expect the will of the people to take a somewhat different form from that of “western” societies. But I don’t see how it precludes.
But can any society or government sustain itself in an utterly raped environment? It may well be that China’s citizens will be able to report by cell phone that they cannot breathe.
