You're in serious denial to try to dismiss what's going on with a silly bromide like that. As opposed to what?
How bizarre that the author forgets to mention that probably the most "liberal", "socialist", etc societies in the West, e.g. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, are all doing just fine. More than fine, they seem to be kickin' ass and taking names, last I checked (and no, it's not the oil). Furthermore, I would have to guess that the author chooses to omit Germany and Switzerland for a similar reason. Finally, to suggest that the crisis in Ireland has the same root cause as the one in Greece is rather, shall we say, unenlightened. In fact, I expected that the author would hold Ireland up as a paragon of capitalist virtue, what with one of the lowest corporate tax rates and government expenditure/GDP ratios in the world. I can't imagine why the author of such a well thought out and researched article would make such glaring omissions. Bizarre, indeed.
If it is not the oil what is it? is it the people... Is it the method of accounting... I found this article on sweeden. http://www.newgeography.com/content/001543-is-sweden-a-false-utopia "The old Sweden, in contrast, has not done as well in economic terms. In 1960 taxation stood at 30 percent of GDP, roughly where the US is today. As taxes rose, economic growth decreased, with Sweden dropping from being the 4th richest country in 1970 to being the 12th richest in 2008. Swedish GDP per capita is now $36,600, far below the $45,500 of the US, and even further behind the $56,900 of Swedes in America. A Scandinavian economist once stated to Milton Friedman: "In Scandinavia we have no poverty." Milton Friedman replied, "That's interesting, because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either." Indeed, the poverty rate for Americans with Swedish ancestry is only 6.7%, half the U.S average. Economists Geranda Notten and Chris de Neubourg have calculated the poverty rate in Sweden using the American poverty threshold, finding it to be an identical 6.7%." I also recall a study which came out a few years ago which said that 40% of sweeden would be below the poverty line in the U.S. Don't get me wrong I am all in favor of utopia... but when 50% of america does not pay income taxes... I have to say those that do seem to be getting screwed. And then it becomes unbearable to hear democrats speak of sharing the burden. How about a flat tax and cutting out this class rhetoric b.s. You want to talk about social justice?
Good question... I don't know what it is, but then I didn't make any high-falutin' overly general assertions about "liberalism", "socialism" or any other such thing. Clearly, it's not about "liberalism" or it's not only about "liberalism". As to the economic comparisons, as of 2010, according to the IMF, Sweden is ranked 8th in the world by GDP per capita, above the US. Moreover, consider that statistic in light of the fact that Swedish public debt/GDP is arnd 35% and the government is running a surplus this year (and likely going fwd). At any rate, it's certainly an interesting subject to discuss, but that's not my point. I am simply saying that if you wanna make an argument about the problems brought about by "liberalism", "socialism" etc, don't make it a silly argument by making needlessly general statements that can be refuted with trivial counterexamples.
Indeed, but isn't it curious that they're also the cream of the crop if you love your government to be solvent? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_public_debt Regardless, this doesn't change my point. The assertion that the author of the article makes is just not based on sound logic.
Solvent government is better than an insolvent one. A small solvent government is better than a large solvent government. It is an x - y spectrum. We're in the wrong corner: Large and insolvent.