Please Dems, not Hillary!

txa1265 said:

But then again, gridlock, filibuster, stalemate and the like are sometimes a very positive political move.

Click to expand...

Yes, as long as they reign in the ideological extremists, and make the various camps find common sense and common ground at the center, for the benefit of the entire populace.

Prime Junta said:

Sometimes, but if it becomes endemic, the results can be dire.

Lebanon has a multi-party system too. They've been gridlocked since September... or, looking at the bigger picture, March, 2005. If they don't manage to resolve the gridlock, there's a real danger of civil war. There was another bomb just now, this time in Doura (Beirut), and this time targeting Americans. Clearly someone wants the situation to escalate.

Click to expand...

If you consider all of the western democracies since 1990, they almost always avoid the Lebanese scenario. Again, you are reaching for remote exceptions.

In different parts of the world, especially the middle east, multi-party proportional representation might not be applicable. Also, consider the imperialist/interventionist foreign policy of the US and the likelihood that it exacerbates conflicts and anti-American sentiment there (to take a Ron Paul / Dennis Kucinich foreign policy perspective).

When you compare ALL of the western 1st world democracies, it's actually the US which has had the most partisan friction, entrenched presidential veto power and congressional gridlock, to the detriment of the general populace.

Corwin said:

I don't profess to know very much about economics, but I don't begrudge hard working CEO's their perks. What upsets me more, is the obscene amount of money some sports stars get paid compared to what the average hard working common 'man' gets. I worked hard and helped a lot of people over many years and didn't earn anywhere near what many NFL players get in one year. We have people starving and living on the streets while they are out organising dog fights!! Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching the games, but you can't convince me that they are worth what they're getting.

Click to expand...

I contend that successful people should have the moral and legal right to be relatively wealthy.

But carry it to the extreme, where multi-millionaires get to become billionaires while child poverty rates and personal bankruptcies grow and grow, well that's just polarized extremism, and there has to be a more moderate model which can actually benefit and accomodate the entire society, from top to bottom.

When billionaire Warren Buffet pays half the income tax rate of his secretary, when 100 billion dollars are given out every year by the federal government in corporate welfare, and when 55% of the American tax dollar goes towards military expenditures, you know something is definitely askew... especially while millions of Americans are going without adequate food, shelter and health care.

Eliaures said:

But most CEO's now come in to established companies at high salaries, with golden parachutes, and huge bonuses which are NOT based upon performance. Just recently, banking execs and mortgage execs received huge bonuses and this is after the prime mortgage fiasco.

Click to expand...

Take 4 other countries for example : Japan, Norway, Denmark and Finland. All 4 have very competitive economies, a very high standard of living, and many very rich CEOs. Norway actually has been rated as having the highest standard of living 5 years in a row, and it also has the greatest number of millionaires per capita (1 out of every 85 Norwegians are millionaires).

The difference is that their CEOs accomodate/accept unions, a higher minimum wage, consumer protections and a higher *personal* income tax rate (for the rich). But corporate tax rates are still kept low to aid economic competitiveness, ingenuity, adaptation and innovation.

The results ? They have very low child poverty rates (3% in Denmark vs. 15% in the US), higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality, better educational standards, better health care, much less violent crime, much less incarceration and a MUCH smaller pay gap between workers and CEOs, yet their CEOs are still very very wealthy. Virtually none of their citizens are homeless, starving or without health care.

Ireland, after decades of poverty and violence, has embraced the 3rd way socio-economic model as well (with multi-party proportional representation), and now is overtaking nearly all of the countries it lagged behind for so long. They have embraced socially conscious economics. They actually use capitalism to fuel both an efficient social safety net and CEO rewards (rather than choosing one of two dichotomies).

Arpyjee said:

When you compare ALL of the western 1st world democracies, it's actually the US which has had the most partisan friction, entrenched presidential veto power and congressional gridlock, to the detriment of the general populace.

Click to expand...

That's very likely true -- however, are you sure that the two-party system is to blame? The UK, for example, has a two-party system without many of the negatives you listed. Conversely, Belgium has a multi-party system that pretty much ground to a complete halt just now.

(Once more, I personally believe a system of proportional representation is the better system on balance, *but* I recognize it needs a specific kind of political and cultural landscape to work. I would like to see it tried somewhere in the USA, say, on the municipal and state level, where it could be rolled back if it didn't work out.)

Arpyjee said:

That's still a little too much faith in neo-lib think tanks, imo PJ. They are run by elitists who don't represent the average folk, or the poor and the lower middle class.

Click to expand...

Um, the World Bank isn't a neo-lib think tank. The advocates of GNNP include Joe Stiglitz, who is just about as far from neo-lib as you can get.

Life expectancy, infant mortality, poverty rates, violent crime rates, incarceration rates, homelessness, personal bankruptcy rates, and many other indicators/statistics are currently available, which prove that the bankers, CEOs, military leaders, and politicians of the US are reaping far more extravagant rewards than the average American citizen.

Click to expand...

I'm glad I'm no longer the only one on this board yelling about these kinds of unfortunate truths.

Arpyjee said:

when 55% of the American tax dollar goes towards military expenditures...

Click to expand...

Where did you get this number? According to Wikipedia, the 2008 budget has about $480 billion set aside for the military and $145 bn for the "global war on terror." The total budget is $2.9 trillion, which would make military expenditure about 20%, give or take a few per cent depending on how you count the GWOT. ("A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.")

Prime Junta said:

That's very likely true -- however, are you sure that the two-party system is to blame? The UK, for example, has a two-party system without many of the negatives you listed. Conversely, Belgium has a multi-party system that pretty much ground to a complete halt just now.

(Once more, I personally believe a system of proportional representation is the better system on balance, *but* I recognize it needs a specific kind of political and cultural landscape to work. I would like to see it tried somewhere in the USA, say, on the municipal and state level, where it could be rolled back if it didn't work out.)

Click to expand...

Just to summarize, I believe the 2-party system is generally worse, and the multi-party proportional systems are generally better wrt representing and implementing the views of the entirety of the general populace. All systems are imperfect, however, and the US is possibly not the right scenario for the Euro-Scandinavian system, and the Middle Eastern countries are PROBABLY not the right scenarios, imo.

I think we might be on the same page, but viewing at different angles.

Prime Junta said:

Um, the World Bank isn't a neo-lib think tank. The advocates of GNNP include Joe Stiglitz, who is just about as far from neo-lib as you can get.

...

I'm glad I'm no longer the only one on this board yelling about these kinds of unfortunate truths.

Click to expand...

Well if Stiglitz is more prominent there, then centrism is winning (and my apologies for assuming the worst about that alternate standard of evaluation you mentioned) ! You might already know his views on Venezuela, Bolivia and the rest of South & Central America : his views are quite progressive and inclusive.

But that's really all I can spew on the issue, I find it frustrating and exhausting. People who do this full time (advocate for moderate, 3rd way, progressive socio-economic models) deserve a lot of credit.

Prime Junta said:

Where did you get this number? According to Wikipedia, the 2008 budget has about $480 billion set aside for the military and $145 bn for the "global war on terror." The total budget is $2.9 trillion, which would make military expenditure about 20%, give or take a few per cent depending on how you count the GWOT. ("A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.")

Click to expand...

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm


Whatever it is, it's too darn high, imo.

Arpyjee said:

Take 4 other countries for example : Japan, Norway, Denmark and Finland...

Click to expand...

These are also all highly homogenous ethnically and culturally. Norway, Denmark, and Finland have smaller populations that New York City. Japan has a radically different social-economic structure and traditions than any of these countries or the USA.

This is probably my ENTP devil's-advocate streak kicking in, since (1) I agree with almost everything you're saying, (2) I'm tickled pink that someone else is arguing the case I've been arguing here, and doing it so well, and (3) I'm always tickled to see someone mention Finland, but still...

Yeah, I think the USA could learn some things from these (and other) countries, if it bothered to look, but it's also dangerous to tout their examples as patent medicine that might taste bitter but that'll work if you just hold your nose and swallow it.

Finland, for example, is a very peculiar country in some economically significant ways. We have an extremely strong tradition of national solidarity -- we see ourselves as small and isolated, and are very wary of trusting to any outside power to do anything for us.

That shows in some ways that are silly and counterproductive (e.g. our attitude towards agricultural self-sufficiency), and some that are not so silly (e.g. our system of state representatives, industry representatives, and union representatives sitting down every year to hammer out a general agreement on mandatory terms of employment). We've had perfectly stable coalition governments that include everyone from the National Coalition (the Conservative party) to the Left Alliance (basically what's left of the Communist party since the USSR went tits-up). That's highly unusual: Sweden has a similar political system and rather similar culture, but there's no way they could get even the center-right and center-left parties to share a government, let alone the genuine left and right.

So, again, Arpyjee -- I salute you for what you're doing, but I'd also like to add that while the US could (and IMO should!) look for lessons, ideas, and models in other countries, it's very, very important to understand what makes their solutions work. For example, I very much doubt it would be possible to have anything resembling the Finnish trilateral labor negotiations in a country as big as the US, or even as big as California.

Arpyjee said:

I think we might be on the same page, but viewing at different angles.

Click to expand...

I'm virtually certain we're on the same page; more like we're just reading different paragraphs.

Arpyjee said:

Whatever it is, it's too darn high, imo.

Click to expand...

Hard to argue with that.

I think the 55% number is a pretty good example of "playing funny with the numbers," though: since money is fungible, the only objective way to classify the cost of servicing the national debt is to divide it among the other outlays in proportion to them. You don't classify interest payments under military spending, or any other single rubric (other than "interest payments.")

Btw, I've studied the Scandinavian/Nordic region. It's a good example of principled pragmatism. They, as you know, use their peculiar brand of economically vibrant and vital semi-capitalism to fuel their efficient welfare state. Universal education (including post secondary), universal health care, paid pregnacy leave, universal day care, consumer protections, etc., all coming via a centristic model of utilitarianism via multi-party proportional representation, political coalitions and ideological compromises. Finland and it's Scandinavian allies have 8-10 parties to choose from, varying from democratic socialist parties to far right nationalist parties and everywhere in between. Not only that, their votes aren't lost in a winner takes all political monopoly system.

If the overwhelming US concensus is to move towards such a scientific, pragmatic mixture, then that version of Scandinavian social democracy is probably applicable, with considerable tweaking. But to the extent the entirety of the US population is not willing to move towards such a model (with high unionization rates, and high taxes on the incomes of the mega-rich), then that is the degree to which that social democratic system is not applicable to the US. It's really a matter of collective will and concensus.

As a dual citizen of Canada and the US, I can tell you that the desire among the populace in North America for ultra-right wing authoritarian policies (of war, greed and persecution) delivered by the neo-cons, is declining (due to observance of the effects of such policies) but is still very much prevalent (and according to the Northern European / Scandinavian standard, rather repulsive).

Arpyjee said:

I believe that it's the socio-economic system, not non-homogeneous ethnic populations which is the problem.

Click to expand...

I agree, and I didn't intend to say that you can't have a well-functioning "social democracy" in an ethnically diverse country; I was simply pointing out some peculiarities of the countries you listed that I believe have something to do with how their societies turned out.

I believe that homogeneity of the population was a significant factor in the emergence of these socio-economic systems. It's a great deal easier to reach a national consensus if everybody shares the same cultural assumptions. It'll be very interesting to see how well these systems adapt to globalization and immigration. We shouldn't assume that everything just magically sorts itself out -- for example, research has shown that increased diversity decreases social cohesion, which poses a challenge to "consensus societies" like Finland. (Nor should we slam the doors on immigration. What we should do is recognize that it poses a challenge, and try to think of creative ways of rising to it.)

Since you brought up Sweden, you should also note that it has real trouble integrating its immigrants. This shows in lots of ways, from the rise of neo-Nazi political movements, the low socio-economic status and marginalization of many immigrant groups, right down to the micro level. (There was a bit of a hoopla in the Finnish press recently when a state bureau in Uppsala forbade the use of the Finnish language within office premises, even off-duty, for example; we're particularly sensitive to that since Swedish is the second official language here, and it's taught as a mandatory subject at school -- even though the Swedish-speaking minority amounts to only about 4% of the population.)

My intention wasn't to dispute your program of a socially and environmentally conscious political and economical system and its benefits; on the contrary. I'm just saying that there are reasons why these countries and systems work in the ways they do, and if you don't look at the reasons, you'll draw the wrong conclusions.

And I'm *also* saying that none of these systems are without their trade-offs and challenges (for example, the US has consistently lower unemployment than any of the countries you listed, with the possible exception of Japan.) I think we should step back and look at the systems as they are, try to identify what works well, why it works well, what doesn't work so well, where are the challenges, and what we could do about them. The "third way" isn't really any single way; it encompasses everything from China's authoritarian export-driven "controlled capitalism" to Scandinavian "consensus societies," or Hugo Chavez's "petrol to the poor" program. That's what makes it a tougher sell, too -- there are no simple slogans that promise to fix all of society's ills.

Prime Junta said:

These are also all highly homogenous ethnically and culturally. Norway, Denmark, and Finland have smaller populations that New York City. Japan has a radically different social-economic structure and traditions than any of these countries or the USA.

Click to expand...

I've started to be concerned about the 'ethnically homogeneous demographics' argument.

1) Toronto & Vancouver are predominantly non-white, but have much lower per capita violent crime rates than the predominantly non-white large American cities. The homicide rate among US whites is much higher than the homicide rate among Canadian whites.

2) Look at Ireland throughout the 1970's & 1980's, their population was almost unilaterally white yet they had a violent, impoverished environment and a horrid socio-economic system. Now, after a rapid influx of visible minorities, and a much different socio-economic system they are leapfrogging past nearly every country in standard of living / quality of life ratings.

3) When the Russia employed brutal, extreme, authoritarian Communism, were they less white than they are today ? Moscow residents are far better off today than in the 1970's & 1980 's, yet the population are no more ethnically homogeneous.

4) Study what Sweden does for their 15,000 Iraqi refugess they accept every year (they accept as many or more than the US does). They give them a massive social safety net. If a black family from Detroit (which has 33% poverty rates and a rampant violent crime rate) were to move to Helsinki, Oslo or Stockholm, they'd have virtually no chance of being homeless, hungry, impoverished or without health care.

I believe that it's the socio-economic system, not non-homogeneous ethnic populations which is the problem.

Corwin said:

I only watch on TV, they get no money out of me!!

Click to expand...

If people didn't watch sports on TV, the TV companies wouldn't pay huge amounts of money for the rights to broadcast the sports, so by watching you do help perpetuate the system.

Arpyjee said:

I've started to be concerned about the 'ethnically homogeneous demographics' argument.

Click to expand...

Edit: whoops, looks like something strange happened to the posting order in this thread; I ended up drafting a second reply to Arpyjee's message. Please ignore the repetition if you bother reading it.

You may have misunderstood me slightly. I wasn't claiming that only an ethnically homogeneous demographic can produce a functioning social-democratic system; my point was that I believe that the homogeneity of the population in the Scandinavian countries and Japan is a factor in the emergence of their systems.

It's also a fact that the systems in the Scandinavian countries -- especially Sweden -- have problems integrating their new immigrants: you see this in the marginalization of the immigrant populations, the emergence of extreme-right, even neo-Nazi political movements, and smaller things like mandatory use of Swedish at the workplace, even during breaks.

I guess my main point is that all of these countries have their unique social-political systems that have peculiarities attributable to cultural and demographic peculiarities in them. Without understanding the basis, you might draw the wrong conclusions when looking at them for lessons.

As to immigration? There's no point in pretending that it isn't a challenge: instead, we should face it and try to find creative solutions to make it work. Slamming the door is not a valid option IMO, but neither is pretending that all we need to do is issue a passport.

Prime Junta said:

And I'm *also* saying that none of these systems are without their trade-offs and challenges (for example, the US has consistently lower unemployment than any of the countries you listed, with the possible exception of Japan.)

Click to expand...

What's interesting about the hyper-employed US population, is that the statistic is mainly due to the vast number of extremely low paying jobs which keep the employees (often immigrants) as part of the 'working poor'. Also, while they are working for peanuts (due to lack of unions and a very low minimum wage), they have to contend with being bankrupted by (privatized) medical expenses and education fees.

The neo-cons keep offering home ownership rates and employment rates as evidence of the US system being superior to the Canadian, European or Scandinavian systems. The people of Los Angeles, Detroit, New Orleans, Ocala - Florida, Mobile - Alabama, Atlanta, and elsewhere are starting to be aware of the misleading propoganda.

Prime Junta said:

Edit: whoops, looks like something strange happened to the posting order in this thread;

Click to expand...

My fault (too much caffeine + too much 2-finger typing + too much chaotic editing = pixelated anarchy).