Left wing economics works
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
left wing ideas can work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlAR1I1sVCg
This post was originally intended for the launch of the People’s Policy Project website. But as that is running behind schedule, I figure I will post it here.
When policy commentators talk about the Nordic economies, they tend to focus on their comprehensive welfare states. And for good reason. Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden are home to some of the most generous welfare systems in the world. Each has an efficient single-payer health care system, free college, long parental leave, heavily subsidized child care, and many other social benefits too numerous to list here.
As marvelous as the Nordic welfare states are, the outsized attention they receive can sometimes lead commentators to the wrong conclusions about the peculiarities of Nordic economies. Jonathan Chait thinks the Nordic economies feature an “amped-up version of … neoliberalism” while an oddly large number of conservative and libertarian writers claim the Nordics are quasi-libertarian.
The common thread to these mistaken conclusions, aside from the desire to deny that there are leftist success stories in the world, is the apparent belief that the only extraordinary part of Nordic economies are the welfare states. Except for their generous social benefits, everything else is properly capitalist and even more capitalist than the United States. Or so the argument goes.
Labor Market
But this is not true. In addition to their large welfare states and high tax levels, Nordic economies are also home to large public sectors, strong job protections, and labor markets governed by centralized union contracts.
Around 1 in 3 workers in Denmark and Norway are employed by the government.
These labor market characteristics are hardly neoliberal or quasi-libertarian, at least if we stick to typical definitions of those terms. The neoliberal tendency, as exemplified most recently by France’s Emmanuel Macron, is to cut public sector jobs, reduce job protections, and push for local rather than centralized labor agreements. For the US labor market to become more like the Nordics, it would have to move in the opposite direction on all of those fronts.
State Ownership
Even more interesting than Nordic labor market institutions is Nordic state ownership. Collective ownership over capital is the hallmark of that old-school socialism that is supposed to have been entirely discredited. And yet, such public ownership figures prominently in present-day Norway and Finland and has had a role in the other two Nordic countries as well, especially in Sweden where the government embarked upon a now-defunct plan to socialize the whole of Swedish industry into wage-earner funds just a few decades ago.
The governments of Norway and Finland own financial assets equal to 330 percent and 130 percent of each country’s respective GDP. In the US, the same figure is just 26 percent.
Much of this money is tied up in diversified wealth funds, which some would object to as not counting as real state ownership. I disagree with the claim that wealth funds are not really state ownership, but the observation that Nordic countries feature high levels of state ownership does not turn upon this quibble.
State-owned enterprises (SOEs), defined as commercial enterprises in which the state has a controlling stake or large minority stake, are also far more prevalent in the Nordic countries. In 2012, the value of Norwegian SOEs was equal to 87.9 percent of the country’s GDP. For Finland, that figure was 52.3 percent. In the US, it was not even 1 percent.
Some of these SOEs are businesses often run by states: a postal service, a public broadcasting channel, an Alcohol retail monopoly. But others are just normal businesses typically associated with the private sector.
In Finland, where I know the situation the best, there are 64 state-owned enterprises, including one called Solidium that operates as a holding company for the government’s minority stake in 13 of the companies.
The Finnish state-owned enterprises include an airliner called Finnair; a wine and spirits maker called Altia; a marketing communications company called Nordic Morning; a large construction and engineering company called VR; and an $8.8 billion oil company called Neste.
In Norway, the state manages direct ownership of 70 companies. The businesses include the real estate company Entra; the country’s largest financial services group DNB; the 30,000-employee mobile telecommunications company Telenor; and the famous state-owned oil company Statoil.
Finland and Norway have their special reasons for the level of state ownership they engage in. Finnish government publications discuss the country’s late development and status as a peripheral country when justifying their relatively heavy public involvement in industry. That is, Finland does not want to expose the entirety of its marginal, late-developing, open economy to the potential ravages of international capital flows.
In Norway, the discovery of oil in the North Sea was the impetus for the creation of its enormous social wealth fund. The fund currently owns around $950 billion of assets throughout the world, including more than $325 billion of assets inside the US. In a video on the Norwegian central bank’s website, the fund is described as follows: “It is the people’s money, owned by everyone, divided equally and for generations to come.”
No one would argue that the Nordic countries are full-blown socialist countries, whatever that might mean. But it is also folly to pretend the only thing they have proven is that high taxes and large welfare states can work. Even on the narrow understanding of socialism as public ownership of enterprise, the Nordic countries are far more socialistic than most commentators seem to realize. American socialists who draw inspiration from their successes do so rightly.
sweden works with left wing policy
Left wing economics works
words i have the best words i have the best proofthey words might not be minse but they are reflactions of the reality i wish to express
From 1978 to 2017, China's state revenue increased from 113.2 billion to 17 trillion yuan, while the country's gross national income per-capita rose from 1978's $200 to $8,250 in 2016. China cut the number of rural poor from 770 million to 30.46 million over the past 40 years.
China's industrial structure has continued to optimize and its economic growth has been driven by consumption, investment and export. At the same time, China has recorded the largest foreign reserve in the world."http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/chinaecoachievement40years/index.html
From 1978 to 2017, China's state revenue increased from 113.2 billion to 17 trillion yuan, while the country's gross national income per-capita rose from 1978's $200 to $8,250 in 2016. China cut the number of rural poor from 770 million to 30.46 million over the past 40 years.
China's industrial structure has continued to optimize and its economic growth has been driven by consumption, investment and export. At the same time, China has recorded the largest foreign reserve in the world.
How am i supposed to prove my point unless i quote a source?
A 13 year old who killed 2 people was put back in in jail after escaping. He had been imprisoned inside Cumberland Regional Juvenile Detention Center. [1]
say just look at sweden? high taxes big welfare state strong unions ? Norway has state industry and a huge sovereign wealth fund, all nordic states have huge bureaucracies 1 in 3 people in denamrk and norway work for the state? I've already proven these pointsWhere is your source?
If we want to look at an economy which is undoubtedly left-wing, like Argentina, we can see the issues with this. According to my [1]st source:• Higher personal and corporate tax rates, and higher government spending• More worker protections restricting the ability of companies to hire and fire, and less flexibility for companies to set wages based on worker productivity and/or to hire foreign labor• More reliance on regulation, more constraints on real estate development, more anti-trust enforcement and more state intervention in product markets; and a shift away from a shareholder-centric business model• More protections for workers and domestic industries through tariff and non-tariff barriers, and more constraints on capital inflows and outflowsI couldn’t find any country that ticked all these democratic socialist boxes, but I did find one that came close: Argentina, which has defaulted 7 times since its independence in 1816, which has seen the largest relative standard of living decline in the world since 1900, and which is on the brink of political and economic chaos again in 2019... A real-life proof of concept for a successful democratic socialist society, like the Lost City of Atlantis, has yet to be found.
there is lots of proof this system works https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_lnKjTqwww&t=2s
even conservative admit its a good system there are lots of leftish nations with good economies i have proof the best proof https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfANf1I4sUQ&t=11s
In 1978, after years of state control of all productive assets, the government of China embarked on a major program of economic reform. In an effort to awaken a dormant economic giant, it encouraged the formation of rural enterprises and private businesses, liberalized foreign trade and investment, relaxed state control over some prices, and invested in industrial production and the education of its workforce. By nearly all accounts, the strategy has worked spectacularly.While pre-1978 China had seen annual growth of 6 percent a year (with some painful ups and downs along the way), post-1978 China saw average real growth of more than 9 percent a year with fewer and less painful ups and downs. In several peak years, the economy grew more than 13 percent. Per capita income has nearly quadrupled in the last 15 years, and a few analysts are even predicting that the Chinese economy will be larger than that of the United States in about 20 years. Such growth compares very favorably to that of the "Asian tigers"--Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan Province of China--which, as a group, had an average growth rate of 7-8 percent over the last 15 years.
The country's economy expanded at an average rate of 9.5 percent over the last 40 years, far beyond the world economy's 2.9 percent in the same period. And its GDP rose from 367.9 billion yuan in 1978 to 82.71 trillion yuan in 2017, while its per-capita GDP saw a 22.8-fold growth to 59,660 yuan over the same time span, lifting China from the notch of world's low-income to middle-income countries.
and lets not forget which state has the most prosperous economy is massachsetts the most liberal state https://usprosperity.net/ https://www.homesnacks.net/most-liberal-states-in-america-1219947/
oh and portugal which used left wing policies to salvage a broke n economyhttps://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/portugal-s-socialist-miracle-offers-lessons-for-a-divided-spain-1.4038021
How am i supposed to prove my point unless i quote a source? say just look at sweden? high taxes big welfare state strong unions ? Norway has state industry and a huge sovereign wealth fund, all nordic states have huge bureaucracies 1 in 3 people in denamrk and norway work for the state? I've already proven these points and there is lots of proof this system works
Sweden, China , Uraguay , and Massachusetts all economies governed either by dirigisme or keynesianism and they work oh and portugal which used left wing policies to salvage a broke n economy
Plagiarism. And yes, you are supposed to use evidence but to then give your own interpretation; even just paraphrasing it would be preferable.
Were that not enough, the debate turned into con teaching pro how to construct arguments; so literally schooling him.
That said, I'll provide a little more detail in case trying this topic (or a similar one) again... The topic was basically a truism, but to cast a serious vote on it, I would need to treat it as possible for Left Wing Economies to generally fail to work (presumably this debate would only be initiated based on someone saying they outright do not work). Con did a good job Kritiking this, to mean pro needs to show they generally work, not merely by chance they worked in a single location. Pro did fight back a little on this, but included muddying the waters on what makes an economic policy considered left wing (a weak kritik against his own case being able to have meaning); which denies him the ability to reach minimal BoP.
And of course I've given some more feedback in the comment section: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1593/comment_links/22399
Two immediate things...
First, if using more than a couple lines from anyone else, put it into block quotation so the division is clear.
Second, as explained in the style guide (tiny.cc/DebateArt):
Plagiarism
Unless clearly indicated otherwise, you are taking credit for writing anything you post.
There are only three strict rules on avoiding accidental plagiarism:
If you copy/paste anything, put “quotation marks” around it, and provide a link.
If paraphrasing (putting what they said into your own words), still provide a link.
If no link is available, still give credit. Example: “Descartes put it best with his we think therefore we are.”
Author consent, does not dismiss plagiarism. Accidentally plagiarizing does not dismiss plagiarism. It not being many words copied does not dismiss plagiarism. Even common knowledge, does not dismiss plagiarism. Just follow the above rules.
As a debater, if you spot it, give the audience proof of the crime; then continue your case.
As a voter, automatically give conduct to the side which did not commit plagiarism (and state “plagiarism” in your RFD), then assign a penalty to arguments based on the degree of cheating. A minor slip up (like borrowing a line of rhetoric to emphasize a point) is wholly forgivable, building a case reliant upon plagiarized material (such as instead of making your own argument, merely copy/pasting one from Stephen Hawking) is not.
just tagging you
Oh. How do I know you then?
I don't know who that is.
Hey! Are you jzonda?
Hola, Mr. Cat!