What are your political views?

[Rapier]

Not to presume true familiarity with your region/country/politics, but I've heard a faint little in passing about how Petrobras has been, uh, mismanaged. Sorry about that, man.

Yeah, things have been rough here for the last years since our ruling party desires for us to take the same route that Venezuela took. Our president is the equivalent of Don Quayle, except more corrupt and stupid, serving the interests of the higher ups from her party. Petrobras has been "mismanaged" two times already in the same fashion, but this time it hit the fan and affected our foreign policies even more.

This video is particularly very clarifying about our situation, if you so desire to learn more.

that's correct. usually i think we refer to them as "socialist" because they're a bit more socialist than the rest.

EDIT: by the way, "liberal" means a totally different thing in the US. a self-described liberal here is more likely to support socialist ideology.

I forgot. Hence why the confusion when I said you're against liberalism. When I say liberalism, I refer to Adam Smith's liberalism, aka laissez-faire capitalism and open market policies, which is the original liberalism.

Just out of curiousity, why are liberals associated with socialism in the US? This makes very little sense. Why not let yourselves be called socialists, or social democrats, or whatever?

@Chiki

Scandinavian countries may not be called socialist countries. If anything, social democracies are the middle term between socialism and capitalism, therefore they're not one of them, but something mixed that deserves its own classification. Calling 'purple' as 'red' because it is a mix between red and blue is logically incorrect. So is saying that red or blue evolved to purple, or that purple is the evolution of red/blue.

I think the problem we're having here is actually geographic. Both me and Rapier live in a latin american country where the rulling left winged party tries to paint open market as something completely anti-socialist and "against the people". That might be the reason we have such a problem thinking a country with open market is socialist. So the problem wouldn't be your reasoning, but the fact that the latin american left leads us to think what you're saying is socialism isn't socialism.

I insist that socialism is the complete opposite to open markets, if there is a country with open markets, then it is impossible for it to be socialist by definition (of course, one has to mind the sliding scale and not conclude hastily that only the extremes exist). If anything, socialism advocates for restricted and regulated markets. In that sense, Sweden takes more after laissez-faire open market than welfare state regulated/restricted market, even though their national policies are social democratic. Norway sides more with socialism, from what I know, but they have enough oil to pay for the gargantuan expenses that socialist policies demand to be implanted.

tax money is generally used to fund projects that disproportionately benefit the poor - things like public transportation, public recreation, and public education (hint: the word "public" gives it away) - and this isn't even considering welfare programs.

So any project that benefit the poor is socialist by default? This sounds as absurds as affirming that anyone who cares about the poor or helps the poor is socialist. You don't need to be a socialist or follow socialism to advocate for projects which benefit the poor. All socialists can be people who want to help the poor, but not all people who want to help the poor need be socialists.

it's a shame that users can't be warned for egregious offenses like outright stupidity. i do so wish it were a bannable offense

It's a shame that users can't be warned for trying to censor the debate on the basis that someone is more stupid than them. I do so wish it were a reprehensible action in any decent debate which strives to be intelectually honest. Well sorry for not being a young prodigy who has the same polictical and philosophical formation of a veteran like you, I'm learning and the best way for me to learn is to engage more intelligent people with the content that I have read and studied about. Damn your arrogant attitude.

first of all, there is not an "only" difference - that is a qualifier intended to mislead. second of all, literally every thing or idea in existence that is effective when taken in moderation becomes harmful when taken in great amounts or to the extreme. you may not make a compelling argument by likening a concept to its most radical version and then discarding them based in its similarities. capitalism has much in common with fascism; that doesn't mean that capitalism is bad.

(1) I did not say there is just one difference between socialism and communism. I said there are more similarities than differences, and that their similarities are scornful and significant enough to make a solid comparisson. A very dangerous medicine can be compared to a poison.

(2) There's a difference between affirming that 'x=y, y is bad, therefore x is bad' and affirming 'x is like y, y is bad, therefore x is bad'. Socialism is like communism, and worse still, socialism's goal is to become communism, from what we can read from Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, much like a larva metamorphoses into a bug. Therefore, socialism can only be applied in very specific small doses, like a medicine that can easily become lethal. But we can argue that there are more efficient methods to treat a social problem that are not socialist.

(3) Fascism leans more toward state capitalism than the regulated capitalism we see in social democracies. If anything, their market policies and market control lean more toward socialism. Claiming that Hitler was an extreme right-wing capitalism will net you a door-to-the-face reaction from any decent German who knows that the laissez-faire capitalism that the right-wing advocates for has nothing to do with the state capitalism that the left-wing advocates for.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Rapier

[Phoenix Wright]

I forgot. Hence why the confusion when I said you're against liberalism. When I say liberalism, I refer to Adam Smith's liberalism, aka laissez-faire capitalism and open market policies, which is the original liberalism.

Just out of curiousity, why are liberals associated with socialism in the US? This makes very little sense. Why not let yourselves be called socialists, or social democrats, or whatever?

the classical definition of liberalism is simply the belief for people to be "free," whether it be the press, religion, or the markets. the modern definition of liberalism is the openness to new ideas and the willingness to discard old traditions and values--so it's more closely tied to progressivism rather than free-market capitalism. and the answer is simply that the definitions of words do sometimes change drastically with time. the wikipedia article on liberalism gives lots more information on it than i can provide.

[Rapier]

the classical definition of liberalism is simply the belief for people to be "free," whether it be the press, religion, or the markets. the modern definition of liberalism is the openness to new ideas and the willingness to discard old traditions and values--so it's more closely tied to progressivism rather than free-market capitalism. and the answer is simply that the definitions of words do sometimes change drastically with time. the wikipedia article on liberalism gives lots more information on it than i can provide.

How does one believe that people are to be free while at the same time defending interventionism and a large State model?

and somehow I forgot this gem:

socialist countries invest more in public health, which leads to a healthier population, a healthier workforce, and greater productivity.

Yeah, we can see a lot of empirical evidence pointing that Cuba and North Korea have a healthier population, a healthier workforce and greater productivity. Except not.

China is the oddball because of the ZOCs mentioned earlier and its general market policies, not to mention slave work. It's hard to not be productive when you have an entire nation of workers spending 16 hours on their jobs. Note that this does not mean that China has high living standards.

[Lord Raven]

How does one believe that people are to be free while at the same time defending interventionism and a large State model?

Because fiscal issues != social issues

Yeah, we can see a lot of empirical evidence pointing that Cuba and North Korea have a healthier population, a healthier workforce and greater productivity. Except not.

"In order to prove my point I will use the worst examples possible"

[Rapier]

You're confusing socialism with communism (one can have a more loose definition of socialism that doesn't apply just to stuff like the Soviet Union). You could choose to define a socialist country as a welfare state. Some socialist states today are the most peaceful states with the highest quality of life, such as: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and so on. A much bigger success than the US at any rate.

This comparation is unjust, because you are comparing countries with roughly 10 million people with a country with roughly 300 million. Find a country with roughly the same population as the US which manages to be a bigger success than it is. You won't find any.

Besides, the most liberal of the scandinavian countries, Switzerland, surpasses each and every example you just cited. Why is that, if not thanks to its more open market policies which come from (surprise) laissez-faire economy?

"In order to prove my point I will use the worst examples possible"

Very well, here is a challenge. Cite a socialist country which manages to have better health, better education and better productivity than a laissez-faire model country, bearing in mind that the comparisson must be just (you can't compare a huge country with a small country as Chiki did, for example). Sounds simple enough, huh? With that, you'll checkmate me definitely.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Rapier

[dondon151]

How does one believe that people are to be free while at the same time defending interventionism and a large State model?

a population is not "free" simply because its markets are free. are people "free" if education and healthcare are only accessible to the highest bidders?

Yeah, we can see a lot of empirical evidence pointing that Cuba and North Korea have a healthier population, a healthier workforce and greater productivity. Except not.

you're purposely being dishonest and talking past me. i cited the nordic model of government as an example of a successful socialist government in literally my previous post. you're probably going to continue to contest that nordic governments aren't socialist because they're not communist, but the dictionary is going to win this argument.

I insist that socialism is the complete opposite to open markets, if there is a country with open markets, then it is impossible for it to be socialist by definition (of course, one has to mind the sliding scale and not conclude hastily that only the extremes exist). If anything, socialism advocates for restricted and regulated markets. In that sense, Sweden takes more after laissez-faire open market than welfare state regulated/restricted market, even though their national policies are social democratic. Norway sides more with socialism, from what I know, but they have enough oil to pay for the gargantuan expenses that socialist policies demand to be implanted.

i insist that capitalism is the complete adoption of open markets. if there is a country with any restrictions on its markets, then it's impossible for it to be capitalist by definition.

you negated your own point within the paragraph. if "socialism advocates for restricted and regulated markets," then that is exactly what happens in any country with regulatory agencies. in the US alone, there are the EPA, FAA, FCC, FDIC, FTC, FDA, OSHA, and SEC just off the top of my head (any agency that enforces regulation restricts the free market in some way). it would be silly if i attempted to argue that the US is not capitalist because it is not 100% capitalist, but we're satisfied with acknowledging that the US has both capitalist and socialist components - well, except for the libertarians.

(1) I did not say there is just one difference between socialism and communism. I said there are more similarities than differences, and that their similarities are scornful and significant enough to make a solid comparisson. A very dangerous medicine can be compared to a poison.

(2) There's a difference between affirming that 'x=y, y is bad, therefore x is bad' and affirming 'x is like y, y is bad, therefore x is bad'. Socialism is like communism, and worse still, socialism's goal is to become communism, from what we can read from Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, much like a larva metamorphoses into a bug. Therefore, socialism can only be applied in very specific small doses, like a medicine that can easily become lethal. But we can argue that there are more efficient methods to treat a social problem that are not socialist.

(3) Fascism leans more toward state capitalism than the regulated capitalism we see in social democracies. If anything, their market policies and market control lean more toward socialism. Claiming that Hitler was an extreme right-wing capitalism will net you a door-to-the-face reaction from any decent German who knows that the laissez-faire capitalism that the right-wing advocates for has nothing to do with the state capitalism that the left-wing advocates for.

you haven't made an argument against my point. in all of the examples that i cited, there are arguably "more similarities than differences." for the medicine example in particular, medicines cannot just be compared to poisons; they are poisons in every definition of the word. the statement "x is like y, y is bad, therefore x is bad" is not even a valid argument because the premise doesn't lead to a true conclusion for all x and y.

Very well, here is a challenge. Cite a socialist country which manages to have better health, better education and better productivity than a laissez-faire model country, bearing in mind that the comparisson must be just (you can't compare a huge country with a small country as Chiki did, for example). Sounds simple enough, huh? With that, you'll checkmate me definitely.

to take a page from your book, there exist no laissez-faire model countries, because countries are either completely laissez-faire or not at all laissez-faire, so the challenge is impossible by design.

EDIT:

Just out of curiousity, why are liberals associated with socialism in the US? This makes very little sense. Why not let yourselves be called socialists, or social democrats, or whatever?

"socialism" is a very bad word in the US. it's one of the most common epithets wielded by the right to defame the left. also, quite a lot of people all over the political spectrum are like you and refuse to acknowledge that socialism is not equivalent to communism.

Edited November 13, 2014 by dondon151

[Chiki]

This comparation is unjust, because you are comparing countries with roughly 10 million people with a country with roughly 300 million. Find a country with roughly the same population as the US which manages to be a bigger success than it is. You won't find any.

Besides, the most liberal of the scandinavian countries, Switzerland, surpasses each and every example you just cited. Why is that, if not thanks to its more open market policies which come from (surprise) laissez-faire economy?

Very well, here is a challenge. Cite a socialist country which manages to have better health, better education and better productivity than a laissez-faire model country, bearing in mind that the comparisson must be just (you can't compare a huge country with a small country as Chiki did, for example). Sounds simple enough, huh? With that, you'll checkmate me definitely.

The burden of proof is on you to show why this matters. More people, more money, more resources, more taxation, etc. are some of the advantages that the US has compared to other countries.

There's a difference between affirming that 'x=y, y is bad, therefore x is bad' and affirming 'x is like y, y is bad, therefore x is bad'.

Depends on the argument. If you mean "x is like y in that x murdered, raped, cooked and ate x's kids; therefore y is bad" seems like a valid argument for all x and y if you're a moral realist. To be honest, I'm not completely sure about why that's technically a valid argument. But I think that, on the moral realist view, we make some new axioms in our logical system about certain predicates. We take as an axiom, for example: "for any x, for any y, if x murdered y, then x is bad." If an arbitrary y is like x in that y murdered an arbitrary z, then it's valid that y is bad too.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Chiki

[Loki Laufeyson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

To be fair, this is extraordinarily liberal, and looks extremely socialist to an American. The idea of a welfare state to most (right wing) Americans is just plumb bizarre. (mostly due to the welfare in the US being peanuts.) I mean, you say "Government Spending" in the presence of a lot of Americans, they will shriek like southern women in church. Its kinda hilarious.

Theres a downside to the Nordic model though. Immigration, if put into effect, is incredibly strict. Not to mention some...other unsavory things like outright xenophobia in some cases.

Anyway, OP: Center-left for me. I also agree with the Nordic model and i do think the US could benefit from that kind of structure. But i am a minority in that.

[Rapier]

to take a page from your book, there exist no laissez-faire model countries, because countries are either completely laissez-faire or not at all laissez-faire, so the challenge is impossible by design.

Laissez-faire countries are those who lean more toward laissez-faire capitalism, socialist countries are those who lean more toward welfare state capitalism. This is the most sensible and factual definition that I can provide. Is the challenge possible now?

Find a country which leans more toward welfare state capitalism which manages to surpass another country leaning more toward laissez-faire capitalism, in such a way that they can be justly compared (ie. no large advantages over the other example from both parts). Alternatively, find a scandinavian country which surpasses Switzerland, the most liberal and pro open market leaning of the nordic countries.

a population is not "free" simply because its markets are free. are people "free" if education and healthcare are only accessible to the highest bidders?

This is funny because you argue that we need a large State to grant people education and healthcare, when we can use the US as an example of a country where the poor have the most access to these rights in comparisson with other countries that have more equality. Logic dictates that, the larger the competition, the better the offer. More offer means that the demands can be met more satisfactorily. Therefore, there is an association between free market policies and cheaper offers, which are obviously more beneficial for the poor.

The burden of proof is on you to show why this matters. More people, more money, more resources, more taxation, etc. are some of the advantages that the US has compared to other countries.

More people means more expenses in order to satisfy everyone's needs, it also means more ethnical groups in need of governmental aid, more disaster probabilities due to its size, more market distortions through regulatory measures and more factors which require a huge and complex government to be taken care off, which results in more extensive taxation in order to sustain an overly large interventionist State. Even for a laissez-faire model country, having a larger population is very burdening.

--

My point that social democracies/socialist countries can only be established in already solid economies also stands. I doubt anyone can find a scandinavian country where the ascension of socialism occurred at the same time of the ascension of welfare state. Socialist policies demand a high budget to be applied.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Rapier

[Loki Laufeyson]

Alternatively, find a scandinavian country which surpasses Switzerland, the most liberal and pro open market leaning of the nordic countries.

*snicker*

Switzerland isnt considered a Nordic country according to the model, or even much in the way of geography. Kinda questioning your credibility here, mate.

[Rapier]

*snicker*

Switzerland isnt considered a Nordic country according to the model, or even much in the way of geography. Kinda questioning your credibility here, mate.

Their sizes and population are enough for a just comparisson, though.

[Chiki]

More people means more expenses in order to satisfy everyone's needs, it also means more ethnical groups in need of governmental aid, more disaster probabilities due to its size, more market distortions through regulatory measures and more factors which require a huge and complex government to be taken care off, which results in more extensive taxation in order to sustain an overly large interventionist State. Even for a laissez-faire model country, having a larger population is very burdening.

It balances out. It also means more people making money, more people being taxed for those expenses to satisfy everyone's needs, and so on.

[dondon151]

Laissez-faire countries are those who lean more toward laissez-faire capitalism, socialist countries are those who lean more toward welfare state capitalism. This is the most sensible and factual definition that I can provide. Is the challenge possible now?

Find a country which leans more toward welfare state capitalism which manages to surpass another country leaning more toward laissez-faire capitalism, in such a way that they can be justly compared (ie. no large advantages over the other example from both parts). Alternatively, find a scandinavian country which surpasses Switzerland, the most liberal and pro open market leaning of the nordic countries.

chile - 33rd in healthcare, 50th in education, GDP $15,732 per capita

united states - 37th in healthcare, 21st in education, GDP $53,142 per capita

france - 1st in healthcare, 20th in education, GDP $41,420 per capita

and

switzerland - 20th in healthcare, 42nd in education, GDP $80,477 per capita

norway - 11th in healthcare, 7th in education, GDP $100,818 per capita

healthcare rankings are from the WHO, education rankings are by education index from the UN, and GDP per capita is widely available.

the conclusion here is not that laissez-faire policies are unequivocally better than welfare state policies, or vice versa. this method of comparison isn't actually very indicative anything.

This is funny because you argue that we need a large State to grant people education and healthcare, when we can use the US as an example of a country where the poor have the most access to these rights in comparisson with other countries that have more equality. Logic dictates that, the larger the competition, the better the offer. More offer means that the demands can be met more satisfactorily. Therefore, there is an association between free market policies and cheaper offers, which are obviously more beneficial for the poor.

i'm not sure if you're aware of US education or healthcare problems, but we are definitely not in good shape relative to "more equal" countries. we're 31st, 24th, and 21st in math, science, and reading according to PISA 2012, which is lower in all categories when compared to france or norway. our healthcare costs per capita are by far the highest in the world, yet our overall health pales in comparison to that of more welfare-state model healthcare systems (see: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror ).

with the republicans taking over congress, i don't foresee this improving anytime soon.

Edited November 13, 2014 by dondon151

[Loki Laufeyson]

with the republicans taking over congress, i don't foresee this improving anytime soon.

arr. They will seek to upend any progress we've made to socialize such matters.

*grumbles angrily*

[dondon151]

i mean, i don't really care if the solution goes by whatever political or economic identity we choose to give it, but i'm flummoxed by how the republican party can logically justify their platform on these issues. they highlight the need for the US to be a world leader in economic matters and yet consistently slash or threaten to slash funding to public education, which is a necessary investment for industrialized nations to continue innovating. on healthcare, their primary position is to defund the affordable care act without promoting a concrete viable alternative, despite the fact that many people are actually very happy with the results of the affordable care act.

(amusingly, a not-insignificant amount of people don't know that the ACA and obamacare are synonymous and express opposition to one but support for the other. i had a conversation in a restaurant with a man who was singing his praises about the ACA and in the same breath muttered something about "that damn obamacare.")

[Loki Laufeyson]

Then, it appears that we agree on something for once, dondon.

but i'm flummoxed by how the republican party can logically justify their platform on these issues.

Because i dont get it either. I just cant wrap my head around the GOP's reasoning here. Its like they just dont want it because it wasnt actively endorsed by the party. This is why you have your paragraph in parenthesis happening. ACA endorsed by GOP. Obamacare not endorsed by GOP. It means the same thing, but they dont want to hear it. And then you have those goons who think privatized healthcare is the bee's tits anyway. Morons...

[Phoenix Wright]

How does one believe that people are to be free while at the same time defending interventionism and a large State model?

ah, the old, "the freer the market, the freer the people."

[Nicolas]

It balances out. It also means more people making money, more people being taxed for those expenses to satisfy everyone's needs, and so on.

I'm afraid not. In socialist country there is less motivation to invest, create your own company etc, etc... because people earn less. Even in one of nordic country government wanted to lower taxes for reviving the economy. Pay attention some spending don't increases the demand.

chile - 33rd in healthcare, 50th in education, GDP $15,732 per capita

united states - 37th in healthcare, 21st in education, GDP $53,142 per capita

france - 1st in healthcare, 20th in education, GDP $41,420 per capita

and

switzerland - 20th in healthcare, 42nd in education, GDP $80,477 per capita

norway - 11th in healthcare, 7th in education, GDP $100,818 per capita

healthcare rankings are from the WHO, education rankings are by education index from the UN, and GDP per capita is widely available.

the conclusion here is not that laissez-faire policies are unequivocally better than welfare state policies, or vice versa. this method of comparison isn't actually very indicative anything.

I think you show wrong country. USA, France, Switzerland, Norway... every of this country (beside Chile) end Second Great War in good situation or took huge amount of money from Marshall's plan. They are just enough rich.

Also you did not mention that situation in France isn't that great at all. IIRC some big company and rich people get off this country after increasing of taxes. As far as I know socialist party are in bad situation now.

I'm sorry but I can't respond to every argument because school and other things so I can't give links to statistic research.

[dondon151]

I'm afraid not. In socialist country there is less motivation to invest, create your own company etc, etc... because people earn less. Even in one of nordic country government wanted to lower taxes for reviving the economy. Pay attention some spending don't increases the demand.

Also you did not mention that situation in France isn't that great at all. IIRC some big company and rich people get off this country after increasing of taxes. As far as I know socialist party are in bad situation now.

increasing taxation past a certain threshold is counterproductive, i agree. however, the principle that people would devote more resources into investment given lower taxation isn't always true. i believe this is the basis of trickle-down economics. what usually ends up happening is that the people who are getting more money will simply hoard the money rather than invest in more capital.

recently kansas governor sam brownback tried applying this model of economics to his state. the result has been pretty widely condemned as abject failure.

[Nicolas]

increasing taxation past a certain threshold is counterproductive, i agree. however, the principle that people would devote more resources into investment given lower taxation isn't always true. i believe this is the basis of trickle-down economics. what usually ends up happening is that the people who are getting more money will simply hoard the money rather than invest in more capital.

recently kansas governor sam brownback tried applying this model of economics to his state. the result has been pretty widely condemned as abject failure.

Not exacly. Cost and number of investition is typical relation between demand and supply. If cost of investition is higher (supply curve moves to left) then ceteris paribus number of investition is lower and their price is higher. If cost of investition is lower then ceteris paribus number of investition is higher. Of coure in real life ceteris paribus never happens.

If company hoard the money: Yeah, that's definitely bad thing, no one get profit. However if typical guy hoard money he probably gonna keep them in bank (unless he's an idniot who don't know what is inflation) and banks know what to do with money so they are not wasted.

[Chiki]

I'm afraid not. In socialist country there is less motivation to invest, create your own company etc, etc... because people earn less. Even in one of nordic country government wanted to lower taxes for reviving the economy. Pay attention some spending don't increases the demand.

My post was about the difference in population mattering. Your argument has nothing to do with my post.

Anyway, I agree with what dondon said in response to this point.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Chiki

[dondon151]

Not exacly. Cost and number of investition is typical relation between demand and supply. If cost of investition is higher (supply curve moves to left) then ceteris paribus number of investition is lower and their price is higher. If cost of investition is lower then ceteris paribus number of investition is higher. Of coure in real life ceteris paribus never happens.

i know the theory behind this; if the theory didn't make sense, then there wouldn't be so many people who subscribe to it. like i said, once taxation progresses beyond a certain point, then there is significantly reduced incentive to invest in capital because too much revenue is being siphoned into taxes. but if you're a company head who is already sufficiently wealthy, you're not likely to take more risks on investments when more money falls into your lap.

i'm also not sure that people hoarding money is a good thing. if they are hoarding money, then they're also not purchasing as many goods, which manifests as a left shift of the demand curve. one of the hallmarks of economic recession is overall decreased consumer demand. the rationale behind stimulus spending is that government infusion of money can artificially increase demand by giving people more money to spend (whether this is effective is up for debate).

[Nicolas]

i know the theory behind this; if the theory didn't make sense, then there wouldn't be so many people who subscribe to it. like i said, once taxation progresses beyond a certain point, then there is significantly reduced incentive to invest in capital because too much revenue is being siphoned into taxes. but if you're a company head who is already sufficiently wealthy, you're not likely to take more risks on investments when more money falls into your lap.

Sure, but every company needs investments. Only monopolist don't have to do that. They might do something less risky, but still they have to invest money.

i'm also not sure that people hoarding money is a good thing. if they are hoarding money, then they're also not purchasing as many goods, which manifests as a left shift of the demand curve. one of the hallmarks of economic recession is overall decreased consumer demand. the rationale behind stimulus spending is that government infusion of money can artificially increase demand by giving people more money to spend (whether this is effective is up for debate).

I don't really think it is a case. I see people buying things which they don't really need. I know a women who will never have enough clothes, men who must always buy newest laptop, smarthon etc etc... And even if they stop look how everything is temporary right now. My parents used to buy like one fridge for many, many years. Now I don't think tat any fridge stand more than five years.

But yeah, I agree that might be a problem in future.

My post was about the difference in population mattering. Your argument has nothing to do with my post.

Anyway, I agree with what dondon said in response to this point.

OK, my mistake.

[Nobody]

chile - 33rd in healthcare, 50th in education, GDP $15,732 per capita

united states - 37th in healthcare, 21st in education, GDP $53,142 per capita

france - 1st in healthcare, 20th in education, GDP $41,420 per capita

and

switzerland - 20th in healthcare, 42nd in education, GDP $80,477 per capita

norway - 11th in healthcare, 7th in education, GDP $100,818 per capita

Seriously, comparing Chile to the US, France, Switzerland and Norway is not fair at all. Chile was extremely poor 30 years ago or so. Why don't you compare it to its neighbors, specially Argentina and Ecuador? The former used to be latin america's richest country, and now is in a much worse condition than Chile. The later used to have the same quality of life and gdp per capita than chile until 40 years ago or so. Nowadays Chile has over twice its gdp per capita and its HDI is over 100 points higher. It's a fact that Chile is currently run pretty well, specially when compared to the other countries in the region.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Nobody

[Rapier]

Chile has also been adopting free market policies which lean toward economical liberalism, which is the complete opposite of Argentina, which has been adopting socialist policies that are affecting the country negatively. This is proof that socialism, when applied in moderate or large doses, is harmful to a country. This is also proof that free market policies and economy policies which are based upon liberalism work.

And since economical liberalism is the same as laissez-faire capitalism, it is also the same as saying that laissez-faire capitalism works.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Rapier