Z-Man, Whittaker Chambers, Principles
1 day ago
16 October 2011
The myth of Scandinavian Socialism
Just wanted to quickly share this post from the mises.org forums which serves as an awesome resource to combat the oft-repeated meme that Scandinavia shows that “mixed-economy-socialism” can work great. Full credit to krazy kaju for the excellent post. You can read the full thread here:
Many leftists often point to the “superiority” of Scandinavian “socialism.” Leftists often use Denmark and Sweden as their examples, since they are the most successful Scandinavian nations. I already covered this issue in an earlier post, but I feel it is important to rehash this topic and to post a refutation of this leftist fallacy. For this post, we shall define Scandinavian countries as Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland. Some might dispute whether we should consider Finland and Iceland as Scandinavian, because of cultural differences (Finland) and geographical barriers (Iceland), though we the point of this post is not to argue whether or not these countries are Scandinavian, but to dispute the fact that they are indeed successful socialist states.
First of all, most leftists will use the USA as the measure of laissez faire capitalism. We all know that this is completely false, so I won’t go into detail refuting this casuistry here but I’d like to point several things out: Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, and Australia were all rated as “more free,” according to the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom. It would probably be better to compare these Scandinavian nations to Hong Kong or Ireland than to the United states.
Furthermore, Scandinavian nations are not nearly as socialist as leftists claim they are. Although the United States ranks higher than these nations on the Index of Economic Freedom, Scandinavian nations are more free in several decisive areas. Denmark has greater business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, freedom from corruption, and labor freedom while having comparable property rights and trade freedom scores to the U.S. Sweden has greater business freedom and freedom from corruption, while having comparable trade freedom, monetary freedom, property rights enforcement, investment freedom, and financial freedom to the United States. Finland has greater business freedom, monetary freedom, and freedom from corruption than the United States, while having comparable property right enforcement, financial freedom, and trade freedom.Norway, the least successful Scandinavian nation, has greater freedom from corruption than the United States while having comparable business freedom, trade freedom, and property right enforcement. Iceland has greater business freedom, fiscal freedom, and freedom from corruption, while having comparable trade freedom and property right enforcement. In many ways, Scandinavian countries are more “laissez faire” than the United States.
To finish of this deal, here are some articles, excerpts, etc. about the failure of specific welfarist policies the Scandinavian countries follow, change occurring in these nations, and the like:
How the Welfare State Corrupted Sweden (LvMI)
Sweden: Poorer Than You Think (LvMI)
Can the United States Learn from the Nordic Model? (Cato)
Sweden: From Capitalist Success to Welfare-State Sclerosis (Cato)
Should Scandinavia Be Our Model? Podcast (Cato)
Should the United States Be More Like Scandinavia? Policy Forum (Cato)
Johnny Munkhammar in Defense of Free Market Capitalism in Sweden Weeky Video (Cato)
Sweden Repeals Wealth Tax (Cato)
The Welfare State Causes Sickness (Cato)
If the Swedish State is Socialist, What is Ours? (Cato)
New Challenge to the Nordic Welfare Model (Cato)
Introduction to Economics Review (Mackinac)
Free Enterprise in Action Review (Mackinac)
Institutions and Analysis (Mackinac)
Where Are the Omelettes? (Mackinac)
Are High Taxes the Basis of Economic Growth? (FEE)
Sweden: Tightening the Screws (FEE)
Swedish Welfare (The New American)
Sweden after the Swedish model.
NORWAY: LOWER LIVING STANDARDS THAN THE US
Here is one more thing of interest to everyone interested in living standards in Scandinavian countries vs. the US. First, according to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the CIA World Factbook, the USA has a higher GDP per capita than any Scandinavian nation with the exception of Norway. Norway has one of the highest GDP per capita in the world, right after free market paradises such as Luxembourg and Liechtenstein, and oil rich nations such as Qatar and Kuwait.
Although Norway’s GDP per capita seems to be boosted by huge oil and natural gas production, do Norwegians actually enjoy higher living standards than Americans? I dare say that they don’t. A quick look around worldsalaries.org shows that:
1. Americans enjoy higher average disposable (after tax) AND gross (before tax) income than Norwegians do.
2. Americans enjoy a significantly lower cost of living than do Norwegians (1.00 vs. 1.487).Here (url: http://www.ssb.no/en/fnr/main.html) is another source of Norwegian disposable income. As you see, average household disposable income is 176503 NOK, which is approximately $29,373. Note that the USA has a per capita disposable income of about $21,500. Since the average US household consists of two wage earners, it follows that US household disposable income is higher than Norwegian household dispoable income.
14 October 2011
12 October 2011
11 October 2011
10 October 2011
Catholic Bishops Target Obama on Religious Freedom in the US
Catholic bishops across the U.S. want the Obama administration to take notice that it is destroying religious freedom and the rights of believers in America.
US Catholic bishops recently formed an ad hoc committee specifically aimed at addressing religious freedom in the U.S. The decision to challenge the president this way is a historic one, as this is the first time bishops in America have formed such a widespread group to address religious freedom in the country.
Among the religious liberty issues the group is unhappy with the Obama administration include: county clerks facing legal action for refusing to participate in same-sex unions; the administration's attack on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA); and the attack on the “ministerial exception,” which protects the right of religious institutions to choose their own spiritual leaders and teachers regardless of anti-discrimination laws.
In a letter obtained by The Christian Post, the Rev. Timothy M. Dolan, Archbishop of New York, wrote to the American bishops after the September’s meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
He writes: “We are now committed regarding the urgent need we face to safeguard religious liberty inherent in the dignity of the human person.”
“I wrote to President Obama to object to the continuing threats to religious liberty in the context of the effort to redefine legal marriage promoted by his Administration. …If we do not act now, the consequences will be grave.”
“In its many and varied applications for Christians and people of faith, is now increasingly and in unprecedented ways under assault in America. This is most particularly so in an increasing number of federal government programs or policies that would infringe upon the right of conscience of people of faith or otherwise harm the foundational principle of religious liberty,” he said in the letter.
Bishop William Lori, who was selected to chair the new committee, says the bishops are serious about the new campaign and will seek the help of lawyers, added staff, lobbyist and experts in the area of religious freedom.
“This ad hoc committee aims to address the increasing threats to religious liberty in our society so that the Church’s mission may advance unimpeded and the rights of believers of any religious persuasion or none may be respected,” Lori said.
Archbishop Dolan also stressed in his letter that "...as shepherds of over 70 million U.S. citizens we share a common and compelling responsibility to proclaim the truth of religious freedom for all, and so to protect our people from this assault which now appears to grow at an ever accelerating pace in ways most of us could never have imagined.”
Dolan also said the committee will work closely with national organizations, charities, ecumenical and interreligious partners and scholars “to form a united and forceful front in defense of religious freedom in our nation. And its work will begin immediately.”
He said that there have been multiple private letters sent to President Obama about his administration’s violations against religious liberty, but none of those letters received a response.
Time Magazine reports that despite the heated rhetoric, legal observers think the uproar about religious liberty could be politically motivated.
“To a certain extent, we are seeing a reply of the Freedom of Choice Act here,” Richard Doerflinger, who heads up pro-life activities, told Time.
“There is a lot of political ground to be made by having a campaign even if you are expecting a different outcome. But Health and Human Services must think the Catholics and other religious groups are fools.”
He says many of these issues really are a “great imposition on religious freedom and the right of conscience by the government that he has seen in years.”
07 October 2011
06 October 2011
Next goal for LGBT movement: Force adoptions of kids to transgender/ cross-dressing "parents"!
(MassResistance)
As we've said before: the homosexual movement is never satisfied. And children are a prime target.
And as we've also been saying, the "Massachusetts Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes Bill" and others like it being introduced across the country are ultimately not just about bathrooms. As early as 2008, we reported on the Transgender Rights march in Northampton, Mass. and its push for adoptions by the transgender community.
As we've said before: the homosexual movement is never satisfied. And children are a prime target.
And as we've also been saying, the "Massachusetts Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes Bill" and others like it being introduced across the country are ultimately not just about bathrooms. As early as 2008, we reported on the Transgender Rights march in Northampton, Mass. and its push for adoptions by the transgender community.
|
|
The new national push
As the pro-family group Mission America revealed last week, the well-funded national homosexual advocacy group "Human Rights Campaign" is has a new goal in its jihad to change America. They want to force adoption agencies in all 50 states to be compelled to place kids in households with transgender or cross-dressing parents.
Slick but powerful approach
These people are experts by now pushing radical change in America. In this effort, they are starting out by setting up "informal" certification requirements (preliminarily called "benchmarks") for adoption agencies and then going around the country rating them on their "compliance."
These "requirements" currently include:
- A "client non-discrimination statement" that "clearly bans discrimination on the basis of gender identity or gender expression."
- Recruitment materials (website, printed materials and activities) that reflect the commitment to attracting and serving "LGBT" (T=transgender) individuals and families.
- Training all employees to work with "LGBT" clients.
- Documenting and tracking placements of children with "LGBT" parents to show their progress with hard statistics.
Read HRC's "Benchmark" list here.
Read HRC's article about their effort to begin implementing these "benchmarks of cultural competency" in adoption agencies.
After that -- finishing the job
Once these are in place, the next step is to work both legislatively and behind the scenes in state executive offices to change state laws and administrative regulations to make these "informal" regulations formal and official in states across the country. And with that will be strict requirements and punishments for adoption agencies and their employees who are opposed.
Good people must fight back
This could be a terrible battle for the minds and emotional health of innocent children. It is absolutely necessary that good people be prepared to confront this early while you still can.
We will help you do this!
05 October 2011
02 October 2011
Poverty and democrat policies
1965 was the start of the War on Poverty and these cities have a common story in that excessive taxes and regulations forced businesses to close. They elected Mayors who were consistently hostile to employers, and they end up with less business, less revenue and less employment.
Some of the well known Mayors are now gone but their mistakes remain.
Liberal Democrats do not realize that jobs are created by small businesses and lowering costs to employers. These cities implemented huge spending increases which required higher taxes.
They asked businesses to carry out their social agenda with laws, rules and regulations. The latter hides spending from political fall-out.
If you want less of something, all you have to do is tax it. They increased taxes and then added excessive regulatory burdens on employers. The result was that companies left, and hundreds of thousands of jobs left with them.
The good news is that after 50 years of evidence, some liberal Democrats recognize the truth. Mayors Dave Bing of Detroit, Cory Booker of Newark and Kasim Reed of Atlanta are cooperating with GOP Governors to implement crucial reforms. Bing in particular is reversing decades of leftwing damage, and we hope Democrats on Capitol Hill will listen to him.
(Source)
01 October 2011
Movie "180" - Nazism and abortionism
"Never ever give your vote to any politician who advocates the murder of a child in the womb"
30 September 2011
27 September 2011
Germaine Greer: Motherhood Missed
THE SCREAMING HEADLINE was tabloid size: "I WAS DESPERATE FOR A BABY AND I HAVE THE MEDICAL BILLS TO PROVE IT." Some love-struck movie star? A lesbian celebrity? No. Germaine Greer, icon of 20th-century feminism. "I still have pregnancy dreams," she confessed movingly in the premier issue of the British magazine Aura, "waiting with vast joy and confidence for something that will never happen.
The longing for children is hardly novel. What, then, makes this story so sensational, earning a 45-point type, "exclusive" treatment? What gives the story its man-bites-dog quality is that Greer is the great exemplar of the fiercely independent, aggressively sexual new woman. Iconoclastic to the point of fierceness, she reveled in her lovers, and in telling about them.
The one adjective rarely attached to Greer was domestic. And now she reveals the hollowness that haunts her, the terrible sorrow she feels at what she lost: her chance for motherhood.
Many years ago, she now writes, she cared for the infant girl of a friend. "Ruby lit up my life in a way that nobody, certainly no lover, has ever done. I was not prepared for the incandescent sensuousness of this small child, the generosity of her innocent love."
Not prepared? Why? Because to the uncompromising feminism of those early days, she writes, childbearing was constricting, suffocating, an enemy of a liberated woman's larger hopes. "Getting pregnant meant the end of all good times . . . the mother-generation warned us darkly not to rush into childbearing, to have a 'good time' while we could." And now, like Hannah, she weeps.
Greer is not the only such victim of ideology (and, it must be added, biology: When she finally decided to try to say yes to having a child, her body said no). At the 1998 Barnard commencement, Joyce Purnick of the New York Times spoke of her deep regret at not having had a child. She felt that she had to choose between family and career. Her choice: the long days, the undivided attention, the single-minded ambition to succeed. "I am absolutely convinced I would not be the metro editor of the Times if I had had a family."
The poignancy of her dilemma lies in the lingering question: If she had it to do over again, would she still rather have the metro desk, or the soft comforts and inexpressible joys of motherhood?
In modern times we suffer not for our sins (sin having been abolished) but for ideology. The traditional victim of ideology is the communist betrayed by the "G-d that failed." As socialism recedes into history, there will be fewer such confessions. Feminism, a far nobler creed, commands the day. But like all gods, this one too exacts its tribute.
The early days of feminism did present stark choices. It was held, as Purnick put it, that "you cannot have it all." Unfair it was. Unfair it remains.
"Should men and women who have taken the detour of the Mommy/Daddy track be as far along as those who haven't?" asked Purnick. "I reluctantly have to say that it would not be fair." And, is it fair that men and women with children lose out to "others who have been working the 12-hour days?" She believes it is.
Oh, my. This brought a storm of protest from younger feminists, women who, under the new dispensation, get the four-day weeks and the extended family leave--and expect nonetheless to remain on the same professional footing as their childless colleagues.
This is eminently fair, eminently nondiscriminatory. Indeed, earlier this month, President Clinton issued a federal ban on the "glass ceiling for parents." But imagine how it feels to those like Purnick. They are asked to stretch themselves and cover for a younger colleague so that she can go home and give her child a bath--a joy they will never know. A joy they deliberately gave up, under the terms of the original feminist contract, in the name of autonomy and advancement.
That contract has now been largely rewritten. But for them, alas, too late.
The good that feminism has wrought is quite incalculable. It gave half of humanity the chance to develop--something that had been denied it in practically every culture in every era. But like all great revolutions, feminism has its price and its
Do liberal states in the US really have lower divorce rates?
Moral of this story: distrust the reporting of statistics in the mainstream media.
In August of this year, the US Census Bureau released a report on divorce rates in the different states of America. It was widely reported in the media that people were more likely to divorce in the Bible Belt states than in the liberal northeast.
At the time I accepted the statistics. I believed that people in the northeast were less likely to marry as teenagers and more likely to have higher incomes and higher education and that this explained the difference.
Anyway, some on the left had a field day using statistics about higher divorce rates in the Bible Belt. Here's an example:
But then I came across another statistic, namely that 28% of those divorced identified as conservative, 33% as moderate and 37% as liberal. It didn't make sense. If those in the liberal states have the lowest rate of divorce, then why do those who identify as liberal have a much higher rate of divorce?
So I went back to the original source. And to my surprise I found that the divorce statistics had been misrepresented in most of the mainstream media. It turns out that what was being compared was the number of divorces per 1000 people in each state rather than the number of divorces per 1000 married couples:
That wouldn't be significant if roughly the same number of people got married in each US state. But that's not the case. There is a much lower rate of marriage in the liberal north-east of the US:
In comparison, a state like Wyoming had a marriage rate of 28.7 - that's more than double the rate in Maine.
So you might expect states with a higher rate of marriage to also have a higher rate of divorce. And that's how a representative of the Census Bureau explained the statistics:
That is the key quote. The demographer responsible for the statistics is explaining in the plainest of English why the divorce rate is lower in the north-east. It is because in the liberal north-east people are less likely to be married in the first place.
In August of this year, the US Census Bureau released a report on divorce rates in the different states of America. It was widely reported in the media that people were more likely to divorce in the Bible Belt states than in the liberal northeast.
At the time I accepted the statistics. I believed that people in the northeast were less likely to marry as teenagers and more likely to have higher incomes and higher education and that this explained the difference.
Anyway, some on the left had a field day using statistics about higher divorce rates in the Bible Belt. Here's an example:
...perhaps conservative Christianity and conservative religion in general are unable to provide a sound basis for marriage — that perhaps there are other, more secular foundations for marriage that conservative Christians are missing. What might they be? Well, an obvious possibility is treating women like fully autonomous equals in the relationship, something which conservative Christianity frequently denies.
But then I came across another statistic, namely that 28% of those divorced identified as conservative, 33% as moderate and 37% as liberal. It didn't make sense. If those in the liberal states have the lowest rate of divorce, then why do those who identify as liberal have a much higher rate of divorce?
So I went back to the original source. And to my surprise I found that the divorce statistics had been misrepresented in most of the mainstream media. It turns out that what was being compared was the number of divorces per 1000 people in each state rather than the number of divorces per 1000 married couples:
Rates throughout this report count the marital events reported in the past 12 months per 1,000 men or women in the population 15 and older. (p.2)
That wouldn't be significant if roughly the same number of people got married in each US state. But that's not the case. There is a much lower rate of marriage in the liberal north-east of the US:
...the states with the lowest marriage rates for men in 2009 tended to be in the Northeast. Maine and New Jersey were among the states with low marriage rates with 13.5 and 14.8 marriages per 1,000 men. Maine and New Jersey also had low marriage rates per 1,000 women, with 12.2 and 13.3 marriages, respectively. (p.4)
...Twelve of the thirteen states where men had marriage rates below the U.S. average were located east of the Mississippi River. (p.5)
In comparison, a state like Wyoming had a marriage rate of 28.7 - that's more than double the rate in Maine.
So you might expect states with a higher rate of marriage to also have a higher rate of divorce. And that's how a representative of the Census Bureau explained the statistics:
Divorce rates tend to be higher in the South because marriage rates are also higher in the South," said Diana Elliott, a family demographer at the Census Bureau. "In contrast, in the Northeast, first marriages tend to be delayed and the marriage rates are lower, meaning there are also fewer divorces."
That is the key quote. The demographer responsible for the statistics is explaining in the plainest of English why the divorce rate is lower in the north-east. It is because in the liberal north-east people are less likely to be married in the first place.
*Fonte*
