The 2008 SOP Democrat stump speech

[Amianthus]

Coordinating defenses is not a duty to defend.  If the U.S. chooses not to put up any defence to an attack on Sweden which does not involve an attack on NATO members, there is no duty to defend Sweden and if the US chooses not to defend Sweden, there are no defences to be coordinated.  End of story.

Well, NATO requires the member countries to coordinate defense of each other. Guess that means that no countries in NATO are obligated to defend each other, either.

[Michael Tee]

<<Well, NATO requires the member countries to coordinate defense of each other. Guess that means that no countries in NATO are obligated to defend each other, either.>>

Exceptionally sloppy logic.  NATO's charter obliges the NATO allies to defend one another.  It may also oblige them to co-ordinate their defences (I'll take your word on that) but the one does not exclude the other. 

You usually know better than that.  I'll put it down to the lateness of the hour.

[_JS]

Second, this notion of "let the market work" and "get the government out of the way" has been tried. It was done in Chile in the 70's. It was done in Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil at the same time. Government was cut in amazing amounts as quickly as possible. Public holdings were privatised like a fire sale at rock bottom prices. Social security was privatised, schools were turned over to the private sector, almost nothing was left for the people.

Do you know what the result was? Were the Chilean people suddenly wealthy? Were the poor suddenly better off?

No. Almost half fell below the poverty line. Half the population. Unemployment reached a third of the working population - 33%! Inflation was in the thousands of percent! The top 10% saw their wealth increase 83% during the time period of 1974 to 1990. The rest saw their wealth decrease in real terms.

That was the result of your "let the market work" and "get the government out of the way."

Yeah, transitions to free markets from command and control economies work that way. Same thing happened when Reagan did it here, and Thatcher did it in the U.K.

And in those places, like in Chile, the result was 30 years of unprecedented economic growth. I'll point out that Chile's still privatized Social Security system pays greater returns than ours does.

There are so many blatant lies packed in there, it is difficult to know where to begin.

First, the Chicago School economics of the Southern Cone (Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil) all failed miserably. In fact, Pinochet had to severely reverse course and ended up removing the "Chicago Boys" from their ministerial posts and reverse many of the policies they had made to turn Chile into a free market dystopia. The constant drumming of Milton Friedman, Harberger, and the rest of the free market gang had delivered nothing but terrible economic conditions for Chile by the 10th anniversary of the coup. Pinochet, never a man of numbers, but certainly a man of Fascist action, grew very disillusioned with the poor results when he was promised positive things. Hell, Friedman himself had promised results in "months" back in a letter from 1975!

And the funny thing is that none of the radical free market reforms would have been possible without police states, death camps, and what Argentinian courts later ruled as genocide against specific political groups. They weren't communists as the juntas in those countries constantly claimed. The communist movements had been crushed within days of the coups (or in the case of Argentina, actually crushed before the coup!). They were farmers, trade union leaders, peasants, writers, musicians, poets, journalists, and university professors. 80% of the people killed by those fascist governments were peasants or farmers that were unarmed.

Chicago School economics and Milton Friedman's formula for free markets to equal free people was a cover for authoritarian rule. The people in those countries had voted again and again for politicians and leaders that represented the workers and the welfare state. In fact, Allende had made significant gains in the midterm election before the 1973 coup. All of those nations required police states, terror, torture, and fear to become capitalist and promote Chicago School economics.

Thatcher made major changes in U.K. society, I'll grant that. She was loathed by most Brits, even a good portion of her own party could not wait to throw her out (which they did). Her economic policies were ruinous and in the long-term Britain may be more neoliberal, but it is a welfare state. The NHS remains, Maggie herself defended the farm subsidies (Tory voters, don't you know), she was also a big environmentalist, which surprises many people. In fact, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did far more towards neoliberalism in the UK than Maggie ever did. Most of the benefits still remain.

Ronnie talked a better game than he ever played. His policies were nearly Keynesian in action, but he spoke like one of Milt's boys. In reality he spent government largesse like there was no tomorrow. Whereas the Fascist states of the Southern Cone really did cut their government in size and spending, Reagan did no such thing (and it should be noted that Maggie did not either, in fact she spent a higher percentage of public spending per GDP than James Callaghan or Harold Wilson!). Unlike Maggie, Reagan faced no real society that was opposed to his thinking.

So forgive me if I don't believe that equality will come from Sir's theory on why the wealthy need their orifices licked. Today Chile, despite rolling back most of those ridiculous programs is still one of the worst ranking countries in terms of economic equality.

The best? Denmark, Norway, Sweden.

Are we somehow dumber than the Scandinavians? We cannot figure out how to have equality and a great quality of life? We like seeing desperately poor people? We like the concept of the rich getting richer and the poor falling by the wayside?

Why should I be interested in economic equality? Get back to me when everybody's contribution to the economy is equal.

Tell me again - what are you doing for me that you think I should pay taxes on the fruits of my labor to provide for your needs?

If you were getting rewarded commensurate with your contributions, you'd be keeping the Titanic company.

And by the way - we aren't dumber than the Scandinavians, especially when we are Scandinavians. See Minnesota - not much poverty among Scandinavians there, either. Does that tell you anything?

To answer the last question first. No, other than Scandinavians seem a hell of a lot smarter. Apparently welfare economics work just fine and without recourse to police states and death camps too. That's a nice touch in my book.

You don't have to be interested in economic equality. You can spit on homeless people if that is what gets you hot and bothered, but for many of us we do not like the idea of a few who are massively wealthy and the rest who are struggling and poor. You can make up myths about Chile if you like, but the truth is that Chicago School, i.e. Milton Friedman economics was atttempted and it crashed and burned - and took thousands of lives with it.

It isn't about me. It never has been. I do reasonably well, thank you. It is about those who don't. Those who work hard, but cannot make ends meet for their families. Those that society has left behind.

We must be dumber than the Scandinavians, otherwise why are they able to run their nations so much better?

[Plane]

We must be dumber than the Scandinavians, otherwise why are they able to run their nations so much better?

Lotsa Vodka

[Xavier_Onassis]

I think that as a rule, Scandinavia is run better than the US because the people are better informed and less tolerant of greed, incompetence and corruption. There is also a basic egalitarian streak running through these countries. PM Olaf Palme used to wear shirts that his wife has unsewn and resewn the cuffs and collars on, to emphasize his opposition to waste and his pechant for thrift. There is this phenomenon called 'Royal Swedish Envy', in which a person will not be recognized as superior unless he proves it, such as by winning the Nobel Prize and other awards decided upon by experts.