News Is Universal Healthcare the Solution to Inefficient Capitalism?

[Economist]

Is France Serious?

And people wonder why I said that the French seem to be "Economically Illiterate."

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2008/01/misbehaving-ama.html

Did you hear the one about Amazon? It offered free shipping in France, got sued for it by the French Booksellers' Union, and lost.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I've seen sillier things than this. I'm not even sure that Amazon would win a similar suit if it happened in the US, excepting that there are no such laws that I know of here.

 

[Anttech]

And people wonder why I said that the French seem to be "Economically Illiterate."

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2008/01/misbehaving-ama.html

Try telling that to Alcatel, Orange, Total group, BNP Paribas. Or even American Investors, whos investments amount to ±18% share in the French Market (The biggest FDI). I suppose also the fact that the Euro is Wiping the floor with the Dollar in terms of value is another great gage as to how awful the French economist are, since along with Germany they are the powerhouses of the Euro.

sigh

 

[Economist]

Try telling that to Alcatel, Orange, Total group, BNP Paribas. Or even American Investors, whos investments amount to ±18% share in the French Market (The biggest FDI). I suppose also the fact that the Euro is Wiping the floor with the Dollar in terms of value is another great gage as to how awful the French economist are, since along with Germany they are the powerhouses of the Euro.

sigh

I'll take a weaker dollar over a government who's growth rate is almost always lower than ours, that makes it difficult to find jobs, who's PPP adjusted GDP per capita is significantly lower than ours, and that taxes (some might even say "plunders") approximately 50% of GDP (read 50% of the wealth that it's citizens produce).

I am not denying that the French economy is still strong on World terms. However, the real question is how much better they could be doing without all this rediculous legislation? Maybe they'd get even more investment, have less unemployment, who knows, maybe they'd even have a stronger economy then the US.

Bad economic legislation that hurts your citizens is still bad economic legislation that hurts your citizens (even when you're already relatively rich).

Edit: The PPP numbers are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Our average is $42,186.00, while their's is $30,594.67. In other words, our GDP (PPP) per capita is approximately 38% higher than their's. For those of you who've never heard of PPP, what it basically means is that the average American enjoys a standard of living 38% greater than the average French person.

 

[Art]

Economist,

So let's see how the commie European Union compares to the US in GDP PPP,

Well the IMF has Europe 1 US 2
And the World Bank has Europe 1 US 2
And even the CIA World Fact Book has Europe 1 US 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

Notice a pattern here

Or if you prefer to use per capita figures then why not look at Ireland's which is higher than the US's

And on top of that we get free health care, unemployment benefit, subsidised mass transit systems, free education and gov't pensions.

Looks like our economic illiteracy and socialism isn't as bad as you think. It's just we tried the Laissez Faire model years ago (there's actually a clue in the name ) and discarded it in favour of a more fair and gentle society whereas I get the impression you only discovered it yesterday in some old textbook but no doubt in time your attitude will also evolve.

 

[Economist]

Economist,

So let's see how the commie European Union compares to the US in GDP PPP,

Well the IMF has Europe 1 US 2
And the World Bank has Europe 1 US 2
And even the CIA World Fact Book has Europe 1 US 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

Notice a pattern here

Or if you prefer to use per capita figures then why not look at Ireland's which is higher than the US's

And on top of that we get free health care, unemployment benefit, subsidised mass transit systems, free education and gov't pensions.

Looks like our economic illiteracy and socialism isn't as bad as you think. It's just we tried the Laissez Faire model years ago (there's actually a clue in the name ) and discarded it in favour of a more fair and gentle society whereas I get the impression you only discovered it yesterday in some old textbook but no doubt in time your attitude will also evolve.

Your link doesn't even go anywhere. Notice my link uses PPP numbers from the IMF, CIA, and UPenn. Also, notice that my link doesn't even list "Europe" but rather individual countries. You're right that Ireland is ranked ahead of the US in 1 of the 3 studies, however, it is ranked behind the US in 2 out of the 3 studies (in other words, what's your point).

It's funny that you mention Ireland, because as a matter of fact it is one of the Economically Freest (read: one of the most Capitalistic) countries in all of Europe. The Economic Freedom of the World project does such research precisely to rank all of the countries in the world (see page 14: http://www.freetheworld.com/2007/EFW2007BOOK2.pdf). The fact that Ireland is so Capitalistic seems to prove my point better than it does yours.

Just for the record, I have great respect for Ireland precisely because they don't adhere to many of the same policies that other European countries seem too. If things in the US ever start to go the way of a country like France, I plan on moving to either Ireland or Australia.

 

[DrClapeyron]

They were sued, paid and continue to do business. I am not certain why there is discussion but I wager it tends on the fringe of Frenchie bashing.

 

[W3pcq]

They do have much higher taxes, but the government pays for everyones doctor bills and other related services which are far superior in quality to ours and our system. They also get unlimited payed sick days and a wealth of paid vacations while still managing to be more productive than us.

 

[Economist]

They were sued, paid and continue to do business. I am not certain why there is discussion but I wager it tends on the fringe of Frenchie bashing.

I think it's rediculous why they were sued (which is why I started the thread). I'm not trying to bash the French, in fact, I love the French as my grandfather was born and raised in France. However, as far as economic policies/legislation is concerned, they do often make an easy target.

They do have much higher taxes, but the government pays for everyones doctor bills and other related services which are far superior in quality to ours and our system. They also get unlimited payed sick days and a wealth of paid vacations while still managing to be more productive than us.

You are forgetting that such legislation makes it more difficult to get jobs. In other words, if you're lucky enough to have a job then it works out well for you, but if you don't have a job, you could be in trouble.

It is true that on average a French worker is more productive than an American worker, but not for the reason you think. Nope, in fact it's all tied into my first paragraph. Essentially, their rediculous labor restrictions make it very difficult for low skilled people to find jobs, and this therefore raises "the average productivity" precisely because it's difficult for people with low productivity to find work.

If you're still confused, try this thought experiment: What would happen to the average productivity of an American worker if we raised the minimum wage to $100 an hour?

Answer: The "average productivity" of an American worker would skyrocket, because anyone with skills that don't reward a wage of $100 would be unemployed (and therefore not counted in the productivity calculations).

 

[W3pcq]

It seems that if Amazon has a harder time selling to France, then France will need more jobs. They probably don't want Amazon to take over their markets. I think that it would be a good thing for their economy and bad for Amazon. The book money goes to French booksellers and not Amazon corporation executives. Why is this a bad economic choice. Should they just let large foreign corporations take over there businesses and jobs and be happy with cheaper books. Besides Amazon sells everything.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Sorry, but there is a real lack of detail in the link given during the original post. To you and I the difference between a burrito and a sandwhich is noticeable but to Chick-Fille and Taco Bell it means the difference between violating contract and doing legitimate business.

A burrito is not a sandwich.

That's the culinary ruling of a Worcester judge, ending, for now, a food fight between Panera Bread Co. and Qdoba Mexican Grill.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/11/10/arguments_spread_thick/

Obviously in the French case with Amazon and the local guild, this must have been the case as well. There needed to have been a legal argument made by the plantif to bring the issue into court. Now the difference between French law and American law is contrasting, perhaps this is more what you are getting at.

 

[Gokul43201]

Our average is $42,186.00, while their's is $30,594.67. In other words, our GDP (PPP) per capita is approximately 38% higher than their's. For those of you who've never heard of PPP, what it basically means is that the average American enjoys a standard of living 38% greater than the average French person.

It also, I guess, means that the average citizen of the Equatorial Guinea (an oil rich state ruled by a corrupt despot, which ranks consistently among the poorest 30 countries in the world on indicators like infant mortality and unemployment) enjoys a standard of living that is about 25% better than the average US citizen.

 

[W3pcq]

I guess income and freedom is a tradeoff. They have more freedom and less income. They have an easier life and can relax. We are whipped like slaves and can barely even go on a vacation until we retire which happens to be the time that our money is stolen buy the health care industry. Which by the way makes it harder to retire, especially if your ailment isn't covered. Fortunately if we vacation in France when we finally retire, we don't need to worry about getting hurt because they will treat us for free. At least we have the luxury of buying things that we hardly get to used. Maybe it is worth it to look good on your way to work driving an escalade, or perhaps it is worth it when you get home and get to enjoy relaxing watching TV on a big flat screen as you are so tired that you fall asleep with it on and have not the energy to take off your boots. Perhaps it is worth it to be able to get a wife that loves your money but otherwise would have ditched you.

 

[t-money]

They do have much higher taxes, but the government pays for everyones doctor bills and other related services which are far superior in quality to ours and our system. They also get unlimited payed sick days and a wealth of paid vacations while still managing to be more productive than us.

Where does the govment get it's money to pay for everyones healthcare?

 

[W3pcq]

From taxes. The problem is that in the US insurance company workers get paid by the amount of people that they can deny coverage. They get more profit by providing less care. In France doctors get paid by the amount of people they successfully treat. It is the incentives that cause the problem. Here Health care is about profit, there it is about health. The tax money that goes into it is used honestly and therefore they get a better deal for there money as well. More taxes, better quality of life and less risk of being screwed over sometime in life. Another advantage is that they don't need to do a huge amount of paper work before getting help. Here people die in Emergency rooms waiting to see if they can get coverage. There in an emergancy a doctor is rushed to your house or whatever necessary. No paper work, no scams, no extra wait, no profit outside the system. The money they put into health care goes into that and that only. Here we pay for the care plust the insurance companies profits. Here people get thrown out of hospitals midtreatment because they run out of money so they die on the street.

 

[ShawnD]

It also, I guess, means that the average citizen of the Equatorial Guinea (an oil rich state ruled by a corrupt despot, which ranks consistently among the poorest 30 countries in the world on indicators like infant mortality and unemployment) enjoys a standard of living that is about 25% better than the average US citizen.

Is that based on mean or median? Sure the mean is high, but I would bet the median is horribly low in that place (1 rich guy, 100 slaves, median = slave).


I can't believe healthcare keeps coming up again and again and again. Yes Europeans are taxed to pay for healthcare. Yes they get a better deal than you.

50% of bankruptcies in the US are caused by medical bills source
60% of those bankruptcies happened to people who had health insurance source
Americans pay literally 3x as much for health care as any other country in the world http://www.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select_process.cfm?countries=all&indicators=nha


Economist, there actually is a way to measure overall standard of living in a country, called Human Development Index.. It factors in things like gdp, life expectancy, education, literacy, etc. France is 10th best, USA is 12th, Canada is 4th, Australia is 3rd, UK is 16. You can say France doesn't have as much money as the US, but they do rank higher than the US in a lot of other things. HDI is just one of them.

 

[Art]

Your link doesn't even go anywhere. Notice my link uses PPP numbers from the IMF, CIA, and UPenn. Also, notice that my link doesn't even list "Europe" but rather individual countries. You're right that Ireland is ranked ahead of the US in 1 of the 3 studies, however, it is ranked behind the US in 2 out of the 3 studies (in other words, what's your point).

It's funny that you mention Ireland, because as a matter of fact it is one of the Economically Freest (read: one of the most Capitalistic) countries in all of Europe. The Economic Freedom of the World project does such research precisely to rank all of the countries in the world (see page 14: http://www.freetheworld.com/2007/EFW2007BOOK2.pdf). The fact that Ireland is so Capitalistic seems to prove my point better than it does yours.

Just for the record, I have great respect for Ireland precisely because they don't adhere to many of the same policies that other European countries seem too. If things in the US ever start to go the way of a country like France, I plan on moving to either Ireland or Australia.

To compare apples with apples if you wish to break up Europe into it's individual members then you would also need to break the US into it's constituent parts in which case only California has a higher GDP than France
As you seem to have missed it previously I'll repeat myself. Ireland provides it's citizens with free health care, unemployment benefit, subsidised mass transit systems, free education and gov't pensions. To add to that list Ireland also provides paid maternity leave, sick pay, disability allowances, subsidised housing (free if unemployed) and a min of 4 weeks annual paid vacation time plus 9 further paid public holidays. And with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the industrialised world it knocks on the head the oft repeated nonsense that if people aren't kept hungry they'll just sit on their hands. Also bear in mind Ireland has no natural resources whatsoever not even coal so all of these benefits are paid for through high productivity. Whilst debunking some common misconceptions it is also worth noting that 10% of Ireland's current population is foreign born through the influx of economic migrants which questions the common assertion that high immigration damages the economy. I note the UK also ranks highly on your 'free ecomomy' list; another country with socialist programs famous for it's national health service.

So Ecomomist do you consider Ireland's measures to be models of capitalist policies? If so perhaps you and I have very different ideas of what constitutes socialism and capitalism and you are in fact a socialist albeit a confused one

France's social problems are not so much about their socialist policies it is more about the legacy of their colonial past and the resulting influx of migrants from places such as Algeria who having seen the French turn their native country into a wasteland have little love and zero loyalty toward France and it's gov't who in return have little love and zero loyalty towards them..

With regard to the specific instance in the OP there is insufficient information to draw firm conclusions but it appears to be a trade complaint based on below cost selling which is outlawed by the WTO.

 

[Economist]

It seems that if Amazon has a harder time selling to France, then France will need more jobs. They probably don't want Amazon to take over their markets. I think that it would be a good thing for their economy and bad for Amazon. The book money goes to French booksellers and not Amazon corporation executives. Why is this a bad economic choice. Should they just let large foreign corporations take over there businesses and jobs and be happy with cheaper books. Besides Amazon sells everything.

Well, it definitely benefits French book sellers, but at the expense of who? At the expense of French consumers. Maybe you should google the word "Ricardo Comparative Advantage" and read up.

Laws like this make goods more costly, which will make the cost of living go up (and therefore, make the standard of living go down).

I don't understand why people are so hung up on the fact that "some people get put out of work, therefore it must be bad." You know what puts people out of work at a rate much higher than trade? Technology. Do you realize that a couple hundred years ago 90-something% of Americans were farms, but technology put most of them out of business and now it's only like 1% of Americans who are farmers. So it made some people worse off in the short-run, but made many people better off in the long run (you might also want to google "Schumpeter Creative Destruction"). Only a fool would think we'd be better off if we could have "saved" those farming jobs.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Laws like this make goods more costly, which will make the cost of living go up (and therefore, make the standard of living go down).

There is no free lunch in Amazon's free delivery. Either they can afford cuts at the profit margin or they tack on extra fees. The law may be in place to prevent a sudden increase in freight deliveries, which could adversely affect France's ablity to import oil and meet fuel needs. Transportation makes every good cost more, because it is not free.

I don't understand why people are so hung up on the fact that "some people get put out of work, therefore it must be bad."

Who do you know that has been put out of work because of this practice?

 

[ShawnD]

Who do you know that has been put out of work because of this practice?

Stores shut down all the time because they can't compete with a bigger company that is capable of selling for less. Amazon was the one undercutting this time, but the one you probably hear the most is Walmart.

 

[Economist]

Who do you know that has been put out of work because of this practice?

A good number of my sisters friends who all worked and an advertising agency. They started outsourcing some of their jobs to India. Maybe you're curious what happened to them? Well, (just like you'd expect) they found new jobs within a few weeks.

 

[W3pcq]

Well, it definitely benefits French book sellers, but at the expense of who? At the expense of French consumers. Maybe you should google the word "Ricardo Comparative Advantage" and read up.

Laws like this make goods more costly, which will make the cost of living go up (and therefore, make the standard of living go down).

I don't understand why people are so hung up on the fact that "some people get put out of work, therefore it must be bad." You know what puts people out of work at a rate much higher than trade? Technology. Do you realize that a couple hundred years ago 90-something% of Americans were farms, but technology put most of them out of business and now it's only like 1% of Americans who are farmers. So it made some people worse off in the short-run, but made many people better off in the long run (you might also want to google "Schumpeter Creative Destruction"). Only a fool would think we'd be better off if we could have "saved" those farming jobs.

Earlier in the thread you argued that the legislature would make it harder to get jobs and now you say it would make it easier but it doesn't matter.

Another point I would make is that jobs like selling books are not taken over by technology. Perhaps it is these types of jobs that will be important when factory workers all lose their jobs.

Plus, isn't the standard of living related to employment rates even more so than saving a few dollars on books.

 

[NeoDevin]

Another point I would make is that jobs like selling books are not taken over by technology. Perhaps it is these types of jobs that will be important when factory workers all lose their jobs.

Are you so sure about that? Amazon.com doesn't have to staff a bookstore...

 

[Anttech]

I think it's rediculous why they were sued (which is why I started the thread). I'm not trying to bash the French, in fact, I love the French as my grandfather was born and raised in France. However, as far as economic policies/legislation is concerned, they do often make an easy target.



You are forgetting that such legislation makes it more difficult to get jobs. In other words, if you're lucky enough to have a job then it works out well for you, but if you don't have a job, you could be in trouble.

It is true that on average a French worker is more productive than an American worker, but not for the reason you think. Nope, in fact it's all tied into my first paragraph. Essentially, their rediculous labor restrictions make it very difficult for low skilled people to find jobs, and this therefore raises "the average productivity" precisely because it's difficult for people with low productivity to find work.

If you're still confused, try this thought experiment: What would happen to the average productivity of an American worker if we raised the minimum wage to $100 an hour?

Answer: The "average productivity" of an American worker would skyrocket, because anyone with skills that don't reward a wage of $100 would be unemployed (and therefore not counted in the productivity calculations).

What a load of cocknbull. All you would get is hyperinflation.

 

[mheslep]

I suppose also the fact that the Euro is Wiping the floor with the Dollar in terms of value is another great gage as to how awful the French economist are,

Thats a good thing for who, exactly?

 

[Anttech]

That being, French economists are as backward as the OP is wanting to lead people to believe??

 

[Economist]

What a load of cocknbull. All you would get is hyperinflation.

You should search around on google or something, because what I said was not even my idea (I wish I thought of that on my own). But I didn't, instead I read an article were a PhD Economists was breaking this down in the exact same way that I recreated for you. Anyway, why wouldn't average worker productivity be effected by such legislation? In other words, why wouldn't average worker productivity be effected by legislation that makes low skilled workers disproportionally unemployed?

 

[Art]

You should search around on google or something, because what I said was not even my idea (I wish I thought of that on my own). But I didn't, instead I read an article were a PhD Economists was breaking this down in the exact same way that I recreated for you. Anyway, why wouldn't average worker productivity be effected by such legislation? In other words, why wouldn't average worker productivity be effected by legislation that makes low skilled workers disproportionally unemployed?

Think about this for a moment. There are a few holes in your argument so you should be glad you can disown such a crackpot idea;

Are you suggesting that the higher skilled workers are currently sitting there unemployed rather than do low paid work? If that is their work ethic then do you really think productivity would increase if they supplanted the low skilled if wages rose? If that is not the case then where are the high skilled workers going to suddenly appear from?

Low skilled work is called that because - well - the work requires low skill. Having a degree in brain surgery is not going to make you more productive stacking shelves or pumping gas than someone without these qualifications.

 

[Economist]

Think about this for a moment. There are a few holes in your argument so you should be glad you can disown such a crackpot idea;

Are you suggesting that the higher skilled workers are currently sitting there unemployed rather than do low paid work? If that is their work ethic then do you really think productivity would increase if they supplanted the low skilled if wages rose? If that is not the case then where are the high skilled workers going to suddenly appear from?

Low skilled work is called that because - well - the work requires low skill. Having a degree in brain surgery is not going to make you more productive stacking shelves or pumping gas than someone without these qualifications.

Maybe your missing my point.

All I am simply saying is this. It is known that restrictive labor market policies tend to raise unemployment. Who does it tend to make unemployable? Well, those with low skills. This causes the mean productivity of those still employed to increase (because you have literaly taken some of the low skilled people out of the equation).

Here's a simple numerical illustration. Imagine that you have 10 workers, and imagine that we can somehow measure their productivity, and that 5 workers have a productivity measure of 100, while the other 5 workers have a productivity measure of 50. We take the average to compute a mean productivity of our work force. This calculation comes out to (750/10) or 75. Now, a new legislation comes along that makes it less profitable to hire low skilled (aka low productivity) workers, so 2 of the low productivity workers get fired. What is the new mean/average productivity of our workforce? Well it is simply 650/8 or 81.25. Notice that our average/mean productivity increased (which should not be suprising).

Simply stated, the "average" french worker is more productive than the "average" american worker. However, many people try and attribute this fact to the cushy labor market policies in france which they claim boosts worker productivity (because of more time off, nicer conditions, etc). However, this is misleading, because the real reason their "average" productivity is higher is due to the fact that their restrictive labor market policies lead to less low skilled/productive workers in the labor force.

Make sense now?

 

[W3pcq]

France has a higher rate of unemployment, but this is based on people age 15-64. In France people usually retire by 50. That is part of the equation. We have more employment, but a lot of our workers are older people. I would guess that may also play a role in productivity. A younger stronger and sharper worker might be a lot more productive than a worker who is going senile.

 

[mheslep]

I suppose also the fact that the Euro is Wiping the floor with the Dollar in terms of value is another great gage as to how awful the French economist are,

sigh

Thats a good thing for who, exactly?

That being, French economists are as backward as the OP is wanting to lead people to believe??

I'll be more specific: You seem to imply by 'the Euro is Wiping the floor with the Dollar', that the Euro rising against the dollar is a good thing for the French? If so, how? If you are, say, a French wine maker hoping to export wine to the US which by '10 will be the largest wine market in the world, then your French wine becomes increasingly more expensive in the US market vs US made wines even though you never raised your price in Euros.

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=FT&date=20080113&id=8032509"

 

[JasonRox]

Laws like this make goods more costly, which will make the cost of living go up (and therefore, make the standard of living go down).

Laws like this what the ****? We only spoke of one so far! And that simple law for bookfs only is certainly not having an effect on the cost of living! Drop it already. You're point is nowhere near valid.

 

[Hurkyl]

Laws like this what the ****? We only spoke of one so far! And that simple law for bookfs only is certainly not having an effect on the cost of living! Drop it already. You're point is nowhere near valid.

Such a persuasive argument. I'm glad you cleared that up.

 

[mheslep]

Economist,

So let's see how the commie European Union compares to the US in GDP PPP,

Well the IMF has Europe 1 US 2
And the World Bank has Europe 1 US 2
And even the CIA World Fact Book has Europe 1 US 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

Notice a pattern here

Or if you prefer to use per capita figures

Yes of course use per capita, otherwise one can draw a line around any group of countries you like and just add up GDP.

then why not look at Ireland's which is higher than the US'sLooks like our economic illiteracy and socialism isn't as bad as you think. It's just we tried the Laissez Faire model years ago

It is interesting Ireland comes up here as it was just took the highest http://www.heritage.org/Index/topten.cfm" Irish EU relatives, but hey good for the Irish:

"We went on a borrowing, spending and taxing spree, and that nearly drove us under," said Deputy Prime Minister Mary Harney. "It was because we nearly went under that we got the courage to change."

And on top of that we get free health care,

First, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Private_health_insurance":

In 2002, 48% of Ireland's population had private health insurance

And any case there's no such thing as 'free' health care, the Irish pay for out it of taxes (income + VAT) as does anyone else with 'free health care. US also provides 'free' health care via medicaid / medicare / prescription drug benefit fiasco, etc.

unemployment benefit, subsidised mass transit systems,

Same in US.

free education

Nice. Aside from Trinity College Dublin, how good is it?

All told, I'd say there's a fair argument that the US is more socialist in policy than Ireland at the moment.

 

[opus]

And people wonder why I said that the French seem to be "Economically Illiterate."

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2008/01/misbehaving-ama.html

I am not convinced that you had to make a second topic relating to France and redundantly and ignorantly calling them 'illiterate'.

This is blatantly a double post and just further evidence of trolling.

 

[Art]

Yes of course use per capita, otherwise one can draw a line around any group of countries you like and just add up GDP.

So IBM is less economically proficient than the operation with a $2 million turnover and 2 employees with 40% annual growth using only revenue per employee as a measure. Evidently the size of an economy affects it's growth rate, the bigger it is the harder it is to have higher than average growth and so gross GDP cannot be ignored.

It is interesting Ireland comes up here as it was just took the highest http://www.heritage.org/Index/topten.cfm" ranking of all EU countries, i.e. its the most Laissez Faire in the EU. Ireland is indeed booming; its GDP is 40% greater than the four big European countries (i.e. France). I know I tried my best to help by means of Guinness purchases when I was there.

Or the heritage foundation simply likes to claim the most successful countries as their own Bear in mind Irish industry and commerce is governed by EU law with major economic tools such as interest rates and borrowing levels determined by the EU central bank! Also of course many of the regulations governing how commerce and industry is run emanate from EU directives.

The current boom stems directly from drastic cuts in its corporate tax rate to 12.5%by 2003, far below the US (39%!) or the EU(31%!), and consequently foreign corporate investment is enormous. This of course greatly http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/175.html"Irish EU relatives, but hey good for the Irish:

You are wrong; during the very austere times of the 80's Irish corporate tax rates were 0% for foreign investment rising to 10% after 10 years (though this was easily avoidable) so one could argue it was the increase in corporate rates that led to Ireland's economic growth. Though the true reasons were the ousting of the corrupt political elite of the day such as the prime minister Charles Haughey and his corrupt ministers. The fall out from that period of bribes and corruption is still continuing if you care to google on Mahon Tribunal. Back then Ireland truly practised economic self-interest with the rich creaming off every penny they could whilst the working class were left to fend for themselves on the basis of the working working class could subsidise the unemployed working class whilst the rich contributed absolutely nothing. Another major factor was membership of the EU which took a lot of the legislative powers away from the corrupt politicians thus limiting the damage they could do, whilst at the same time billions in EU structural funds were pumped into the economy (a socialist aid program). For a fat, ugly cow like Mary Harney to claim Ireland's economic success as an Irish political success is twisting the truth on it's head. Finally the collapse of influence of the ultra right-wing Catholic Church because of it's propensity for child molestation helped tremendously in creating a fairer society in Ireland.

First, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Private_health_insurance":

And any case there's no such thing as 'free' health care, the Irish pay for out it of taxes (income + VAT) as does anyone else with 'free health care. US also provides 'free' health care via medicaid / medicare / prescription drug benefit fiasco, etc.

Same in US.

No there is no such thing as free health care per se but when it is paid for out of the public purse it is considered free or if you wish to be pedantic free at point of use. I'm surprised the US has so much debate on uninsured people if they already have a national health system comparable to the European models
Private health care in Ireland buys you a place at the front of the queue in a semi-private or private room in the same hospitals with the same treatment by the same doctors as those who go public. That is the danger in having a private health system running in tandem with a public health system as the public health system subsidises the private patients which is an area I believe urgently needs addressing.

Nice. Aside from Trinity College Dublin, how good is it?

Excellent. One of the major drivers behind inward investment in Ireland was the high level of education.

The education system in Ireland is one of the best in the world according to the 2007 independent IMD World Competitiveness Report.

http://www.idaireland.com/home/index.aspx?id=97

All told, I'd say there's a fair argument that the US is more socialist in policy than Ireland at the moment.

I doubt it but regardless it is irrelevant to the point of this discussion. Ecomomist is arguing all socialist programs are bad for growth and so I've provided an example of a country with a plethora of social programs doing very well. If you also wish to add the US to the side of the balance sheet of socialist countries doing well then that's fine by me.

 

[Anttech]

I'll be more specific: You seem to imply by 'the Euro is Wiping the floor with the Dollar', that the Euro rising against the dollar is a good thing for the French? If so, how? If you are, say, a French wine maker hoping to export wine to the US which by '10 will be the largest wine market in the world, then your French wine becomes increasingly more expensive in the US market vs US made wines even though you never raised your price in Euros.

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=FT&date=20080113&id=8032509"

No, you came to that conclusion. I was arguing that the French are not as idiotic as "Economist" likes to think, when it comes to Economics. A strong currency is a good indicator of a strong economy, since it is a direct representation of how confident people are in the said currency and thus the economy. Are you trying to say that it isnt?

 

[JasonRox]

Such a persuasive argument. I'm glad you cleared that up.

My posts can't be long. My keyboard isn't working. That took like 10 minutes to type.

 

[Economist]

Laws like this what the ****? We only spoke of one so far! And that simple law for bookfs only is certainly not having an effect on the cost of living! Drop it already. You're point is nowhere near valid.

Actually, it's an illustration that this type of law harms consumers. Do you really think that this is the only law that harms consumers? You're right, if it was just one law than it wouldn't make a big deal, but when you sum up all of these rediculous laws, you'll be talking about a much larger harm to consumers.

 

[Economist]

Yes of course use per capita, otherwise one can draw a line around any group of countries you like and just add up GDP.

It is interesting Ireland comes up here as it was just took the highest http://www.heritage.org/Index/topten.cfm" Irish EU relatives, but hey good for the Irish:


First, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Private_health_insurance":

And any case there's no such thing as 'free' health care, the Irish pay for out it of taxes (income + VAT) as does anyone else with 'free health care. US also provides 'free' health care via medicaid / medicare / prescription drug benefit fiasco, etc.

Same in US.
Nice. Aside from Trinity College Dublin, how good is it?

All told, I'd say there's a fair argument that the US is more socialist in policy than Ireland at the moment.

Good points!

Especially the one about Ireland being relatively Laissez Faire, which was the point I was trying to make.

Or the heritage foundation simply likes to claim the most successful countries as their own

This is a good point. However, the economic freedom of the world reports are not done by heritage and I think they've had similar findings. I also believe that they have been doing reports for a number of years, and that their methodology is fairly consistent. If their methodology is fairly consistent than it wouldn't make a lot of sense that they are "choosing" successful countries and then calling them economically free. Rather, it's much more likely that economic freedom actually causes success.

 

[Art]

This is a good point. However, the economic freedom of the world reports are not done by heritage and I think they've had similar findings. I also believe that they have been doing reports for a number of years, and that their methodology is fairly consistent. If their methodology is fairly consistent than it wouldn't make a lot of sense that they are "choosing" successful countries and then calling them economically free. Rather, it's much more likely that economic freedom actually causes success.

Only if you ignore what I pointed out earlier

Bear in mind Irish industry and commerce is governed by EU law with major economic tools such as interest rates and borrowing levels determined by the EU central bank! Also of course many of the regulations governing how commerce and industry is run emanate from EU directives.

And I notice once again you have chosen to totally ignore all of the other points I made in rebuttal to mheslep's post.

 

[Economist]

Only if you ignore what I pointed out earlier And I notice once again you have chosen to totally ignore all of the other points I made in rebuttal to mheslep's post.

I read them. I don't know the details so I wasn't going to comment on them. The details you mentioned could be the cause, and then again maybe they aren't.

Also, just out of curiousity, why did you mention the central bank? I am confused, because having a central bank doens't really prove much in regards to economic freedom (as they don't have control of fiscal policy and most legislation). They control interest rates (or the money supply depending on the country, but even then it has the same effects) and that is generally the extent of their "power." I am not saying they aren't important. And I am not saying that one couldn't debate about whether there should be a central bank (many people already do argue about this). All I am saying is that I don't really see how it illustrates economic freedom?

When it comes to the EU law though, there must still be a good deal of room for individual countries to make decisions right? I mean, even within the EU there seems to be a range of policies on various issues, such as trade, labor market legislation, etc.

Plus you seem to be ignoring my point about the Economic Freedom of the World report. Why do we see a strong correlation between this report and prosperity? You're explanation about "cherry picking" countries doesn't seem that plausible for reasons mentioned above.

 

[Art]

I read them. I don't know the details so I wasn't going to comment on them. The details you mentioned could be the cause, and then again maybe they aren't.

Also, just out of curiousity, why did you mention the central bank? I am confused, because having a central bank doens't really prove much in regards to economic freedom (as they don't have control of fiscal policy and most legislation). They control interest rates (or the money supply depending on the country, but even then it has the same effects) and that is generally the extent of their "power." I am not saying they aren't important. And I am not saying that one couldn't debate about whether there should be a central bank (many people already do argue about this). All I am saying is that I don't really see how it illustrates economic freedom?

a) The ability to set interest rates is the single greatest tool in controlling credit and thus expenditure.
b) The EU central bank manages the exchange rate of the Euro by setting strict limits on member countries' deficit spending. This obviously greatly influences the discretionary measures adopted in each member's national budget. The relative size of the pie is the same for all with each country deciding how to slice it. France's main emphasis seems to be on health and transport, Ireland's on education but all socialist programs. Personally I think Ireland got their priorities right which is where the economic success came from. Even national budgets are subject to censure by the ECB if they believe a members national budget is inflationary or otherwise damaging to the Euro.
c) Only the ECB can authorise the issuing of bank notes
d) Corporation taxes are discretionary (at the moment) but it's swings and roundabouts again. Ireland has a lower corporation tax than the UK for example but Ireland's std VAT rate is 21% whereas the UK's is only 17.5%.

When it comes to the EU law though, there must still be a good deal of room for individual countries to make decisions right? I mean, even within the EU there seems to be a range of policies on various issues, such as trade, labor market legislation, etc.

No, which is why Britain opted out of the single currency and initially the social charter. They see it as surrendering their sovereignty.

Plus you seem to be ignoring my point about the Economic Freedom of the World report. Why do we see a strong correlation between this report and prosperity? You're explanation about "cherry picking" countries doesn't seem that plausible for reasons mentioned above.

If Ireland is a model of capitalism then so too are all the other members of the single currency club as they all play by the same rules and so any criticism levelled at France for it's perceived socialism is mute as if Ireland is capitalist they also must be capitalist.

Regarding trade France and Ireland like everyone else is regulated by the WTO agreements.

 

[Economist]

France's main emphasis seems to be on health and transport, Ireland's on education but all socialist programs.

Since when is public education a socialist program? Many people have made a strong case for public education on the basis of capitalism and economics, by talking about the externality effects. I don't completely buy into their argument, but nevertheless public education is not only consistent with socialism.

If Ireland is a model of capitalism then so too are all the other members of the single currency club as they all play by the same rules and so any criticism levelled at France for it's perceived socialism is mute as if Ireland is capitalist they also must be capitalist.

The devil's in the details. Even within the EU different countries still have different legislation, and therefore not all countries are identical.

Regarding trade France and Ireland like everyone else is regulated by the WTO agreements.

True, but it's still possible that one country would go above and beyond the WTO agreements by passing legislation. This would lead to one country still being more protectionist than the other.

 

[Art]

Since when is public education a socialist program? Many people have made a strong case for public education on the basis of capitalism and economics, by talking about the externality effects. I don't completely buy into their argument, but nevertheless public education is not only consistent with socialism.

Publicly funded mass education is indeed a socialist program. What else would you call it? This is nonsensical. Every time I prove a benefit from socialism you try to adopt it as part of capitalism. What happened to your libertarianism?

The devil's in the details. Even within the EU different countries still have different legislation, and therefore not all countries are identical.

I've already detailed the strictures they work under which limit divergence.

True, but it's still possible that one country would go above and beyond the WTO agreements by passing legislation. This would lead to one country still being more protectionist than the other.

How do you go above and beyond free trade To legislate for something less results in censure and fines from the WTO with eventual expulsion if you don't conform.

 

[Economist]

Publicly funded mass education is indeed a socialist program. What else would you call it? This is nonsensical. Every time I prove a benefit from socialism you try to adopt it as part of capitalism. What happened to your libertarianism?

What happened to my libertariansim? Actually, nothing as I personally agree with a privatized school system. But "my libertarianims" is beside the point.

I was trying to point out that many people have actually made a case for public schooling on the grounds of positive externalities (which is hardly socialsim, but rather a lack of all encompassing property rights). Read Milton Friedman's book "Capitalism and Freedom" were he lays out a strong case for public education that has nothing to do with socialist ideas (and then goes onto make a case against his own argument). Not to mention, Thomas Jefferson made a case/argument for public schools that is very similar to the argument Friedman was making. Again, I would hardly label that argument as a "socialist" argument for public education.

I love how you state "every time I prove a benefit from socialism you try to adopt it as part of capitalism." First, all I said was that public education is not only consistent with socialism. Second, I would hardly say that public education is "a benefit." In the US the public school system is filled with all kinds of problems which lead to pretty bad results. Even worse, the education problem is particularly bad for those who need it the most, namely children from poor families. Again, providing horrible education to the poor is hardly consistent with stated socialist goals.

How do you go above and beyond free trade To legislate for something less results in censure and fines from the WTO with eventual expulsion if you don't conform.

So you are telling me that all members of WTO have the exact same trade policies?

 

[Art]

The whole basis of socialism is positive externalities i.e. actions taken for the greater good which is why I have written numerous posts extolling the economic positive externalities of socialist policies in Ireland.

All countries in the EU and the US have signed up to the same bi-lateral trade agreement with the WTO so in the context of this thread the answer is yes they all play by the same rules. Policy differences are limited to areas such as who a country or bloc will or will not trade with (sanctions etc.) but if they do trade it is under the rules of the WTO. Eg. France and Ireland cannot have different trade rules for dealing with the US.

Developing countries have different agreements which may include protectionism.

No country is allowed to break the legally binding contracts signed through the WTO who also arbitrate over any dispute between members.

To be clear which of these programs (if any) all of which have positive externalities do you consider socialist?

Subsidised transport
Free at point of use health care
Gov't funded education
Govt ownership of water and power utilities.
Gov't ownership of mass transit systems
Social welfare

 

[Gokul43201]

So, if Amazon were sued by an Irish union of booksellers, would they lose? Have they been sued? If not, why not?

 

[Art]

So, if Amazon were sued by an Irish union of booksellers, would they lose? Have they been sued? If not, why not?

Amazon haven't ever offered free delivery to Ireland so the issue hasn't arisen. To be honest I can't say with any certainty how the Irish gov't would react though imo I doubt they would follow the French course. The French do tend to have very protectionist attitudes especially regarding America these days.

I mentioned in an earlier post there is very little information regarding the facts surrounding the case in France but I tentatively assume the book sellers won on the grounds Amazon were selling below cost which is a breach of WTO trade rules. All of this is assuming that Amazon in France are not registered as a company there because then of course it would be an internal matter.

If that is not the case and the French are simply applying protectionism then the US gov't can bring the case as a trade dispute to the WTO for a ruling which France would presumably lose and be penalised for (unless there is something written into US - EU trade agreements exempting books from free trade).

These disputes happen all the time and a key role of the WTO is to ensure they do not escalate into a full blown trade war.

For example

Congress Passes Bill Ending WTO Export Tax Break Dispute with EU
Pending EU sanctions against United States expected to be withdrawn

By Bruce Odessey
Washington File Staff Writer

Washington -- The Senate has given final passage to a tax-cut bill that includes repeal of corporate tax breaks that the World Trade Organization (WTO) has ruled are illegal export subsidies.

Passage of the provision ends a long-standing trade dispute, and a European Union (EU) official has indicated pending retaliatory trade sanctions against the United States would be suspended.

The Senate passed the five-year, $70 billion tax bill 54-44 late May 11, a day after the House of Representatives passed it 244-185. President Bush has indicated he will sign the bill, which includes tax cuts he long has sought.

At issue are remnant tax breaks from the Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) and the successor Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act (ETI). After the WTO ruled in cases brought by the EU that those credits violated a subsidies agreement, Congress repealed nearly all of them over a two-year transition ending in 2006.

Congress left in place, however, a few tax breaks that were included in binding contracts made before September 17, 2003, including contracts made by U.S. aircraft manufacturer Boeing.

In yet another challenge brought by the EU, the WTO ruled that both the two-year transition and the excluded credits were not in compliance with the earlier dispute-settlement decisions. The provision in the tax bill would not alter the two-year transition but would repeal the exclusions for the binding contracts.

"I want to thank lawmakers in the House and Senate for their work on this legislation, and especially for including the repeal of the grandfathering provisions on the foreign sales corporation/extraterritorial income regimes," U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman said. "It means the U.S. has taken the steps necessary to comply with its WTO obligations in this matter."

According to published reports, EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson announced May 11 that the EU would suspend the sanctions, $2.4 billion additional duties on U.S. exports, that were scheduled to take effect May 16.

https://www.physicsforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1575958

Edit - It seems the French book-sellers union brought the action against Amazon under their 1981 Lang Law which forbids the discounting of books by more than 5%. This law has apparently already been challenged twice before in the European Court of Justice and upheld each time so Amazon's intended appeal against the ruling looks doomed in Europe anyway.

 

[NeoDevin]

I don't know if anyone has posted this yet, but here is the article from NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/idg/IDG_002570DE00740E18002573AF005B04A4.html