Guest MattP Posted 14 February 2015 Posted 14 February 2015 Imagine living in a place where you get taxed at about 50% and have to pay about 8 quid for a pint. If Scandinavian is the best example of socialism out there I'm glad we are nowhere near it.
Guest MattP Posted 14 February 2015 Posted 14 February 2015 The UK will start to extradite Assange to Sweden as soon as he sets foot on UK territory so I don't see where that statement comes from. Touche. Although I'm there are various ways we could be far more proactive in this case. The cost to the taxpayer has been scandalous of the whole farce.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 14 February 2015 Posted 14 February 2015 Imagine living in a place where you get taxed at about 50% and have to pay about 8 quid for a pint. If Scandinavian is the best example of socialism out there I'm glad we are nowhere near it. For a start the is not the cost of a pint across Sweden.Sweden also isn't really socialist and even if you believe it is, the good in the scandinavian model isn't a result of socialism
Guest MattP Posted 14 February 2015 Posted 14 February 2015 I wasn't being deadly serious with that. I've actually not been to Sweden yet, just Norway and Denmark. I found Scandinavia very drab.
leicsmac Posted 14 February 2015 Posted 14 February 2015 I can't see much that is particularly socialist about Scandinavia relative to the UK, other than a larger welfare state that more likely works for cultural rather than economic reasons. Small, homogeneous populations with a strong work ethic, it's more like buying a beer for your mate who just lost his job, you can't apply that a country with a much larger, diverse population and expect it to have the same impact. There is also no real evidence that high public spending has helped Scandinavia. In Sweden for example, public spending peaked at nearly 70% of GDP in the early 90s, which caused the Swedish banking crisis where banks were bailed out and led to a severe recession, much like ours. Much like us they implementated austerity, and public spending as a percentage of gdp has been falling pretty much ever since. Meanwhile the per capita gdp has been rising ever since. If anything, Scandinavia provides strong evidence of a correlation between lower public spending and increased prosperity. The socialist aspects of their economy are declining and they're benefitting as a result. http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SOCX_AGG http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sweden/government-spending http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.CON.GOVT.ZS The OECD stats don't seem to back that up. From what it seems, there is a general upward trend in all of the Nordic countries, with a blip represented by the global recession in around 2008. They seem to keep the public spending rising. What you say in the first paragraph may have merit, though. There could well be cultural reasons for why such a system works well there. For a start the is not the cost of a pint across Sweden. Sweden also isn't really socialist and even if you believe it is, the good in the scandinavian model isn't a result of socialism Then what it is the result of? Lassiez-faire economics that crashed and burned everywhere but there a few years back? Getting lucky with natural resources (doesn't do the majority of people in the Middle East much good)? We can agree to disagree then. Socialism can have such a wide meaning, even if you simply looked a simple source like wikipedia it has massive variety of sub groups and many disagreements between each. That I do agree with.
leicsmac Posted 14 February 2015 Posted 14 February 2015 I wasn't being deadly serious with that. I've actually not been to Sweden yet, just Norway and Denmark. I found Scandinavia very drab. But what about the birds Matt?
Buce Posted 14 February 2015 Posted 14 February 2015 But what about the birds Matt? Yeah. The snowy owl, for example...
SMX11 Posted 14 February 2015 Posted 14 February 2015 http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SOCX_AGG http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sweden/government-spending http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.CON.GOVT.ZS The OECD stats don't seem to back that up. From what it seems, there is a general upward trend in all of the Nordic countries, with a blip represented by the global recession in around 2008. They seem to keep the public spending rising. What you say in the first paragraph may have merit, though. There could well be cultural reasons for why such a system works well there. Then what it is the result of? Lassiez-faire economics that crashed and burned everywhere but there a few years back? Getting lucky with natural resources (doesn't do the majority of people in the Middle East much good)? That I do agree with. We haven't done Lassiez Faire economics since the 19th century. Hence why the banks were bailed out and the underlining cronyism of the current system.
leicsmac Posted 14 February 2015 Posted 14 February 2015 We haven't done Lassiez Faire economics since the 19th century. Hence why the banks were bailed out and the underlining cronyism of the current system. Sorry, I should have said more lassiez-faire than other leading nations, rather than true lassiez-faire, because you are totally right. Time was big companies and business interests and Government would act as a bulwark against each other. Now, they're in bed with each other. And the mass media too, which makes it worse.
MooseBreath Posted 14 February 2015 Posted 14 February 2015 Leicsmac: Poor source but if you look at the same charts on worldbank or tradingeconomics it shows exactly the same. Can't post those now as I'm on the mobile. You're looking at different figures. Where red turns to blue was the Swedish banking crisis. Quite clear the effect before and after and it's correlation with government spending.
leicsmac Posted 14 February 2015 Posted 14 February 2015 Leicsmac: Poor source but if you look at the same charts on worldbank or tradingeconomics it shows exactly the same. Can't post those now as I'm on the mobile. You're looking at different figures. Where red turns to blue was the Swedish banking crisis. Quite clear the effect before and after and it's correlation with government spending. Interesting stuff. I'll have a more detailed look later. Looks like spending as a % of GDP has decreased, but numerical money amount has increased, as well as greater % spent on benefits according to OECD data. Possibly due to inflation? They still outrank practically every other OECD country in terms of government spending as a % of GDP, I would hazard. Another point: do you think correlation equals causation with those two graphs in this case? Good discussion this.
Nick Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 Looking forward to this Monday night: CH4 Mockumentary UKIP the first 100 days: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/ukip-the-first-100-days
Guest MattP Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 What the hell? Is that actually a serious program?
LJS Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 What's wrong with that? Are we not allowed to take the piss out of political parties now? I don't know if you guys noticed but the whole premise of The Thick of It was to take the piss out of New Labour and, later, Cameron's Tories. It was scathing about both. Mustn't upset Nige, I suppose.
Guest MattP Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 Bit of a difference between a deliberate attack on a party and a tv series. (Even more so in election campaign season) Do they also not realise shows like this are preaching to the converted anyway? Also didn't you think the thick of it went after the Lib Dems more in the last year?
SMX11 Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 There is a difference between satire and blatantly attacking a party.
Harry - LCFC Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 There is a difference between satire and blatantly attacking a party. Is the difference that this time it's satirising a party you like? I'm don't know which category this programme fits into as I've not watched it but I'm not sure you do either.
Rincewind Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 Maybe UKIP deserve the satirising and bring it on themselves.
Guest MattP Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 Maybe UKIP deserve the satirising and bring it on themselves. In what way?
The God Emperor Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 Have Channel 4 been openly anti ukip in the past? Wheren't they being critisised not long ago for not jumping on the 'ukip are racist and eat children' bandwagon. They did that documentry not long ago where by the sounds of it they just followed Farage around and didn't show much of an agenda. I don't know for sure because I don't watch television that often but from I heard they sounded reasonabley even handed with ukip.
Mark_w Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 In what way? Having the worst record when it comes to appointing absolute morons and letting them use twitter for a start? UKIP are championing free speech/expression on their website, I don't think they or their supporters would be wise to tear into a programme on Channel 4 for just that, it's not like anyone's going to watch it anyway.
Guest MattP Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 Every party has morons on Twitter. I don't think they'll be bothered about tonight, as I said the only people watching and enjoying something like that won't be voting UKIP anyway. Be interested see if it falls foul of OFCOM though, since the ruling late last year all major parties have to be treated equally by the press.
bovril Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 Having the worst record when it comes to appointing absolute morons and letting them use twitter for a start? UKIP are championing free speech/expression on their website, I don't think they or their supporters would be wise to tear into a programme on Channel 4 for just that, it's not like anyone's going to watch it anyway. Channel 4 wouldn't have made it if nobody was going to watch it. Media outlets have very few agendas beyond viewing figures.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.