Unemployment Rate in Low Tax Nevada Increases

"so, are you honestly suggesting that we have marxist socialism?"

No, are you trying to change the subject?

"you really think that the definition of socialism that i posted is less accurate?"

Your definition of socialism that includes, uh, the opposite of socialism.

Uh, yes. It's wrong.

You have really stopped making sense (again). Plus, I don't think you can criticize anyone's writing when you write "homogenious" instead of homogeneous. At first I thought you were referring to a gay intellectual.

"But it shows what an effed world we live in that people have perverted the word "socialism" to mean any government intervention in the economy or any social welfare (such as calling a Chicago economics guy like Obama a "socialist")."

Yes, those folks are wrong on one side of things, just as AR is wrong on the other. You can't redefine word just so you can win an argument, which is what both groups have done.

Remember, the post here is about economic success, not what one spends it on. And the US is not full-blown capitalist either.

swe, i, and some other posters, are able to say, sometimes, hey, maybe i made a mistake.

you, never. you were wrong. totally. can you really come up with an oecd country that has your definition of socialism? no. you can't. marxist socialism has never existed in those top ten countries. including the US.

really, can't you ever just say hey, maybe somebody else is right? because here you're so wrong you're embarrassing yourself and you won't back down.

"swe, i, and some other posters, are able to say, sometimes, hey, maybe i made a mistake"

Ok, here is your chance then! Try it! Right now!

Don't ask others to do it if you can't do it yourself.

" If you are defining socialism in its pure form -- which exists nowhere other than in the mind of Marx, Engels, Fourier, etc"

And midtowner, be fair... pure capitalism only exists in minds as well, so that really doesn't say much. We are talking about degrees...

Let's go back to where this started, SWE. You wrote:

"Australia Unemployment rate: — 5.1%

They're more capitalist... they have less of a safety net (ala socialism) than we do."

You were apparently positing that Australia has a lower unemployment rate than we do because they have less of a safety net (which you defined as "socialism") than we do. That's rubbish. They have the dole and a cradle to grave safety net, so you are just wrong if you are claiming that a lack of safety net explains their lower unemployment rate. You rightly got called out on it, and you've been trying to wriggle out of what you clearly said and meant. Just give up, dude.

"can you really come up with an oecd country that has your definition of socialism? no. you can't. "

Can you come up with a purely capitalist nation? No, you can't.

Jsut goes to show that your logic is faulty.

"You were apparently positing that Australia has a lower unemployment rate than we do because they have a safety net"

Actually, I noted they're more capitalist first. That's the key factor.

"so you are just wrong if you are claiming that a lack of safety net explains their lower unemployment rate. "

I'm not. I pointed to the economic freedom index, which has a multitude of factors.

We've got our safety nets, too... and they're growing.

Its a matter of degrees.

let's ask the masses. do you think swe's original comment that australia has less of a social safety net than the us is true?

still not admitting your mistake, aboutready?

Funny, after you just bragged you could!

you are just so wrong here, swe. embarrassingly so.

i often admit my mistakes. quite often. you, never.

Clear evidence to the contrary right here!

I have admitted mistakes in the past.

You tried to redefine socialism as capitalism, and still won't admit it!

Come on, AR, you can do it?

You screamed at me to, why don't you try it?

SWE -- You are backfilling desperately. Your original comment was just wrong. You can add whatever else you want (which frankly still sounds retarded to me) but what you said at first is blatantly false. And is it really right to describe Australia as "more capitalist" -- as we use the term in 2011 -- when it undeniably have an extensive social welfare state. Not many people would call that "capitalist" unless you mean they are trying to modify a classic capitalist system to save part of it.

"And is it really right to describe Australia as "more capitalist" -- as we use the term in 2011 -- when it undeniably have an extensive social welfare state."

OF COURSE it is... when we have numerous socialist properties as well, and per the sources that study it, we have more.

Australia is comparable to the U.S.?

It has a parliament, it has a Queen, it was originally inhabited by people who were deported to the country against their will, it is less than 10% of the population of the U.S., it is just about as far away as you can get from the United States geographically, voting is mandatory.

BTW, in the rankings, both the US and Australia are ranked relatively low for government size - so neither really has a case there, though US is listed as worse, but Australia is way above US in property rights.

swe has a total inability to admit to any flaw. this is just a blatant example.

swe throws out some throw away comment that australia is more capitalist than the us. then tries to obscure the issue with a list of countries with economic freedom (which btw the us does quite well on so why change us policies according to the list), then tries to obscure the issue with marxist socialist theory. then just sticks with historic socialism theory rather than modern, despite the fact that neither the us nor australia follow marxist theory.

swe, i actually have said any number of times on this board that i'm wrong. i don't recall a single time you've done so. and you're being a total jerk here. you know you're wrong.

SWE -- You are trying to say that a low unemployment rate is attributable to one factor. Just not that easy and you were wrong to suugest it is. If you have backed away from such a reductionist approach, fine, just do so and move on. Instead, you are insisting that Australia's lower unemployment rate stems from the alleged fact that it has less of a "safety net" than the US does. Your premise is demonstrably false.

MidtownerEast, you and Truth should gang up on swe.

> You are trying to say that a low unemployment rate is attributable to one factor

No, I'm not. There are a HUGE number of factors.

I was just trying to give a counterexample to socialists concept of socialism working.

> Instead, you are insisting that Australia's lower unemployment rate stems from the alleged fact that > it has less of a "safety net" than the US does

You asked if this was the case and I said no before, did you miss this?

"so you are just wrong if you are claiming that a lack of safety net explains their lower unemployment rate. "

> I'm not. I pointed to the economic freedom index, which has a multitude of factors.

So why do you keep asking if thats what I meant?

> swe has a total inability to admit to any flaw. this is just a blatant example.

Come on, AR, still waiting on you. You claimed you do it all the time, yet you continue to refuse... and keep talking about it.

Don't be a hypocrite, if you say folks should do it, do it yourself.

If you can't, then stop whining.

> swe throws out some throw away comment that australia is more capitalist than the us.

They are.

> then tries to obscure the issue with a list of countries with economic freedom

Yes, thats the capitalism index, genius!

Oh my lord, are you that dense?

> then tries to obscure the issue with marxist socialist theory.

Yes, I tried to "obscure" the argument about socialism with the ACTUAL DEFINITION of socialism.

Only in your world AR is giving the WRONG definition clarity.

Hillarious.

> then just sticks with historic socialism theory rather than modern

Its actually NOT the marxist definition, it the pre-marxist definition as well! Its the meaning of the term! And its STILL the definition. The definition you gave was of a completely different term!

Nice, try though. Oh my lord.

> despite the fact that neither the us nor australia follow marxist theory.

Red herring. You came up with marxist. Its the non-marxist definition as well!

> swe, i actually have said any number of times on this board that i'm wrong.

So have I.

but you started to brag about it.

> i don't recall a single time you've done so.

I don't recall one time you've done so either.

You have a perfect opportunity to do so now.... after YOU started asking for it.

Come on now, AR, don't be a hypocrite!

> and you're being a total jerk here.

EXCUSE ME?

You resorted to cursing and insults.

Take a good look at yourself already. You are a hypocrite.

no, you said the australians "have less of a safety net (ala socialism)."

prove it. and btw, i thought socialism meant property allocation. do you need a remedial economics class, perhaps?

i can't believe the ways in which you're wrong, swe. you're errors have errors.

your errors, not you're errors. tired.

Huntersburg -- That "Truth" crack is a low blow.

SWE -- If the very first thing out of your mouth (pen, I should say) in an argument is blatantly wrong, you lose a lot of credibility. And your bogus "economic freedom index" is no better. Why not consider the most plausible explanation? Those nations which ameliorate the nasty effects of capitalism -- Australia, Scandinavian countries, etc. -- have lower unemployment, happier people and more successful economies. Countries that try the uber-capitalist method -- see Ireland as a recent example -- fail.

"ass."
"you provided that garbage,"
"i can't believe how dumb your arguments have been here."
"i guess you can't read, swe"
"swe, sometimes you're just a total joke"
"stupid ass"
"and you're being a total jerk here."
- ar

Who was the jerk again?

i just love how long swe's posts get when he feels threatened.

"i just love how long swe's posts get when he feels threatened."

The post was long because you tried to insult me so many times.

"you're errors have errors."

ROTFL

>sorry for the source quality, and it's a few years old, but i'm in a hurry.
>I "am" deeply insulted -- sorry -- typing too fast.
>your errors, not you're errors. tired.

> And your bogus "economic freedom index" is no better.

What makes it bogus?

> Why not consider the most plausible explanation? Those nations which ameliorate the nasty effects of
> capitalism -- Australia, Scandinavian countries, etc.

The UK doesn't try to ameliorate the nasty effects of capitalism? France? Germany?

> -- have lower unemployment, happier people and more successful economies.

Lets also not forget that lower unemployment also comes from folks leaving the workforce. Which comes from the, yes, social net.

More successful economies, its up for debate.

How is Iceland doing these days?

> Countries that try the uber-capitalist method -- see Ireland as a recent example -- fail.

Thats a bad example. Ireland went through CRAZY growth. They just overdid it.

I wasn't aware they disappeared.

btw, one of the articles I scanned noted that 13% of Australian households don't have one working member. How many of those aren't even included in the unemployment rate.

That is something never brought up... what that number actually means.

>Countries that try the uber-capitalist method -- see Ireland as a recent example -- fail.

You mean countries without a long track record of free market capitalism aren't as stable and successful as countries with a long track record of capitalism? Should we be surprised?

so, swe, have you shown how australia doesn't have any socialistic tendencies?

and i'm sure i could go through and point out your nasty little comments. really. you're hardly the one to point fingers. you're quite dismissive. but nice attempt to redirect attention.

>sorry for the source quality, and it's a few years old, but i'm in a hurry.
>I "am" deeply insulted -- sorry -- typing too fast.
>your errors, not you're errors. tired.

"Sorry, toots."

> so, swe, have you shown how australia doesn't have any socialistic tendencies?

AR, are you changing the subject again?
I didn't say that, in fact I said the OPPOSITE.

So you going to admit you were wrong yet?

"You mean countries without a long track record of free market capitalism aren't as stable and successful as countries with a long track record of capitalism? Should we be surprised?"

Reminds me a bit of mutual fund performance bias. You don't include in the stats the countries that don't exist anymore... how does the growth stat look with the USSR?

SWE -- Hard to keep up as you are typing furiously and I am not as fast; I disagree with many of the things you say, but I certainly disagree that you point to a single factor -- ie which country is more or less capitalist -- to explain why a certain economy is succeeding. It is far more complex than that. But it simply does not work to claim, as you do, that a social welfare state stands in the way of success. That's just wrong.

poor wittle swe, he doesn't like the fight, even though he feels quite justified in ridiculing people weft and wite.

"What econ 101 lesson do you need next, AR?"

swe, i really am not interested in the fight any longer, but i'd love to see your proof that australia is more capitalistic and less socialistic than the us (and i'm sorry that economic freedom list doesn't do it for me).

"poor wittle swe, he doesn't like the fight, even though he feels quite justified in ridiculing people weft and wite."

Oh, the hypocrisy... you just described yourself to a T!

But, run away if you must. Your changing the subject 10X isn't working anymore.

I guess we'll have to wait forever for you to give the admittance of a mistake you've been asking of others....

>swe, i really am not interested in the fight any longer, but i'd love to see your proof

Not interested in the figut, but still wants to see proof. Interesting.

really? swe? really?

sad.

i've admitted a number of mistakes on this board. you, no.

you have been completely and utterly wrong on this. and i no longer care, because really, what does it matter? but don't tell me that i need an econ lesson, you need a poli-sci/econ lesson is you think you are remotely correct.

> I disagree with many of the things you say, but I certainly disagree that you point to a single
> factor

Midtowner, maybe you missed this the first 5X, but I am NOT trying to say its a single factor.

Just like above where I said "I'm not."

I noted that it is a "multitude of factors"

> -- ie which country is more or less capitalist -- to explain why a certain economy is succeeding.

Again, I didn't say that.

There are TONS of factors.

It was socialist who tried to make it that simple... and to prove that wrong, I only needed to give one counterexample.

OF COURSE I don't belive its just one factor... just like in the Ireland example I responded to.

> It is far more complex than that.

I agree.

If you read my responses to the last couple times you claimed otherwise, you'd see that.

OF COURSE there are a ton of factors, beyond capitalism.

> But it simply does not work to claim, as you do, that a social welfare state
> stands in the way of success.

I didn't. As I said over and over again, its about DEGREES.

> That's just wrong.

Good thing I didn't say it then.

Well, as long as you have admitted you are wrong, that works for me.

good night. and you're now grey. so don't bother responding.

>i've admitted a number of mistakes on this board. you, no.

You've said that about a half a dozen times.

> really? swe? really?

yes, really.

Still waiting.

> i've admitted a number of mistakes on this board. you, no.

Wrong again!

> and i no longer care, because really, what does it matter?

Obviously A LOT to you. You're still going.

> but don't tell me that i need an econ lesson,

then 1) don't make basic economics mistakes when trying to school others and 2) don't call others "stupid asses"

Your definition of socialism was purely wrong.

"Not interested in the figut, but still wants to see proof. Interesting."

Just like I said... hypocrisy.

> You've said that about a half a dozen times.

If he admits that he didn't actually admit his mistake, that would actually be an admittance of mistake.

;-)

Oh no, now I've gone cross-eyed.

Wbottom?

Huh? Now you are saying I'm Wbottom? Give it a rest and go back to misspelling words.

Give me 3 words that I've misspelled.

How about more than three syllables -- "homogenious."

Nope, syllables aren't words.

I don't need more misspellings when I have this gem:

"Yes, Australia, wonderful country too. Just on Tuesday one of our new junior associates explained why his parents moved from Australia to the United States a bit under 20 years ago because there was insufficient economic opportunity for them. But maybe that has changed in the intervening years, with all of the precious natural resources and of course everyone chasing real estate. In any case, his background won't be held against him at the firm because he doesn't even have a detectable accent."

Either you were joking, which merely confirms that you utterly unfunny or you were serious, which shows that you work at a firm where no one else should ever want to work.

>Either you were joking, which merely confirms that you utterly unfunny or

Is that a typo or a grammatical error?

There's that rapier wit, again. Keep your day job, you homogenious.

aboutready is trying to say that socialism stands for free markets and private property??? And she thinks she won this argument?

"swe, i actually have said any number of times on this board that i'm wrong. i don't recall a single time you've done so. and you're being a total jerk here. you know you're wrong."

ar, he's done this for quite a while on here. There's an almost pathological insecurity under there - he must appear to know everything about everything, infallibly. It's kind of impressive actually.