(no title)
aminok | 9 years ago
It doesn't really matter how you define it. What matters is that they have not improved much from the position they were at when they adopted social democracy, and the reason is because their rate of economic growth has stagnated.
The way to measure the success of a policy is to see how much a country has improved from the position it was at when it adopted the policy relative to other countries.
>And since you like statistics so much, population growth,
Gee why would anyone base their views on large-scale phenomena on statistical evidence!? Why don't I just base my ideas on what's culturally popular and which notions give me warming feelings!?
>If the population stagnates, then of course you expect growth to stagnate.
You're taking an amateur approach to this, in missing all sorts of facts to arrive at your predetermined conclusion. The fact is that per capita GDP growth has slowed, not just GDP growth. Moreover, wage growth has slowed, and wages are a per-capita measure.
>Likewise this crazy expectation that human lifespans just linearly expand with improved circumstances
There's no indication that it's a "crazy expectation". The point I was making is that there is no evidence that social democracy has actually made anything better in the countries where it has been adopted. The trends in place before the adoption of social democracy were superior to the trends that came into effect after its adoption. So there is no objective evidence to support your ideological inclinations.
>but what would you expect when you're citing data from a source whose raison d'etre is specifically promoting the free market?
There's absolutely no evidence that the source's raison d'etre is to promote the free market. It's entirely possible that they want to further public welfare, and have concluded, based on empirical evidence, that the free market is the best way to do that.
>But I will leave you with this: economic growth isn't everything. That's the point of quality-of-life measures. People have a high quality of life in Sweden. Whereas China has recently had a rapidly-growing economy, and life sucks there.
More bullshit logic indicative of an amateur approach to economics and society.
China is still extremely poor relative to the West. But people in China are FAR better off now than they were 30 years ago, and that's primarily down to the massive economic development the country has experienced. Wages growing by a factor of 4-5X is hugely important to quality of life.
vacri|9 years ago
'number of humans' is a statistical measure, not a huggy feeling, you dolt. You are the living definition of selection bias. And for proof:
> There's absolutely no evidence that the source's raison d'etre is to promote the free market.
https://iea.org.uk/about-us - they explicitly say it themselves.
Stop calling other people amateurs and bubble-dwellers; you're in no fit state to make such accusations.