Hey Steve:

Cooperative federalism!!

Capitalism with heart, what a concept!!!!

GO JACK, GO STEPHEN!! Stick a fork in the LIEberals.

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at April 29, 2006 04:47 PM

---

Steve
What Jack has done, apparently without Harper or you noticing, is expose the fact that Harper got elected and only now is developing a plan. I guess he didn't really expect to get elected. Can there be another reason he has no plan regarding the environment?

Posted by: steve d. at April 29, 2006 09:33 PM

---

You've extrapolated a great deal from very little information, steve d. You must be some kinda genius or something... like Wile E. Coyote...

I can't speak for Prime Minister Harper but IMHO, it would not be logical to have fully prepared plan for environmental protection ready to go. At best, a framework plan would be prepared. It would make no sense to try to design a new environmental protection plan without reviewing the status of whatever plans (if any) the outgoing government had put in place and what (if any) surprises were waiting therein.

You see, the civil service goes about the business of providing government services whether the politicians are in Ottawa or not. The Liberal environment platform was dubious at best so I'm sure the Honourable Rona Ambrose wanted to know what she had in hand before she made changes.

I wonder why Jack & the Dippers addressed their queries to PMSH instead of the Minister responsible?

Posted by: Mac at April 29, 2006 10:32 PM

---

I wonder why Jack and Olivia didn't do more for the city of Toronto and its terrible pollution problem while they were city councillors?

Jack rode a bike....but he and Olivia also lived in rent-geared to income housing (which has a huge waiting list) while they were both pulling salaries as city councillors. Only when they were found out, did they actually move out, and leave a space for someone needier.

Can we deport Jack? Anywhere.....would anyone take him?

Posted by: RZ at April 29, 2006 11:09 PM

---

RZ...France probably would. :)

Posted by: Regis at April 30, 2006 12:07 AM

---

Jack is just accumulating at lot of material to use in the next election. Broken promises on accountability, open government, evironment(he won't do anything), no childcare, long waiting lists in health care, still fighting the Taliban, military costs still rising, oil too expensive, nothing done on funding post secondary education, etc. It should be fun. Its funny wingnuts want small government but Canadians want government to do something besides give up power to America and the Provinces. Canadians want a Federal Government with some ability to hold the country together so it doesn't go spinning off in 12 different directions. It looks like Harper has given the American military to operate freely. They take all the oil they can dredge up and their military gets carte blanche within Canada. They get to decide that if the price of softwood drops the tariff goes back up. Brilliant. So when does he give them our water???

Posted by: steve d. at April 30, 2006 01:39 AM

---

I'm sure you'd be happier with Dippers "Communism Lite" under Dapper Jack, steve d. Hopefully, the rest of us will never have to endure that nightmare.

Does the 'd' stand for "deluded" or "demented"?

Posted by: Mac at April 30, 2006 02:14 AM

---

Expect alot of softballs from the NDP leader. Layton wants to replace the Liberals on the left (fearing this, the Grits talk of "uniting the left) and he'll do whatever it takes to make them look bad. This will include attacking them at every turn, and even playing nice w/ the Tories.

Posted by: sean at April 30, 2006 02:53 AM

---

Jack will say whatever keeps him in business.

Posted by: John at April 30, 2006 05:31 AM

---

It's all part of the pretty obvious tag-team effort by Harper and Layton to, as Dipper Pat Martin said "remove the Liberals from the game board". One indication that this is working is when Ralph Goodale directs his attacks in question period at the NDP !

Posted by: Political Junkie at April 30, 2006 10:00 AM

---

I love how leftists scream for the government to do *something* about every percieved problem in their lives.

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.-- Barry Goldwater

Posted by: Regis at April 30, 2006 01:04 PM

---

Mac
It's perfectly okay to endure Bush Lite but not so good to endure Jack. Perhaps the longer Harper is in the better Jack will look. Harper has already shown he is better at making promises than keeping them.

Regis
They've got little government in Iraq is that what you long for? Perhaps corporate governance like they have in the U.S.A. is better? How much has oil gone up since Oil took over the White House, 500%? I think that is about right.

Posted by: steve d. at April 30, 2006 03:03 PM

---

CPC has no plan? It is Bob Mills and the CPC that have the only plan re a made in Canada Kyoto plan--the Lib/NDP only have spin. We see what the Lib plan has gotten us--33% more emissions since they signed the Kyoto Protocol.
Jack is a non-entity--he is only bashing the Liberals to stand up against Buzzsaw Hargrove. The NDP are as dangerous for Canada as were the Liberals. There is a reason that Layton and Lenin look so much alike--they are cut from the same cloth.

Posted by: George at April 30, 2006 03:38 PM

---

steve d,

Continuing to pull feelings out of your ass and call them facts?
I worked on the Conservative campaign and believe me they have an environmental plan dealing with all emissions, not just C02. The Liberal plan? The socialist money transfer scheme called Kyoto - never signed in the all the years of being in power. Meanwhile, it was a Conservative that was just named Canada's greenest PM, no?

Jack Layton: Criminally sucking up public housing despite he and his wife being paid good sized municipal salaries. Or what about the medical care he paid for at the Sholdice (sic) Clinic? He's a typical socialist hypocrit and liar, as you all are.

And who are you and your 2 seat party to speak for 'most' Canadians?

Now lets get to Harper. Bush lite? Wow, that's real creative ain't it? Now let's rethink that statement, clear the cobwebs and ask yourself - in all reality, how could that be? And what promises has he not kept? Name one.

I'm glad most Canadians don't subscribe to your communist dementia. And I like the fact you post a lot. The more you post the more people will be turned off the NDP and your contaminated and toxic ilk.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at April 30, 2006 04:49 PM

---

What I long for is government closer to the size of 19th Century USA.

Oil has gone up 500% since 1998. "Big Oil" took over the last two years of Clinton? Wow. Just ignore the fact that prices were lower at that time than any period since 1920. Just ignore the fact that demand has skyrocketed because China's economy has grown more than 60% since then. And India by ~40% and the US by 20%. Just ignore the fact that much of the oil produced in the world is under the control of a cartel called OPEC and not "big business". Nope, that has nothing to do with it at all. You can also ignore the fact that, adjusted for inflation, gas prices are 20% lower NOW than they were in 1981. I guess adjusting for inflation never occurred to you.

Must be nice to be able to ignore facts and reach any conclusion you feel is right. Until reality reaches up and smacks you right in the face, of course.

Posted by: Regis at April 30, 2006 05:29 PM

---

irwin daisy
I can't believe you don't see the folly in offering a public transit user $16 a month and expecting even a single driver to stop driving his car to work. Seriously, $16 a month will be great for the working poor who need every break they can get, but other than that it is a waste of time. It is especially pathetic when you consider this tiny tax break will end up costing a billion dollars a year. That money could have made a real impact on public transit. Instead it is going to be pissed away in dribs and drabs by individuals most of whom will barely notice. A similar criticism can be made of his child care handouts. Conservatives sure are hypocritical when it comes to nanny state issues. They rail against nanny state policies--until they get a chance at governing, then its give a little to this group, give a little to that group--hypocritical by just a little? I think so.

Liars? Yes. Too bad. What has it been four months and the jury is in.
Item: Harper said he was going to make government accountable and open.
Fact: His accountability bill does not cover his government. Everybody will be accountable except Harper and his gang!! Does that add up to accountability?? Even a child can see that this is a joke. Accountability was the single biggest issue for Harper and he has failed to deliver big time.
Item: Another big issue was open government, no more secrecy.
Fact: Harper has closed government. It is turning out to be the most secretive government in history.
When you do the opposite of what you said you were going to do that makes you by definition a lying hypocrit. Like I said, Bush lite.

BTW: I am not owned by a party. That way I can see a little more clearly. Some people are such party hacks they have lost all objectivity. I get my philosophy from the New Testament. Remember,Jesus was a champion of the underdog, the little guy, the working man.

Posted by: steve d. at April 30, 2006 08:07 PM

---

**Careful what you wish for.**

Before we get too happy clapping our hands around the campfire with the damage the [crafty] NDP is inflicting upon the Liberal party, remember, it is not in our interest that the liberals be fully off the map .

Who then to dilute the NDP vote next election? The Greens? Greens are better than liberals, but they are too far behind their European numbers in Canada just now.

When the Green Party gets a one third standing, then we can forget about the Fiberal liberal party completely. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at April 30, 2006 08:21 PM

---

Regis
Sorry, but the fact is that the people weren't upset when Clinton was president. There was no problem with incessantly increasing oil prices. If you are saying "the decider" is a victim you won't be able to convince me or Americans. When Bush decided to go in to Iraq oil prices were bound to go up. The quagmire that he finds himself in along with his lack of political capital left to deal with Iran ensures that prices will continue to go up.
If you didn't notice that Big American oil is benefitting hugely, with record profits, because of the oil situation then you must be a space man or something because those of us here on earth think that their profits are obscene and are headed in the direction of being ultra obscene.
Don't be naive and blame third world economies. The oil companies reduced their capacity to produce oil by half so that this situation would occur. It reminds me of how the executives at Enron were laughing as they manipulated the energy market to earn windfall profits in the 1990's. It's the same play with different actors.

Posted by: steve d. at April 30, 2006 08:31 PM

---

Steve_d, I should know better than to respond, as your arguments are too easily refuted.

Ridgid liberals, [that*s you],wear the most frustrating blinders.

It was your friend Paul Martin who put a clamp of secrecy on 6,000 plus government munions.

The normal term for secrecy in war or emergency condition is from 20 to 50 years. IE: Recent unsealing of WWII documents.

A Lifetime ban means the Liberals NEVER want the public to review their executive actions.

Harper has no choice but to have some cover in the beginning months if they are to get anything done.

The MSM is still sniping at Harper and the CPC. The government is still full of treasonous agents like Ethics [cough!!], commissioner Shapiro, who would plant the dagger if it could be done covertly.

Stay alert though, Steve_d. While you may have missed the diversion of 10 $Billion plus by the liberal party, [Yes, Billions with a *B*, a figure undisputed on a national NDP [your friends], brochure]. The NDP & Jack would have been sued to bankruptcy if the figure was one penny over.

Let me know when you smell 10$billions of our money being diverted by Harper, OK?

Not to be mean to you Steve_d, but you have to get closer to the truth so that you are not such a tempting target. TG
[Truth: see, New Testament.]

[C*mon, lighten up, I*m just kidding.]

Posted by: TonyGuitar at April 30, 2006 08:58 PM

---

Steve_d, Oil prices. You could move and live in Venezuala with Hugo, but if all countries provided gas at the pumps for 14 cents a litre, there is a big black canyon at the edge of the cliff about four or five years out where all machienery stops and the lights go out.

Besides Hugo has a habit of exterminating thousands who seem like a problem to him.

Five years from now, you could seem like part of Hugo*s problem. Ooooh, no thanks, I*ll stay here and pay a dollar plus per litre. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at April 30, 2006 09:13 PM

---

Refineries cost from 5 $Billion to 15 $Billion and up.

Refineries were damaged by Katrina and they are THE prime target for Jihadists.

Do you think Exxon should steal thousands of Granny pensions like Enron and Conrad Black did, to pay for refineries?

At 14 cents a litre, where is Hugo going to find that kind of money?

Don't be a grasshopper Steve_d. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at April 30, 2006 09:24 PM

---

TonyGuitar
My point with Harper is that he got elected ranting on, and on, and on, and on, about accountability and open government. Harper was like a broken record on the issues. It is why the Liberals were defeated. Then Harper does precisly the opposite of what he said he would do!!! Paul Martin NEVER got elected, or ran, on that line but Harper did, in spades. I guess you didn't speak to my point because really what defense is there? So you gotta change the subject to Lieberals except now its CON-servatives too because the Canadian people were conned into electing what is turning out to be a lying hypocrit.
Chavez sells gasoline at 14 cents for his own people because it is their resource, not the oil companys. He sells it to most other countries at world prices so he can afford to sell it to the people that own it at cost. Sounds fair to me. I heard an oil analyst say they take Alberta oil out of the ground for $1.15 a barrel! Chavez would say that Alberta oil belongs to Canadians. Why should Canadians pay world prices for something they own? No Canadians are no different than any other person in the world who buys Canadian oil. So what does "free market" mean? Well, if you look at what the oil companies take it out of the ground for and what they sell it for then you begin to get who it is "free" for.

Refineries can be paid for with six months PROFIT. Out of the 5-15 billion, how much do the oil companies actually pay?? I mean every dime they spend is a tax write off. No doubt they will be given land and infrastructure at no cost, to help the struggling oil companies pay the cost. Then they can have generous write downs on taxes too.
Really, think about it Tony.

Posted by: steve d. at April 30, 2006 10:09 PM

---

You think profits are obscene. I think taxes are obscene. Lets compare, shall we? The Federal gas tax here in the US is 18.5 cents per gallon. State gas taxes average 20 cents a gallon. Plus sales taxes on top of those if your state/county/city/all of the above has one. That's more than 2x per gallon in taxes than what the oil companies make in profit.

Lets do some math. As a Marxist I can tell it isn't your strong suit, but I'll keep it simple. Use the windows calculator to keep up and check my numbers.

It doesn't take a large amount of profit per dollar of sales to make billions of dollars in profit if you sell 322 Billion gallons of gas a year like our oil companies do (combined). The US currently uses over 21 million barrels of oil per day. There are 42 gallons in one barrel of oil. Multiply 21,000,000 x 42 x 365.25 and you get: 322,150,500,000.

At six cents of profit per dollar of sales (Gallons per year x $3 x 0.06) you come out to $57.98 Billion dollars. Exxon-Mobil, by far the largest oil company in the country made 36 Billion dollars in profit all of last year. Looks about right to me.

By comparison Americans paid 122.4 Billion in gas taxes alone (without sales taxes). (322,150,500,000 gallons x .385 cents per gallon in taxes) Are we getting gouged? Of course you we are. But its not by the oil companies. Its by the government.

PS Don't forget the income tax the company's employees pay, or the corporate taxes they pay too. Or the sales tax on the gas that I didn't include. Governments sure know how to gouge productive companies, don't they my little Marxist friend?

Posted by: Regis at April 30, 2006 10:51 PM

---

I heard an oil analyst say they take Alberta oil out of the ground for $1.15 a barrel!

$1.15 a barrel! Whatever you're smoking must be really really good. Alberta's oil is more expensive than conventional oil to produce since it comes from tar sands. It costs about 2x more to produce than a barrel of conventional oil. Last I checked that meant $40 a barrel.

Posted by: Regis at April 30, 2006 11:01 PM

---

Seriously, $16 a month will be great for the working poor who need every break they can get, but other than that it is a waste of time. It is especially pathetic when you consider this tiny tax break will end up costing a billion dollars a year.

So if it's such a tiny tax break, how will it end up costing a billion dollars a year?

BTW: I am not owned by a party. That way I can see a little more clearly.

Too bad I was sipping when I read this. I had to clean my keyboard & screen. Hilarious!! You've truly mastered satire... no, wait... you're serious. That's even funnier!!

Posted by: Mac at May 1, 2006 01:12 AM

---

Steve_d, Any economist would chuckle at you pulling out a calculator to solve policy and political complexities.

The US and Canadian deficits run into $trillions. Fossil resources are infinate and are far more valuable as plastic containers than as a burned fuel.

The taxes on automotive gas and diesel are the wisest and most fair of all taxes. Don*t use and you don*t pay, yet you reap all the good things taxes pay for.

Those revenues are required for North America to run. Those taxes reduce consumption and waste and give incentive for fuel economy,[the hybrid to start with] and incentive to develope alternate sources. [Super Panels=electric cars].

Giving away gas and diesel at 14 cents ignores the future and guarantees a brown-out and a market crash.

14 cent gas saddles kids and their kids with with impossible debt loads. I have a conscience, how about you?

Don*t be a grasshopper or we*ll all freeze to death in the dark. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at May 1, 2006 01:24 AM

---

PS. This kind of fun though Steve_d. 73s TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at May 1, 2006 01:27 AM

---

PS. This is kind of fun though Steve_d. 73s TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at May 1, 2006 01:27 AM

---

Steve D has lost another debate and has moved on to the next one.

Why bother?
enough

Posted by: enough at May 1, 2006 08:53 AM

---

Gentlemen
It is simple and simplistic to count only profits as income. The corporations which run government have had their way with the tax system and have so many write-offs, write-downs and deferrals that profits become a meaningless indicator of where they are st financially.
I had a small taste of it in my little world. I rented out a property, and while I will tell you I thought I was receiving a fair rate of return it turns out that when I did my taxes that the government owed me!!! I showed no profit on paper because of write-offs and write-downs, all legal thanks to the businessmen before me who set up the tax system to make it all possible. So gentlemen lets not be naive to think there isn't a lot of money being used just the way the companies want, all tax free.

Posted by: steve d. at May 1, 2006 02:18 PM

---

Ever notice how steve d ignores direct questions which he can't answer without puncturing his bubble of warped ideology? As long as he's safely engaged in debates of philosophical nature, he's got so much to say but as soon as the topic gets "grounded" by common sense, steve d moves quickly onto something else. Like Wile E. Coyote, his genius ideas work great on paper but the translation into the real world keeps dropping the anvil on his own head.

Posted by: Mac at May 1, 2006 03:37 PM

---

I see it Mac. First the profits are obscene...then its the "tax breaks" and write offs the companies get that are so obscene. Only he doesn't give us any examples to compare. I would say, though, his debates aren't really philosophical so much as arguments from emotional rationalizations.

Rationalizing is coming to a conclusion before you look at the facts and attempting to justify your choice. Compound that process with a strident evasion of facts and belief in sociological garbage like class warfare. Just thinking about it is disturbing.

That differs quite substantially from reasoning from facts.

When personal judgement is inoperative (or forbidden), men's first concern is not how to choose, but how to justify their choice.-- Ayn Rand

BTW, I love that Wile E Coyote comment. :)

Posted by: Regis at May 1, 2006 06:53 PM

---

Regis
When personal judgement is inoperative(Yep, I learned how to put my judgement asleep from the master, G.W."Fix the Facts" Bush. Or forbidden,Yep, that I just learned last month from Steve "Zip It" Harper. I love this Randie Aynie stuff. This last part is OWNED by Bushie,"men's first concern is not how to choose,but how to justify their choice" Wow! Bush didn't have any trouble deciding to take out Iraq, his biggest concern was trying to figure out how to justify it. Right on, Aynie!

Posted by: steve d. at May 1, 2006 10:02 PM

---

So it's not just me who sees this, Regis.

Good work, steve d, but you're getting predictable. If all else fails, launch an all-out anti-Bush rant, draw flawed comparisons with Harper and then ramble incoherently... like you just did.

Posted by: Mac at May 1, 2006 10:20 PM

---

Mac
You are right, Bush is too easy. But he is soo flawed he is irresistable. Its not just me, its everybody! As I am writing this Jay Leno is telling one Bush joke after the other! There has never been such a president as this! Its only fair though. He uses Iraqis and his troops as fodder to satisfy his power lust. So its only fair that we use him for joke fodder.

Posted by: steve d. at May 1, 2006 10:45 PM

---

I love it. :) So you don't like Ayn Rand. Doesn't suprise me one bit. People who use reason are a threat to your beloved ideology and its thoroughly debunked theories. How about Thomas Sowell?

It is bad enough that so many people believe things without any evidence. What is worse is that some people have no conception of evidence and regard facts as just someone else's opinion.-- Thomas Sowell

Still waiting for any scrap of evidence that shows Socialism is working.

The 6 year long worldwide "Progressive" fallback position: If all else fails (and it usually does) blame Bush!

You can make Bush jokes all you want. He's not a very good president. He is, however, better than any leftist nutjob out there.

Posted by: Regis at May 1, 2006 11:06 PM

---

Regis
That Sowell quote is another perfect Bush descriptor, "believing things without evidence", thats our Bushie. "no conception of evidence" again,Bush. Its uncanny the way you nail these perfect Bush descriptions.

Socialism works well at humanizing capitalism. Lots of examples of that. Temporarily of course, until the American foreign policy cleans em up. When they finish with the middle east they will have to go back, again, to South America and re-privatize their natural resources,after overthrowing those socialist governments, who had the audacity to nationalize. Ah yes, Capitalism is irresistible when coupled with military might,the CIA and all that bribe money. In a free world socialism might have a chance, but, alas, the reality is we must wait until the new Rome crumbles from the inside.

Posted by: steve d. at May 1, 2006 11:28 PM

---

Since you mentioned the New Testiment thing, steve d...

"Liberals hate religion because politics is a religion substitute for liberals and they can't stand the competition." ~Ann Coulter

And I can't resist this one...

"If it were true that conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, stupid, inflexible, angry, and self-righteous, shouldn't their arguments be easy to deconstruct? Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument. So why can't the argument itself be dismembered rather than the speaker's personal style or hidden motives? Why the evasions?" ~ Ann Coulter

Posted by: Mac at May 2, 2006 12:13 AM

---

lol! Give Socialism a chance! That's a good one. I bet you sit in your room crying for the good old days when the USSR stood up to us "evil" American capitalists.

Damn I love this country. Its far from perfect, but still the best one on earth. Our success continues to rub salt in your gaping wounds. First during the Cold War and now as your beloved European and Swedish "Social Models" fall farther and farther behind.

May we forever be the beacon that shines the light of truth on your degenerate socialist dreams.

Posted by: Regis at May 2, 2006 12:23 AM

---

the "social models" are falling behind? how so? according to the United Nations 2005 Human Development Index (HDI), Norway and Iceland, both countries that have adopted the so called European social model are ranked 1 and 2. Sweden is 6th, right behind Canada. The US is 10th. http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_HDI.pdf

According to Reporters without borders, many of these European social model countries are tied for first in terms of freedom of press. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders

Iceland, for example, even ranks higher than the US in terms of economic freedom, as does Denmark. Both of which, as it happens, fall into this European social model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

Now, to be clear, i'm not saying this as an attack on the US, or capitalism at all. I'm not even saying give socialism a chance. I just disagree with your statement about how these countries are falling further and further behind. In fact, I see no evidence of this whatsoever.

Posted by: Matticus at May 2, 2006 05:06 AM

---

Matticus,

"In fact, I see no evidence of this whatsoever."

Well, what can I say, you're absolutely right. When your source is Wikipedia, you won't see any evidence, let alone facts.

And what is the 'UN's Human Development Index' measuring? Let me guess. Who is more socialist? Who has higher taxes? Who has more welfare recipients? Who has more muslims?

And the UN? You're not quoting from the same organisation that has appointed Libya and Syria to the Human Rights commission are you? The same organisation that has made Iran a watchdog on nuclear proliferation? The oil for food scandalistas? That UN?

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at May 2, 2006 01:54 PM

---

Matticus, what I said was all about economic growth. That's what matters most to me, because that's how progress in almost every other area is made.

The Heitage study is good, but the factors are incorrectly weighted IMO. Government intervention is far more harmful to economic growth than debt. Debt is only harmful past a certain point. Whether that would put the US higher than Denmark and/or Iceland is debatable. Furthermore, Denmark and Iceland are the two nordic countries that have moved furthest away from socialist "Nordic Model" policies. I expect them to fall behind considerably less over time relative to the other countries of Europe who have not made free market reforms.

See Here for a discussion of that:
http://www.nzbr.org.nz/documents/perspectives/perspectives-2006/issue75.pdf

The HDI study makes some ridiculous assumptions about public spending on education and the like that, IMO, cause a bit of skewing. Higher spending equals a better score. That's a flawed assumption. The US probably also gets hurt by massive legal and illegal immigration of poor non-english speakers. Though I don't know that for a fact.

Now that those things are out of the way, let me reiterate that when I said "falling behind" I meant economically. Here are some of my sources.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040425-102740-9436r.htm

Does the Swedish model work as advertised? According to a new paper by the highly regarded Swedish economist, Nils Karlson, the "model has become quite different from what was intended and to what many people still believe to be the case."
The extent of the failure of the Swedish model are both shocking and little known. For example, no new net jobs have been produced in the Swedish private sector since 1950. (By contrast, the U.S. created more than 60 million new private-sector jobs during the same period, from 52 million in 1950 to about 115 million in 2002.) "None of top 50 companies on the Stockholm stock exchange has been started since 1970."
Again, contrast this with the U.S. where many of our biggest companies had not been born or known of in 1970, such as Microsoft, Intel, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Cisco, etc., Mr. Karlson's litany of failures of the Swedish model include: "Sweden has dropped from fourth to 14th place in 2002 among the OECD countries (i.e., affluent industrialized countries) in terms of GDP per capita since 1970."
In addition, "well over 1 million people out of a work force of around four million did not work in 2003 but lived on various kinds of public welfare programs, such as, pre-pension schemes, unemployment benefits, sick-leave programs, etc." Finally, "a majority of the adult population are either employed by the state or clients of the state in a sense that they have a majority of the income coming from public subsidies."

Here is the paper itself: http://swopec.hhs.se/ratioi/abs/ratioi0034.htm

http://www.demographia.com/db-ppp60+.htm
Notice the decline in income relative to the US, particularly since 1980. Norway is the only country closing the gap. The Heritage Foundation report you cited had this to say about that:

Norwegians enjoy high living standards because of the wealth derived from the oil industry. The country's large welfare state provides many welfare programs that are subsidized by high taxes and oil revenues.

You don't even want to compare France and Germany...or the last 2 1/2 years with a booming American economy.

Here's what the blogger where I found the first link said: I'm willing to take the Swedish model seriously. I've been to Stockholm several times and loved it. That being said, how attractive will this model remain when it offers only half of the per capita income of the United States?

That might not take as long as you think at this rate.

Posted by: Regis at May 2, 2006 02:33 PM

---

Regis
If economic growth was all that mattered to you then you would have to agree that China is kicking ass. Yes, China is a model of socialism controlling capitalism, thats why its kicking American ass in, YOUR most important area, economic growth.
Several other countries mentioned by Matticus also compare quite well in economic growth when you consider only a portion of Americans are benefiting from this growth, whereas, these other countries would rather sacrifice a little growth in order to bring everybody along for the economic benefits.

Posted by: steve d. at May 2, 2006 07:18 PM

---

Steve, percentage wise, yes China did increase faster than the US last year. (9.3% vs 3.5%). But once again you have to look at the whole picture. The US added 800 Billion to its economy in that one year. The entire Chinese economy is 1.8 Trillion. So what does that mean they added? 17 Billion. Its way easier to increase by 10% when you've got 7 times less. Its not an accurate comparison to throw any developing country up against an already developed one.

Lets see them 10% growth in 30 years and I might agree with you. But it won't happen. Growth rates naturally slow down as an economy gets larger until it reaches a sustainable pace.

I think its more like Socialist policies leeching off of capitalism's increasing prosperity rather than socialism controlling capitalism. Guess what, the Chinese think it too and will tell you that.

A new poll conducted in 20 countries around the world made a striking finding: The country with the highest level of support for free-market capitalism is communist China, while the part of the world most critical of it is Latin America. Furthermore, contrary to daily claims by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and Cuba's dictator Fidel Castro that world capitalism is on its death throes, the opposite seems to be taking place.

The poll of nearly 21,000 conducted by GlobeScan, a firm that does much of its work for the BBC, and by the Program of International Policy Attitudes of the University of Maryland, asked respondents around the world whether they agree with the statement that ``the free market economy is the best system.''

A record 74 percent of those polled in China said yes, followed by 73 percent in the Philippines, 71 percent in the United States, 70 percent in India and South Korea, 66 percent in Great Britain and Nigeria, 65 percent in Germany and 63 percent in Poland.

Together, the pro-free-trade countries listed in the poll account for about 70 percent of the world population and for the bulk of its economic output. They also happen to be the ones with the most dramatic successes in the reduction of poverty. Since China started its opening to the world in the late 1970s, world poverty has been reduced by nearly half, according to World Bank figures.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/andres_oppenheimer/13792741.htm

PS Europe has been sacraficing growth for 30 years now. Here's a little tidbit of truth: Economic growth compounds like interest. Little sacrafices over long periods of time add up. If they keep doing it long enough some average income Europeans might start wishing they were poor Americans.

Posted by: Regis at May 2, 2006 10:56 PM

---

Regis
I think upon close inspection the "leeching" that you speak of is compared to the "preying" that goes on when capitalism hooks up with the foreign policy and indeed dominates the foreign policy aims of America.

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country. "
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd US president 1801-1809

We all know what has happened since Jefferson. As Ralph Nader said."Corporations have taken over the government and turned it against its own people". I would add corporations are leading the CIA and military into every corner of the world. Economic domination and control is the goal at the expense of local control. Capitalism is predatory in the worst sense of the word. Iraq is only the latest example. Iran was a democracy in 1952. Then they decided to nationalize their own oil industry. the USA overturned the democratic government and installed the Shah, who of course, allowed US corporations to continue their free reign on Irans oil. A few decades later he was overthrown by Mullah's and they have been in charge ever since. It is ironic and pathetic that the first democracy in the Middle East was taken out by America. They now are reaping what they sowed. As they will continue to do as long as they are a predatory empire.

Posted by: steve d. at May 3, 2006 04:06 PM

---