So the Congressional Research Service has released a study on tax rates and economic growth...

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ratbarf**

I'm using the term loosely to refer to any system that operates under the general premise of "from each according to means to each according to needs". In this case, all those employed pay into employment insurance, and those unemployed withdraw from it. Each person pays taxes into health care so that anyone in need may use that service. And everyone pays into a pension plan so that those who cannot work may withdraw from it.

"Socialism" is an economic status.
"Socialist policies" are policies which are inspired by socialism.

Just to be clear.

You sir, have obviously never been on employment insurance, or tried to get it. Employment insurance only saves up hours you worked and then gives them back to you when you lose your job. It's like a forced saving plan, not a real example of "From each to their ability to each for their need." I worked for about 4 months fulltime and didn't even qualify for EI, nor any other form of social welfare.

Not too mention our pension plan is going to bankrupt us sometime in the next 30 years under current levels of benefits and expected population aging.

Whembly, go to Alberta, you'll fit in. Don't go anywhere near Quebec or Ontario or BC unless you want to drown in either regulations or hippies.

**Ahtman**

Isn't "from each according to means to each according to needs" more of a reference to Communism than to socialism?

**sebster**

Ahtman wrote:
Isn't "from each according to means to each according to needs" more of a reference to Communism than to socialism?

Given its a quote from Karl Marx, then yeah, it really is all about communism and nothing at all to do with socialism.

But really the whole issue here is with people confusing an impure capitalist system, such as the US, with socialism or communism.

**Ratbarf**

GASP! You mean there's a difference???

**Frazzled**

sebster wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
You can be non-partisan but be political. Like social welfare organizations are supposed to be.

Sure, but you can't just claim it and look the other way whenever you see research that you don't like.

azazel the cat wrote:
What? Seriously?

Just to be sure here, when we say "Chicago School", we are both talking about the concentric zone model, right?

Nah, we're talking about a group of economists that rose up in the 1970s and gained prominence by rejecting classical keynesian economics and favouring policies built around monetarism and neo-liberalism. They had some noted early successes in developing the concept of rational expectations and pointing out flaws with existing keynesian models of the time, but have since rather badly failed to address the problems in their own models or correlate their models with economic performance. In particular the group has taken on a largely political, non-intellectual bent in dismissing New Keynesian models despite being unable to manage any meaningful criticisms of its concepts.

There's a pretty fair claim that the mishaps in the US economy from the late 80s up to and including the GFC are pretty directly the result of Chicago school concepts turned into policy - easy credit to fuel investment has instead just produced a series of speculative bubbles rather than sustained growth based on productivity improvements. Outside of the US the group is barely even considered (outside a brief but disastrous period in which they held control of IMF policy). Inside of the US the group is increasingly on the fringe of academic debate, but unfortunately many of their ideas still hold currency in political circles, particularly in the Republican party.

Milton Friedman is their most famous champion. Fraz comes in a close second, and will probably become their most treasured member once he figures out the Chicago School is called that because many of its most prominent members come from Chicago, not because it is literally a school in Chigaco.

Frazzled wrote:
Sebster, don't open your mail. Rahm Emmanual said he's sending you a "package." You don't have any favorite horses do you? Why am I asking? No reason...

Meanwhile, do you think the Freshwater School and the Saltwater School are all crocodiles? That the neo-classicals are all greek statues?

Evidently you don't know the difference between a group of economists and THE University of Chicago, one of the best universities in the world. Don't worry, those big guys talking out of the noses are just bringing you a chicago style pizza...