[extropy-chat] Europe vs America (was Depressing thought....)

[randy]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:51:31 -0600, I wrote

<snipped>


This essay pretty much says it all:

 
undefined 
 
 
undefined 
More... 
 
 
ADVERTISEMENT
 
 
[Close] 
 
Social Democracy Inevitable
by Enya Hastings  ©  2003

Home: http://www.geocities.com/kew1788/

 


            Social Democracy is the reason why Scandinavian nations
enjoy the highest quality of life in the world.  Social Democracy is a
blend of socialism and capitalism, not as extreme as the failed
communism of the Soviet Union, nor as extreme as the laissez-faire
capitalism of America, which perpetuates numerous social problems.  By
blending capitalist mechanisms with socialist policy, Social Democrats
have developed a socioeconomic system which may be considered superior
to all the other economies in the new century.  



Social Democracy is designed not to maximize profit, but to provide
high quality of life. 

[COMMENT: THAT IS THE MOST TELLING SENTENCE IN THIS ESSAY, AND TRUER
WORDS HAVE NEVER BEEN SPOKEN. FURTHER, I SUBMIT THAT PROFIT-DRIVEN
SCIENCE RESEARCH DOES NOT NECESSARILY OBTAIN GREATER BENEFITS THAT
STATE-SPONSORED RESEARCH.  I STATED THAT ON THIS LIST YEARS AGO DURING
THE HEIGHT OF THE BUBBLE, AND HOPEFULLY SOME PEOPLE HERE ARE STARTING
TO SEE THE TRUTH OF THAT]


 Ultimately, the only true measure of wealth is high quality of life.

[COMMENT: THIS SHOULD BE OBVIOUS.....]

Because Social Democracy allows the greatest number of citizens to
enjoy high quality of life, Social Democracy may be the inevitable
paradigm for all nations.  

 

 

The Rising Tide of European Social Democracy
 

            Many Americans are woefully ignorant and do not realize
that Social Democracy already dominates the European Union.  Many
Americans were puzzled when Europe refused to back G. W. Bush’s
conquest of Iraq—But Social Democrats had swept elections throughout
Western Europe, so it is not surprising that Bush found no support
among them—Social Democrats don’t believe in war, conquest, invasion
or imperialism.   

 

After two centuries of laissez faire capitalism, many Americans cannot
even imagine Social Democracy.  They are dumbfounded when they learn
that Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Germany, France,
Spain, Italy, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Brazil, Venezuela, and
most of South America are now Social Democracies.  The USA is the last
dinosaur of laissez faire capitalism, a system proven intolerable to
the public everywhere else in the world.  Compared to the great social
progress being made throughout the world today, Americans once proud
of social progress are now the world’s most backward
anti-progressives.     

 

Andrew Glyn describes this Social Democratic sweep of Western European
governments in SOCIAL DEMOCRACY IN NEO-LIBERAL TIMES:  “At the turn of
the century more parties of the Left were in government in advanced
capitalist countries than ever before, including for the first time
ever, those of the four largest West European countries.”  [1]

 

<snip> 

 

The Swedish Model
 

            Consider Sweden, one of the most successful of all
industrialized nations.  Both Sweden’s social services and the quality
of life enjoyed by Swedish citizens are substantially better than the
social services and quality of life of Americans.  The secret of
Sweden’s success:  It is a Social Democracy—a quasi-socialist nation,
based on the concept that the whole nation is “folkhemmet”—“the
people’s home.” [3]

            

            Sweden takes excellent care of its citizens.  One
significant factor in the concept of “folkhemmet” is that Sweden is
relatively homogenous—over 90% of the population belong to the
Scandinavian racial group.  The Swedish treat each other as family
perhaps because their genetic kinship with each other is relatively
close.  

                        

            By comparison, America consists of many diverse racial
groups.  America is the largest immigrant importer in the world, and
various races, cultures, and income groups frequently conflict with
each other in socioeconomic antagonism—This may be one reason why
Sweden developed the concept of “folkhemmet” while America did not—at
least not yet.  

 

            Many of the benefits of Social Democracy are sorely
lacking in America, where a poor person has little chance of being
able to afford college tuition to improve his earning potential, and
he can die of a broken leg if he has no insurance.  America insists on
laissez faire capitalism and refuses reforms, and as a result, America
has the highest crime rate, the largest prison population, the largest
homeless population, the worst drug abuse, the worst public transit,
the worst health insurance, the most expensive healthcare, the most
expensive housing, and the most expensive college tuition of any
industrialized nation.  While hundreds of American multimillionaires
have more money than they would know how to spend in a dozen
lifetimes, quality of life for one hundred million poor people in
America resembles the quality of life of a Third World peasant, among
the lowest in the world.  [4]  

 

            Sweden offers all of its citizens universal healthcare
insurance, affordable college tuition, excellent public transit,
strong labor rights, long vacations, strong social security, a good
job market, good housing, extremely low poverty, drug abuse and crime
rates, and virtually no homelessness.  The Swedish also fund an
effective environmental protection agency, a substantial national park
system, recycling and alternative energy programs, and they still have
money left over to fund nonprofit relief agencies throughout the
developing world.  On a per capita basis Sweden gives more money and
aid to the developing world than Americans contribute.  The Swedish
also enjoy the highest education and literacy levels, and in general,
the highest quality of life among industrialized nations. [5]

 

<snip> 


            All Swedish citizens enjoy excellent universal national
healthcare insurance—and an excellent national healthcare system.
Over 75% of women work, and enjoy generous daycare benefits for
children.  Parents enjoy 12 months paid leave from their jobs, taken
just a few days at a time as needed, for up to an eight-year period.
The government also awards substantial child allowances.  Daycare for
children is subsidized and socialized into a comprehensive system of
babysitting, schooling, and extracurricular activities similar to the
Israeli Kibbutz system. [7]

 

Sweden enjoys a strong progressive tax for the rich, which allows less
wealthy workers to keep more of their money.  In addition to
government unemployment insurance, unemployed workers also receive
unemployment funds and retraining courses offered by their own labor
unions.  While unemployment benefits are thought by critics to
encourage the unemployed to remain on the dole, the benefits have time
limits, forcing the unemployed back into the workforce.  When moving
to a new city to seek a new job, a citizen receives a government
relocation grant to help with moving expenses.  The standard Swedish
vacation benefit is five weeks paid vacation every year, compared to
an American standard of only two weeks. [8]

 

            The population of Sweden is about 9 million, and is
enjoying Zero Population Growth and realizing its basic benefit:
Lower population means higher Gross Domestic Product per Capita.  As
population decreases, each citizen’s share of wealth increases.
Sweden and Northern Europe stand today as examples that a falling
birthrate improves quality of life.  In Northern Europe a new ethic is
emerging:  Stop at two children per family—lower population means
higher GDP per Capita. [9]

 
<snip> 
 

In SOCIAL DEMOCRACY IN NEO-LIBERAL TIMES, Juhana Vartiainen points out
that Swedish Social Democracy is the result not of central government,
but a series of solutions offered by many cooperative sectors
including unions, government and the private business community. [12]
Vartiainen continues: “The main goals of the Swedish trade union
movement have been associated with  (I) full employment, (II)
technical progress, (III) an egalitarian distribution of wage income,
(IV) an active labour-market policy, and (V) collective capital
formation.”  80-90% of workers in Sweden are unionized.  To gain power
initially, labor unions went on crippling strikes numerous times in
the 1930’s.  The Basic Agreement of Saltsjobaden of 1938 conceded
worker rights in exchange for union agreement to stop striking.  In
the 1950’s the unions in exchange for full employment agreed that
wages should be capped by the unions to prevent wage inflation.  This
became the Rehn-Meidner Model of Wage Standards.  [13]

 

With wages set by the Rehn-Meidner Model, employers could use profit
to invest in expansion, encouraging the more profitable companies to
grow the fastest.  Structural unemployment in shrinking industrial
sectors was addressed through massive retraining programs.  Through
such policies, Sweden achieved virtually full employment from
1960-1990, when the unemployment rate was only 1.9%.  Despite full
employment, inflation remained at parity with the rest of Europe.  

 

During the era of worldwide hyperinflation in the 1970’s, wage
controls suffered “wage drift,” pressure to increase wage rates.  A
more radical faction favored wages that would prove to be too high.
The original wage controls were designed to standardize wages for
specific jobs, but the radicals attempted to force lower-skilled jobs
up to the same wages as higher-skilled jobs.  This hurt employers and
pitched companies against labor unions. [14]

 

The 1970’s radical wage-earner fund project was canceled by the Bildt
government in 1992.  The radical system proved a failure:
White-collar workers had no incentives, and low-skilled workers had no
incentives to learn higher skills, resulting in a low-skilled labor
glut and higher-skilled shortages.  This damaged the whole concept of
wage-setting controls, and the Central Employers Confederation (SAF)
abandoned controls in 1992.  Wage setting was determined in collective
bargaining between labor unions and employers—not by government.  Once
employers started fighting unions over wages in the 1990’s, it was
seen as a decentralized general trend rather than a political issue.
The result was chaos, growing unemployment and inequity, and a return
to labor union strikes and employer lockouts.  With the feeling of
mutual cooperation between labor and management broken, wage standards
became a source of conflict and crisis.  [15]

 

In the world recession years 1991-1993 when radical wage controls
wreaked havoc in Sweden, Swedish unemployment rose to an historic high
of 8%.  Since then, unemployment has remained relatively high even
when economic growth recovered.  Throughout the world, the 1991
recession brought a jobless recovery, as did the 2001 recession, due
to technological innovation, the effects of globalization and
outsourcing jobs to the developing world.  Not even Social Democracy
is immune to such drastic changes brought by globalization. Juhana
Vartiainen writes that it merely needs fine-tuning reform:  “The
Social Democratic welfare state remains a robust institution to which
a majority of the Swedish electorate seems to adhere.... On the other
hand, it seems clear that the expansion phase of the welfare state is
over.”[16]  Vartiainen admits “the Rehn Model is not working.”  He
suggests that a wider range of variance in wage controls may be one
solution.  The Social Democratic goal of full employment is more
important than labor union bargaining power, and Vartiainen implies
that union bargaining power today is still too strong.  He concludes
that laws should be passed to weaken labor unions as the best way to
preserve Social Democracy and a return to full employment.
Unemployment remains almost 6%, but is lower than the rest of Europe.

 
<snip> 

 

The vast majority of the public in Sweden still favors Social
Democracy, universal healthcare, high progressive tax, and subsidized
daycare programs.  The public is well aware that, despite
imperfections in the Swedish Model, Social Democracy allowed Sweden to
develop the highest quality of life in the world, even up to this
present day.  As a generator of high quality of life, this Social
Democratic state remains a great role model.  

 

 

Social Democracy Blends Socialism and Capitalism
 

Social Democracy is not Marxism—It disagrees with many fundamental
Marxist and socialist tenets.  From 1889-1917, Social Democracy and
democratic socialism were one and the same, but after 1917, socialism
became Marxist communism in Russia, while Social Democracy in
Scandinavia favored capitalism and free markets.  Democratic Socialism
is to the far left of Social Democracy, because it is true socialism,
against private capital in favor of the welfare state, essentially
communism with democratic elections.  Social Democracy by contrast is
more moderate, acknowledging capitalism, allowing free markets, while
using the state merely to correct the excesses of capitalism and fix
market failures.  Far from pure socialists, Social Democrats favor a
kind of “socialized capitalism.” [19] Social Democracy today means
simply a mixed economy—private capitalism with public regulations.

 

In NEW POLITICAL THOUGHT: AN INTRODUCTION, Tony Fitzpatrick explains
that Social Democracy was a reaction against the excesses of laissez
faire capitalism.  Fitzpatrick describes the problem of the
unregulated free market:  “The source of inequality is held to be the
concentration of capital in private hands.  This concentration means
that most individuals are only able to enter into the labour market on
terms vastly unfavorable to themselves.  So, those who ultimately
produce society’s wealth are seen as receiving less of it in return,
in the form of wages, than they deserve.  Inequality takes the form of
exploitation, therefore.  But capitalism not only produces an unjust
form of inequality.... Many have interpreted poverty and unemployment
as caused by capitalism’s need to maintain unemployment in order to
drag wages down and thus increase the returns to capital....” [20]

 

            The solution to correct these excesses is Social
Democracy.  Full employment is a goal of Social Democracy, but full
employment must be balanced with preventing wage inflation.  Social
Democrats see the need to prevent workers from earning too much,
because once full employment is achieved, labor union bargaining power
would encourage spiraling upward wages, creating consumer inflation
harmful to the economy.  The system must balance full employment with
wage caps.

 

Scandinavian Social Democracy achieved both full employment and budget
surpluses to support social services.  By contrast, American
neo-conservatives Reagan and Bush created high unemployment and
massive budget deficits caused by tax cuts, which forced government to
cut vital social services.  This high unemployment was deliberate, to
force downward pressure on wages, and the federal and state budget
deficits was also deliberate, in an attempt to gut social
infrastructure.  In that sense, Social Democratic fiscal policy is the
opposite of American neo-conservative fiscal policy.  The social
effects can be profound:  Sweden’s Social Democracy dramatically
reduced poverty to a point where only 4.9% of single parents live in
poverty in Sweden, while in America, over 60% of single parents still
live in poverty. [21]

 

 

The New Challenge
 

Economic challenges of European Union nations in the past two decades
include deflation, falling productivity, financial deregulation,
currency speculation, capital mobility, globalization, and the
continuing decline of the need for low-skilled labor.  Both
technological innovation and globalization have rendered millions of
low-skilled Europeans obsolete, superfluous and unemployable.
Globalization has been harmful in the EU especially in social
democracies ill-equipped to compete against the exploitation of cheap
labor in the developing world.  Thus unemployment rose everywhere in
the EU, even in social democracies whose primary goals were to
maintain full employment.  Globalization and capital mobility also
hurt tax revenue as employers refused to pay higher taxes and chose to
move factories to tax-free trade zones overseas.  

 
<snip> 
 

Torben Iversen points out that Scandinavia still enjoys superior
social services and wages, but Social Democrats have failed in their
chief goal of full employment: “To put it in the starkest terms
possible, the question for Scandinavian Social Democracy is whether it
wants to deepen class divisions by accepting greater inequalities, or
whether it wants to create a marginalized group of people, excluded
from full participation in the economy.” [22]  Iversen concludes that
the solution is to encourage more retraining, subsidized education,
negative income tax, and more wage subsidies.  But he acknowledges
that neo-liberal globalization, “a monetarist international monetary
system,” will continue to pressure social democracies everywhere.

 

 
Australia and New Zealand
 

In 1972, both Australia and New Zealand elected Social Democrats on a
platform of free university education, universal health care
insurance, welfare, and subsidized arts and sciences.  Gough Whitlam
in Australia and Norman Kirk in New Zealand increased public spending
from 1972-1975, but the 1974 recession was blamed on the Labor Party,
and it forced them out of power, replaced by Malcolm Fraser in
Australia and Robert Muldoon in New Zealand, conservatives who
deregulated and favored neo-liberal trade policy.  But the
conservatives failed to jumpstart the economy.  A long period of slow
growth and high unemployment lasted from 1975 into the 1980’s. 

 

John Quiggin writes in SOCIAL DEMOCRACY IN NEO-LIBERAL TIMES that the
Labor Party returned to office in Australia under Prime Minister Hawke
in 1982.  Hawke and then Prime Minister Keating from 1992-1996 both
blended Social Democracy with neo-liberal trade reforms.  According to
Quiggin, the greatest Social Democratic achievement in Australia was
the strengthening of Medicare in 1984, which gave “universal access to
high quality hospital and medical services at relatively low cost.”
[23] The Family Allowance Supplement gave many benefits to the working
poor.

 

When conservative Prime Minister John Howard took over in 1996,
unemployment rose from 8% to 9%.  [24]  John Quiggin argues that the
Australian Labor Party has embraced neo-liberalism too much, weakening
key tenets of Social Democracy.  Neo-liberalism has failed to provide
widespread prosperity.  Quiggin concludes that it is time to return to
Social Democracy, and he asks that the Labor Party discard neo-liberal
“Third Way” compromises. 

 

 

Great Britain and Tony Blair’s Third Way
 

Andrew Glyn describes Prime Minister Tony Blair’s “Third Way” in
SOCIAL DEMOCRACY IN NEO-LIBERAL TIMES:  “Social Democratic parties
have returned to power across Western Europe in the 1990’s.
However...the rediscovery of electoral success has been accompanied by
a marked ideological and policy shift....  Nowhere has this shift been
espoused with more enthusiasm...than in the case of the British Labour
Party under the leadership of Tony Blair, cloaked in the embryonic
ideology of the ‘Third Way.’...  To many, the rapid policy movement
that Blair has initiated seems more like an ideological retreat than
modernization.” [25]

 

Labour advocated tax increases for millionaires from 40% up to 50% in
1992, but when Blair took office in 1997, he abandoned this policy and
refused to expand welfare.  Labour’s chief priority today is not
Social Democracy, but economic stability.  Under Blair in the late
1990’s, unemployment steadily fell and inflation held at a low of 2%,
while the British Pound devaluation of 1992 encouraged strong exports
in a global economic boom.  Globalization is still outsourcing jobs
from the well-paid domestic workforce to much cheaper developing world
markets, but that is a problem common to all advanced nations today.

 

Social Democratic policy of Britain’s ruling Labour Party is based on
a Keynesian strategy of substantial unemployment benefits,
comprehensive retraining, subsidized college tuition, and subsidized
wages in which a portion of wages at certain companies are paid by the
government.  There is a time limit on unemployment benefits, but there
is subsidized daycare, universal health care, and other family
benefits.  Even today, the unemployed are much better off in Britain
than in America.  Naturally, the British public strongly supports the
Social Democracy of the Labour Party.  

 
<snip> 


Neo-liberals, Neo-conservatives, and the American Problem
 

            Social Democracy is progressing everywhere in the world
except America.  In glaring contrast to the global trend, the USA is
actually devolving into anti-progressive, reactionary conservatism.
To understand why the USA is the exception to the rule, one must first
understand the rise of America’s Southern Republican Party and the
Christian extremists known as the Southern Evangelicals.  Their
extremist views have blended with American neo-liberalism and
neo-conservatism to forge a right-wing power structure that
aggressively prevents Social Democracy.  This right-wing had been
developing since Nixon and Reagan, but their arrogant unbridled power
is an ominous development in the new century.  

   

Neo-liberals believe in a rather extreme view of liberty.  In NEW
POLITICAL THOUGHT: AN INTRODUCTION, Matthew Festenstein defines
liberalism as having four characteristics regardless of right or left
agenda:  Liberalism presupposes that we are all born free and equal
individuals, that we should have freedom of choice to live as we like,
that state power over individuals should be limited, and that the
market system should encourage individual freedom and freedom of
choice. [27]

 

The last supposition, that markets should encourage freedom, is the
problem:  The laissez faire free market inherently rewards the wealthy
who have capital with freedom of choice, but enslaves workers without
capital into hopeless wage slavery.  Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx
recognized that the market system frees the wealthy minority but
enslaves the impoverished majority.  Neo-liberals favor unregulated
free markets that oppress the majority, while progressives who favor
free individuals are wary of free markets.  This paradox of liberalism
is well known. 

 

As John Stuart Mill said, “No longer enslaved...the great majority are
so by force of poverty; they are still chained to a place, to an
occupation, and to conformity with the will of an employer and
debarred by an accident of birth from the enjoyments...which others
inherit without exertion.... That this is an evil...the poor are not
wrong in believing.” [28]

 

Neo-liberalism is the belief that the unregulated laissez faire free
market is the best system.  As Mike Harris describes neo-liberal
beliefs, free markets are best because they most closely mimic the
natural struggle for the survival of the fittest.  The atomized
individual family unit is the best social unit.  Communities and
welfare are flawed because they perpetuate the unfit, therefore the
taxes that support communities are wrong and should be resisted.
Equality is wrong because it is unnatural.  Inequality is natural.
Neo-liberalism advocates the grim struggle for survival—a rat race in
which winners win limitless fortunes—and losers starve.
Neo-liberalism is simply a return to nineteenth century Social
Darwinism. [29]

 

Neo-conservatism is the belief that the citizen is the subject of the
state, and must respect social hierarchy and traditional institutions
such as the military and organized religion.[30]  No one deserves
welfare because it is unnatural.  Social hierarchy, inequality, and
patriarchy are the natural order of humans so we must all respect this
natural order and inequality.  Such inequality is intended by God, who
must be worshipped as commanded by religious institutions.  Any
attempt toward socioeconomic egalitarianism is against the natural
order and God.  Neo-conservatives and neo-liberals share mutual hatred
and contempt for taxes, the poor, feminists and foreigners.  Above all
they want to protect their private property and wealth from the public
horde whom they consider to be their socioeconomic and racial blood
enemy.       

 

American neo-conservatives Reagan and Bush created high unemployment
and massive budget deficits caused by tax cuts, which forced
government to cut vital social services.  This high unemployment was
deliberate to force downward pressure on wages, and the federal and
state budget deficits were also a deliberate attempt to gut social
infrastructure.  G.W. Bush in the new century left no doubt about this
deliberate policy:  He systemically kept unemployment high to break
unions and force wages down.  He created the worst job market in fifty
years.  He immediately bankrupted a record budget surplus of almost a
trillion dollars leftover from the wise stewardship of President
Clinton, and turned it into a record budget deficit of over a trillion
dollars by giving it all to millionaires and the military, through tax
cuts and record defense spending budgets.  

 

When he was governor of Texas, Bush deliberately created high
unemployment and record state budget deficits that bankrupted Texas
public schools, despite his campaign platform claiming he was “for
education.”  His brother Jeb Bush as governor of Florida did virtually
the same thing to Florida—high unemployment and record budget deficits
forced the closure of numerous social services.   

 
<snip> 
 

 

Inevitable Social Democracy 

 

            Despite resistance and minor flaws, Social Democracy may
yet be proliferated everywhere—even in America.  The neo-liberal
globalization trend has challenged Social Democracy and often
prevented it from realizing its goal of full employment—but Social
Democracy has weathered globalization better than other systems.  

 

            Social Democrats have developed a socioeconomic system
which may be considered superior to all the other economies in the new
century.  Social Democracy is designed not to maximize profit, but to
provide high quality of life.  Ultimately, the only true measure of
wealth is high quality of life.  Because Social Democracy allows the
greatest number of citizens to enjoy high quality of life, Social
Democracy may be the inevitable paradigm for all nations.  

 

Enya Hastings  ©  2003

Home: http://www.geocities.com/kew1788/

 

 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Andrew Glyn, “Aspirations, Constraints, and Outcomes” in SOCIAL
DEMOCRACY IN NEO-LIBERAL TIMES, ed. Andrew Glyn (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2001), p. 1

 

[2] Robert Ladrech, SOCIAL DEMOCRACY AND THE CHALLENGE OF EUROPEAN
UNION (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2000), pp. 1-2

 

[3] “Sweden,” The Encyclopedia Britannica 2000

 

[4] Tony McAdams, LAW, BUSINESS AND SOCIETY (New York: Irwin Books,
1996)

 

[5] “Social Democracy,” The Encyclopedia Britannica 2000

 

[6] “Sweden,” The Encyclopedia Britannica 2000

 

[7] Juhana Vartiainen, “Understanding Swedish Social Democracy:
Victims of success?” in SOCIAL DEMOCRACY IN NEO-LIBERAL TIMES, ed.
Andrew Glyn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 26-27

 

[8] IBID, pp. 26-27

 

[9] Judith Seltzer, THE ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF FAMILY PLANNING
PROGRAMS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES  (Santa Monica, CA:  RAND, 2002)

 

[10] “Sweden,” The Encyclopedia Britannica 2000

 

[11] Juhana Vartiainen, “Understanding Swedish Social Democracy:
Victims of success?” in SOCIAL DEMOCRACY IN NEO-LIBERAL TIMES, ed.
Andrew Glyn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 44-46

 

[12] IBID, pp. 22-23

[13] IBID, pp. 28-32

[14] IBID, pp. 32-34

[15] IBID, pp. 35-40

[16] IBID, p. 48

[17] IBID, pp. 23-25

[18] IBID, pp. 50-52

 

[19] Tony Fitzpatrick, “Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy” in
NEW POLITICAL THOUGHT: AN INTRODUCTION, ed. Adam Lent (London:
Lawrence & Wishart, 1998), pp. 34-35

 

[20] IBID, p. 37

 

[21] Andrew Glyn, “Aspirations, Constraints, and Outcomes” in SOCIAL
DEMOCRACY IN NEO-LIBERAL TIMES, ed. Andrew Glyn (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2001), pp. 5-6

 

[22] Torben Iversen, “The choices for Scandinavian Social Democracy in
comparative perspective” in SOCIAL DEMOCRACY IN NEO-LIBERAL TIMES, ed.
Andrew Glyn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 275

 

[23] John Quiggin, “Social Democracy and Market Reform in Australia
and New Zealand” in SOCIAL DEMOCRACY IN NEO-LIBERAL TIMES, ed. Andrew
Glyn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 94-95

 

[24] IBID, p. 101

 

[25] Andrew Glyn and Stewart Wood, “New Labour’s Economic Policy” in
SOCIAL DEMOCRACY IN NEO-LIBERAL TIMES, ed. Andrew Glyn (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2001),  p. 200

 

[26] IBID, pp. 218-222

 

[27] Matthew Festenstein, “Contemporary Liberalism,” in NEW POLITICAL
THOUGHT: AN INTRODUCTION, ed. Adam Lent (London: Lawrence & Wishart,
1998), pp. 14-17

 

[28] IBID, p. 16

 

[29] Mike Harris, “The New Right” in NEW POLITICAL THOUGHT: AN
INTRODUCTION, ed. Adam Lent (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1998), p. 56

 

[30] IBID, p. 60

  

>---------
>
>Randy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-------------
>The United States of America: If you like low wages, you'll love long hours!
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat



-------------
The United States of America: If you like low wages, you'll love long hours!