It's Official!! Liberal Democrats are Socialists!!

[IControlThePast]

What I linked was not a GNP measurement nor a PPP adjusted GDP.

I'd like to ask you to do the research as to why the two ranking differ by so much, because right now I'm too lazy and tired to do it, and you seem like a bright person. In fact, I'm glad to have a left leaning, intelligent person on the board to debate against.

I don't really think the CIA has different statistics than Wiki. They should both have the same nominal GDP/capita because they have about the same PPP GDP/capita statistic. For your 33rd of 225, the statistic used was the PPP GDP/capita. See the listing here is in PPP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden#Figures

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

The difference in years is enough to count for the difference there. If you look here you can see the CIA used PPP for the GDP/capita:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html#Econ

And for clarification, nominal GDP is the proper statistic to look at in this case. Wiki used the International Monetary Fund as its source for nominal GDP/capita, while I don't find that statistic mentioned in the CIA factbook.

 

[Comrade]

Yep, I see that now. Thanks.

 

[sitarro]

I bet that Swedens"s defense spending is astronomical . They are also about to find out what taking from the producers and giving it to the nonproducers does to an economy .

 

[IControlThePast]

I bet that Swedens"s defense spending is astronomical . They are also about to find out what taking from the producers and giving it to the nonproducers does to an economy .

Sweden has long been a neutral nation, so their defense spending is a low 2.1% of their GDP, which is about half the %GDP the US spends. In dollars, the US spends 80 times as much.

We'll see either way what happens, but regardless it is a good experiment to see what turns out to work and what doesn't.

 

[Comrade]

I had a Swedish friend who lived in America during the 90's, and constantly complained about their economy. What was worse though, is the mandatory conscription policy of the Swedish military, something he had to face when returning back from college and going home. As if Sweden has to worry about external threats? What kind of historically neutral state feels it necessary to conscript all 'of age' males to military service, especially when they never field their forces internationally for the greater good? A socialist state, that's what.

 

[Comrade]

Sweden has long been a neutral nation, so their defense spending is a low 2.1% of their GDP, which is about half the %GDP the US spends. In dollars, the US spends 80 times as much.

We'll see either way what happens, but regardless it is a good experiment to see what turns out to work and what doesn't.

I have a comment to make about that statistic.

A comparison between the military spending between Sweden and America is not complete without addressing the socialist aspects of a conscription based military, such as Sweden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#Sweden

Sweden
In Sweden military service is mandatory for men only. As of 2002, Sweden's government asked the army to consider mandatory military service for women. Less than one third of the country's eligible 19-year-olds are actually drafted each year. See Sweden considers mandatory military service for women (http://www.news-star.com/stories/062703/New_8.shtml). Men may choose to do unarmed service, for instance as a firefighter. Generally, unarmed service is longer than armed.

The military spending as a % of GDP figure does not address that the services of their active military are based on enforced government servitude to the state, and total government outlay to compensate and outfit their conscripts is quite substandard to their relative value in the free labour marketplace.

In other words, it's very cheap to support an army which is forcibly made to serve in the name of the government. It's not so cheap when you have to compete in the free market for labour as the USA military must do.

But you get what you pay for. The US military is the finest in the world.

 

[IControlThePast]

I have a comment to make about that statistic.

A comparison between the military spending between Sweden and America is not complete without addressing the socialist aspects of a conscription based military, such as Sweden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#Sweden



The military spending as a % of GDP figure does not address that the services of their active military are based on enforced government servitude to the state, and total government outlay to compensate and outfit their conscripts is quite substandard to their relative value in the free labour marketplace.

In other words, it's very cheap to support an army which is forcibly made to serve in the name of the government. It's not so cheap when you have to compete in the free market for labour as the USA military must do.

But you get what you pay for. The US military is the finest in the world.

That is definately true. I was just commenting on their defense spending , which is a lot cheaper if you conscript citizens. I don't agree with forced military service though. I think armies should be volunteer.

 

[Comrade]

That is definately true. I was just commenting on their defense spending , which is a lot cheaper if you conscript citizens. I don't agree with forced military service though. I think armies should be volunteer.

We agree!