America should become a Social Democracy

1. Freedom My opponent has showed many faults with the current government system, namely our support for slavery in the early years. But this is not a good argument until we can compare that progress with other social democracies; we cannot have a bad unless we can show a good. There were no social democracies in that time period so we cannot conclude the democracies would have abolished slavery faster. 2. Happiness and money Social democracy would hardly have a free market, as my opponent’s definition even includes a highly regulated market! If this is true, then most of the happiest countries are not social democracies. (a) Denmark: Denmark has a freer market than the US according to the Heritage Free Market Index. With low spending, high property rights, and almost perfect business freedom (I.e. little regulation) it is hard to say they have adopted a social democracy in their business system [1]. (b) Canada: Canada also has low corruption and high property rights ratings, as well as stable fiscal spending and monetary policies. Based on the definition of a social democracies economic freedom, Canada is also not a social democracy [2]. (c) New Zealand: New Zealand has a 99.9 business freedom rating; hardly heavily regulated. They have little corruption and stable monetary policies. Again, it seems social democracies don’t adopt what my opponent says they do [3]. (d) Norway: Although America is not really what the founding fathers meant it to be, we are becoming socialists, we still are “mostly free” according to the heritage index. Norway scores only slightly under the US on their ratings [4]. It seems as though their happiness comes from factors other than economics or their rights given to them by their system. Citing Europe and calling them social democracies is faulty, the only true social democracy in Europe would be Sweden. Most of Europe is embracing free market reforms, not socialistic/democratic ones. They are cutting safety nets, cutting taxes, and decreasing regulation while increasing free trade [5]. This makes my opponents C 1 and 2 invalid, as most of these countries do not adopt social democratic economic reforms, and as they stay free the people stay happy. C: The ideas proposed by Social Democrats always fail Social Democracies were popular in Europe until their economic collapse in the Eurozone, caused by liberal spending, taxation, and regulation policies. As stated, the vast majority of these countries quickly enacted economic reforms that would increase economic freedom expanding entrepreneur profit and cut social safety nets. But we can get to that in a minute. The Eurozone crisis is a social democracies Waterloo, their once admired policies sent them into continent wide recession, with only countries like Germany, who refrained from first enacting social-democratic economic principles for recovery, standing. Greece, Spain, and Italy went with more social-democratic reforms to their system. Now, the countries that implemented pro-market reforms essentially fund these failing countries. When studying the European crisis, R. R. Reno writes “Both Keynesian and monetary policies have effects similar to regulation, subsidy, and taxation. They mute and distort market signals. … Many commentators have pointed out that exactly these distorted market signals led many Americans to over-invest in the housing market, pushing up prices and creating the bubble that eventually burst. What goes unnoticed is the far greater and far more important effects of this distortion, which as I’ve argued in intrinsic to social democracy.” The writer also noted that although the middle class, under these systems, have economic stability, the wealthy do not and their economic performance hindered in the long haul [6]. Back to regulation. The regulations in America are already harming our business. The National Association of Manufacturers notes they cannot produce due to American regulation, and imagine how much worse that would be under the quasi-socialist system my opponent is proposing. The NAM notes, “As our nation’s economy has stalled and much uncertainty remains, manufacturers are telling Congress overregulation is hurtful to job creation and economic growth. Manufacturers continue to face burdensome regulation after regulation from Washington. … “Currently, it is 20 percent more expensive for manufacturers to do business in the United States compared to nine of our major trading partners,” said NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons. “Unnecessary and burdensome regulations are driving up costs, making it difficult for manufacturers to hire. With slower job growth last month, it is clear that manufacturers need Washington to step up and cut the regulatory burden stifling growth.”[7] My opponent essentially wants us to make our current problem worse. Social democracy is also large on tax increases and limiting entrepreneurial growth [8]. The CATO institute notes how economic growth caused by Reagans tax cuts versus Carters tax increases show the market loves to keep it’s money [9]. It makes sense! Would you rather have 10% of what you make, or 99%? 20%, or 90%? Keeping money in people’s pockets encourages business to grow and investments to rise, its simple logic. Taking away people’s money makes them invest less because they can’t afford it. Before and after WWII serves a good comparison. Fascism does not implement the social policy of social democrats, but does support similar economic reforms since both come from socialist ideas. After WWII as pro-market reforms of tax cuts, lowering inflation, and de-regulation caused “large productivity gains”[10]. Now, only two true social democracies exist: France and Sweden [11]. America, again not what it should be, is still not there yet. We are only a medium welfare state, compared to their large welfare states. However, we outperform them in long-term growth and income. Obviously, we need to account for other factors! A CATO Study looked into other factors, and concluded it was social democratic welfare ideas that kept them from surpassing us, indicating we should either stay the same or even become more free market [12][13]. CONCLUSION It is hard to see how my opponent won this debate mostly using weak comparisons ignoring the fact social democracy does not exist in those countries, and the countries that are true social democoracies are failing. 1. http://www.heritage.org... 2. http://www.heritage.org... 3. http://www.heritage.org... 4. http://www.heritage.org...|unitedstates&src=ranking 5. http://www.cato.org... 6. http://www.firstthings.com... 7. http://www.nam.org... 8. http://en.wikipedia.org... 9. http://www.cato.org... 10. http://www.econlib.org... 11. http://econlog.econlib.org... 12. http://www.cato.org... 13. http://www.cato.org...