Economy
See other Economy Articles
Title: Stocks Of Socialized Countries Have Outperformed U.S. Since Reagan Era
Source:
huffingtonpost.com
URL Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/ ... countries-reagan_n_882270.html
Published: Jun 22, 2011
Author: Alex Wagner
Post Date: 2011-06-22 22:23:39 by Godwinson
Keywords: None
Views: 45850
Comments: 67
Stocks Of Socialized Countries Have Outperformed U.S. Since Reagan Era Alex Wagner First Posted: 06/22/11 02:49 PM ET Updated: 06/22/11 03:35 PM ET American traders aren't likely to take kindly to the suggestion that big government might be good for the stock market. But data from a paper on the job- and income-growth of top earners shows that stock prices in some socialized countries, relative to themselves and adjusted for inflation, have done considerably better than those in the U.S over the last two and a half decades. Specifically, during the twenty five years after Ronald Reagan took office -- a pro-market honeymoon that Ryan Chittum of the Columbia Journalism Review this week termed "the ascent of laissez-faire economic policies" -- French stock prices have performed significantly better than Americans ones, according to the report by Jon Bakija, Adam Cole, and Bradley Heim. A further examination of the 39-year period extending from the end of the Nixon administration until 2008 shows the Swedish economy, known for its high taxes and heavy regulation, growing at a significantly higher rate than the US. The authors conclude that big government might not actually stand in contradiction to a productive economy: "Countries with typically high levels of government involvement in the economy, such as Sweden, Denmark and Canada, do not appear to have experienced stifled economic growth relative to countries where government involvement is more limited, like the US," the report says. With bastions of socialism -- Sweden Canada and France -- outpacing American market prices, does this mean it's time for Wall Streeters to start calling croissants "Freedom bagels?" Probably not. According to Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a research fellow specializing in European economies at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the disparity between the American and European markets might have more to do with the period in question than governmental forces. "In 1981, [Francois] Mitterand was elected president of France, and the first thing he did was to nationalize a bunch of French businesses and most of the banking system," Kirkegaard explained. "But going forward, France has moved quite dramatically towards a market-oriented economy, though not anywhere near the scope of market and economic freedom as perceived in the U.S." If Swedish and French markets have shown considerable strength compared to American ones, Kirkegaard posited that "these countries benefited from a more rapid shift to a market economy than in the U.S. over this period. The starting point was much more hostile. That’s what you see in the growth." That said, Kirkegaard also dismissed the traditional American capitalist contention that socialism is bad for market growth: "A lot of the finger-pointing we do at these countries is totally misleading. It's a myth." Kirkegaard says that many socialized governments provide critical support for business growth, including first class infrastructure built by the public sector, retraining of workers and public education systems that result in better-prepared workforces, comparative to the US. "There are a lot of areas where the role of government is a benefit for the businesses in these countries." "The idea that they are socialists and condemned to living in these bread bin-style housing complexes is illusional," he said. "It's ideological slander." Compare the stocks of Japan, France, and U.S., or get the report here: 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 51.
#1. To: Godwinson (#0)
The ultimate example would be Germany. Pre-WWII. Socialism takes money from the average citizens, and feeds it to the government's pet-projects, usually in corporations. That they would do better by living off the life-blood of the citizens, is common sense. Of course, without such subsidies, the story would be very different... Even WITH subsidies, some companies have a hard time being competitive. Airbus comes to mind...
Pre-WWII. The ultimate example would be Germany. Post WWII.
History ain't your strength, it would appear.
Really? Since Germany post WWII was propped up by both the US and the USSR to a much lesser extent I really think you need to reread YOUR history.
You think you think. That is your mistake. Thanks for the laugh.
That is your mistake. Thanks for the laugh. Instead of your fluffery type hysterics why don't you just prove me wrong?
There's no need to prove something that is easily observable, and self-evident. You presume that, just because you say something makes it so. This is a typical attitude of leftists.
If it's so self evident then an 'astute' poster like yourself should be able to post it in 500 words or less. Or just make something up like you usually do so we can all have another good laugh.
There are no replies to Comment # 51. End Trace Mode for Comment # 51.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe authors conclude that big government might not actually stand in contradiction to a productive economy: "Countries with typically high levels of government involvement in the economy, such as Sweden, Denmark and Canada, do not appear to have experienced stifled economic growth relative to countries where government involvement is more limited, like the US," the report says.
#6. To: Capitalist Eric (#1)
The ultimate example would be Germany.
#7. To: Godwinson (#6)
#9. To: Capitalist Eric (#7)
History ain't your strength, it would appear.
#15. To: mininggold (#9)
I really think you need to reread YOUR history.
#17. To: Capitalist Eric (#15)
You think you think.
#27. To: mininggold (#17)
why don't you just prove me wrong?
#51. To: Capitalist Eric (#27)
There's no need to prove something that is easily observable, and self-evident.
Replies to Comment # 51.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]