I think that finding a balance between the freedom and social welfare has always been an issue in America and thats why this is such an interesting article. The Nordic countries seem to have a very good balance of free market success and equality. These countries would be good examples for America but there are two reasons that make this difficult. First off, many Americans seem to be deeply afraid of anything resembling socialism or communism. Second all these nordic states are small and relatively homogenous. This makes it much easier for the government to provide social welfare that meets everybody's needs and keeps everyone happy. The US is huge and has a much more diverse population. This makes for a completely different problem. While a social democratic government has worked so well for Scandinavia, we are far from getting to a state like that in the US.
Even though I believe a government like that would be ideal for the US, it is not very realistic due to how conservative the US is compared to Scandinavia.
Clive used to be a reasonable guy; in his mind he probably still is a reasonable guy. But he has misunderstood what it means to be reasonable. He now apparently believes that it means declaring, in all circumstances, that Democrats and Republicans are equally in the wrong, even if the Democrats are talking Econ 101 [...]
name a single proposition in all social science that was both true and nontrivial. It took a while, but Samuelson finally thought of a good answer: the principle of comparative advantage
The doctrine in question, devised by David Ricardo in 1817, makes a strong claim about the gains that accrue from trade.
For nearly 200 years, the principle of comparative advantage, and the ideas about economic policy that flowed from it, divided the world into two camps: those with basic economic literacy, and the rest.
Understanding this idea, and advocating it to the world, was part of what it meant to be an economist—especially an American economist.
ately things have changed. Some of America’s most eminent economists, including Samuelson himself, have edged away from that earlier consensus.
The shift is both momentous and disturbing. Just why it happened is a mystery.
what the principle of comparative advantage does not say.
trade between two countries will make both better off so long as each is especially good at making something different from the other
absolute advantage
there are mutual gains from trade even when one country is better at producing everything. All that matters is that its margin of superior efficiency is greater for some products than for others.
Fouad A. Ajami (Arabic: فؤاد عجمي; born September 9, 1945, in Arnoun, Lebanon), is a MacArthur Fellowship winning, Lebanese-born American university professor and writer on Middle Eastern issues. He is currently a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.
Ajami was an outspoken supporter of the Iraq War, the nobility of which he believes there "can be no doubt".
In 1973 Ajami joined the politics department of Princeton University where he did not get tenure. He made a name for himself there as a vocal supporter of Palestinian self-determination.
He is today the Majid Khadduri professor in Middle East Studies and Director of the Middle East Studies Program
One notable contribution Ajami made in the September October 1993 issue of Foreign Affairs was a rebuttal to Samuel Huntington’s "The Clash of Civilizations?", regarding the state and future of international relations after the Cold War.
In his article “The Summoning”, Ajami criticises Huntington for ignoring the empirical complexities and state interests which drive conflicts in and between civilizations