Sweden’s “Third Way” Mixed Economy Model

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



If you have to try to get cute with another poster's handle and make some lame and incorrect predicated stretch of an observation, (not a quote,) as a way of rationalizing your own perception of politics, it is not very suggestive that you have a strong and valid argument in support of your beliefs. Because if you did? You would use it.



We have zero problem acknowledging that fact. We are well beyond that point by quite some distance. What we are looking for is some correlation linking homogeneousness with the success of a hybrid economy. What does it matter of all the participants in the plan are of one race? Why can this hybrid economy work for a homogeneous group, but not for a mixed-race group? That's what you have not explained.



OK, so now that's adding in another factor. Are you now saying their success in implementing a successful hybrid economy is dependent upon more than simply the one prerequisite of a homogeneous society? Because if that's the case, then that sort of tosses out the homogeneous society argument as completely valid.

No problem. OK, so what are these other factors and why are they only possible in other countries, but not repeatable in the USA? We would be seriously interested to know that. Can you please tell us?

My answer is basically the same as my original one ITT. Because of our roles in the world and our use of the military it is apples and oranges comparing Sweden and the U.S. Basically could Sweden do everything it does today if it was forced to spend on the military like we are and play the same role we do? No it couldn't. So on an internet chat board its easy to say we should just be like Finland, Norway or Sweden. But in the real world it's not that simple. And you are talking about countries the size of the Bay Area. Again, it's not apples to apples.

And America's strength is its diversity and that we have people from all over the world who come here. That leads to a very different local dynamic than homogeneous countries. Now you can tell me that's a different discussion but they all have major issues themselves dealing with it and (aging) demographics is the biggest among them.

 

[StoneByStone]

Even Denmark, Finland, and Sweden and not purely homogenous. They have immigrants and ethnic groups within their nations.

Canada is an even more dramatic example of a fairly generous social welfare state which has a high proportion of immigrants and is relatively ethnically diverse. But even with that diversity, they somehow manage to have a fairly generous social welfare state.

No country is purely homogeneous, but Canada and the European countries are homogeneous enough to make universal healthcare work. Even Canada is over 70% white.
In addition to America being too diverse, the Democrats who want more affordable healthcare also want open borders and mass third world immigration.

 

[Cypress]

No country is purely homogeneous, but Canada and the European countries are homogeneous enough to make universal healthcare work. Even Canada is over 70% white.
In addition to America being too diverse, the Democrats who want more affordable healthcare also want open borders and mass third world immigration.

So being 70 percent white is the magical threshold at which a nation is allowed to have a generous social welfare state?

Where is the body of widely accepted, peer reviewed research which supports the assertion of a magical 70 percent barrier which cannot be crossed?

 

[StoneByStone]

So being 70 percent white is the magical threshold at which a nation is allowed to have a generous social welfare state?

Where is the body of widely accepted, peer reviewed research which supports the assertion of a magical 70 percent barrier which cannot be crossed?

I didn't say there is a magic number. I'm saying that the more "diversity" a country has, the harder it is to have generous welfare policies. At 70%, Canada is still a pretty homogeneous country. So it doesn't surprise me that they've been able to make the welfare state work.

 

[Cypress]

I didn't say there is a magic number. I'm saying that the more "diversity" a country has, the harder it is to have generous welfare policies. At 70%, Canada is still a pretty homogeneous country. So it doesn't surprise me that they've been able to make the welfare state work.

There is no magical threshold or ratio of white people when one is allowed to have a generous social welfare state.

The real reason a generous social welfare state works is when labor and collective bargaining is robust, widespread, and on an equal footing with the corporatists.

Sweden has a long history of a robust labor movement which has widespread participation by citizens. I also do not think it hurts that Scandinavia has a history of reasonably equal rights for women and a political system where women are strongly invested. Because an egalitarian society based on justice and social equality has a much higher likelihood of achieving an advanced social welfare state.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

My answer is basically the same as my original one ITT. Because of our roles in the world and our use of the military it is apples and oranges comparing Sweden and the U.S. Basically could Sweden do everything it does today if it was forced to spend on the military like we are and play the same role we do? No it couldn't.

Got it. And the message is clear. It is not the homogeneity which makes the hybrid economy possible there but not here. We have to stop spending so much on a bloated military so we can spend more on taking care of our society. It should also be noted that if we tax our rich more we can grow our society and our economy even more.

So on an internet chat board its easy to say we should just be like Finland, Norway or Sweden. But in the real world it's not that simple. And you are talking about countries the size of the Bay Area. Again, it's not apples to apples.

On an internet chat board it is easy for you to claim I am saying things I never actually said. All you have to do is type the false words. There is no requirement for you to be accurate.

And America's strength is its diversity and that we have people from all over the world who come here. That leads to a very different local dynamic than homogeneous countries. Now you can tell me that's a different discussion but they all have major issues themselves dealing with it and (aging) demographics is the biggest among them.

The strength of our diversity is an asset. It allows us to examine more and varied viewpoints, to take into consideration more ideas. Our way of thinking is more complete and all-encompassing. When we shut out different positive ideas we cut ourselves off from potential greatness. If we wish to create a system which utilizes things we have observed from all around the globe, we have the capacity to do that on a grander scale than other countries.

 

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



Got it. And the message is clear. It is not the homogeneity which makes the hybrid economy possible there but not here. We have to stop spending so much on a bloated military so we can spend more on taking care of our society. It should also be noted that if we tax our rich more we can grow our society and our economy even more.



On an internet chat board it is easy for you to claim I am saying things I never actually said. All you have to do is type the false words. There is no requirement for you to be accurate.



The strength of our diversity is an asset. It allows us to examine more and varied viewpoints, to take into consideration more ideas. Our way of thinking is more complete and all-encompassing. When we shut out different positive ideas we cut ourselves off from potential greatness. If we wish to create a system which utilizes things we have observed from all around the globe, we have the capacity to do that on a grander scale than other countries.

There is a definite element to the homogeneity that makes their model possible. I don't spend a whole lot of time studying Finland, Norway, Sweden, North & South Korea and Japan but I know enough to know that it plays a role. Stone By Stone is the one who wants the ethno socialist state, he can go into the details of it.

I said in my response that just like in business we can and should always look at best practices. And that's cities looking at other cities, states looking at other states or countries looking at other countries. But saying we should spend less on the military doesn't change the fundamental nature of the U.S.'s role in the world. The world as we know it would not exist if the U.S. spent what Sweden does on its military and played the same role in the world. But if that's what you want there are Trump supporters (on this board) who believe the U.S. should spend no money on bases or anything else military wise outside our borders. You can find bi-partisan agreement.

 

[archives]

Why is it all these "discussions" regarding socialism come down to an either/or as if the two were mutually exclusive?

As I've said before, the US has been part socialist since the 19th Century, if not before, every nation in the world has a mixed economy, intiating a single payer health care system in the US, or some model of the same, doesn't mean the US is abondoning capitalism, opening up gulags, eliminating private propriety, nationalizing industries, etc.

 

[Cypress]

Why is it all these "discussions" regarding socialism come down to an either/or as if the two were mutually exclusive?

As I've said before, the US has been part socialist since the 19th Century, if not before, every nation in the world has a mixed economy, intiating a single payer health care system in the US, or some model of the same, doesn't mean the US is abondoning capitalism, opening up gulags, eliminating private propriety, nationalizing industries, etc.

The rightwing has been trained like Pavlovian dogs by their conservative media to attempt to conflate liberals, progressives, democratic socialists with totalitarian communism, the GULAG, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin.

It is obvious why they attempt to do that. I have always been sure they know they are lying and being dishonest, it is just part and parcel of the political strategy of a party that has no actual ideas of their own.

That is also why they fly into a panic whenever anyone mentions that would should learn from Norway and Sweden. Because the rightwing is fully aware those Scandinavian models are the most universally admired socio-economic systems in human history, and puts to shame any talk of a deregulated, every-man-for-himself Austrian school of economics, rightwing economic fantasy. .

 

[cawacko]

Why is it all these "discussions" regarding socialism come down to an either/or as if the two were mutually exclusive?

As I've said before, the US has been part socialist since the 19th Century, if not before, every nation in the world has a mixed economy, intiating a single payer health care system in the US, or some model of the same, doesn't mean the US is abondoning capitalism, opening up gulags, eliminating private propriety, nationalizing industries, etc.

In certain American progressive circles the northern-European welfare state has been embraced as their ideal. That's not what we have in America, at least not nearly to their degree. At the end of the day you can label it whatever you want but that's what is being discussed here.

And feel free to blame right-wingers for us not having it and call us racist but the reality is even Hillary Clinton said in a debate with Bernie that we are not Norway. So progressives don't even have full buy in from people who generally share their political beliefs.

 

[StoneByStone]

There is no magical threshold or ratio of white people when one is allowed to have a generous social welfare state.

I know, I'm not arguing there is. What I'm saying is that the more diversity a country has, the more difficult it is to have a generous welfare state. Canada is still a little over 70% white, which makes it way more homogeneous than America.
Social Democracy is possible in America, but it's going to be way harder to achieve, and perhaps even harder to maintain.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Cypress,

So being 70 percent white is the magical threshold at which a nation is allowed to have a generous social welfare state?

Where is the body of widely accepted, peer reviewed research which supports the assertion of a magical 70 percent barrier which cannot be crossed?

Well, you have to understand. Such views are predicated on the propaganda that immigrants are a burden on the economy. Naturally, they are not going to want to see the peer-reviewed studies which show that immigrants actually cause a net contribution to the economy, and even begin businesses and create some jobs of their own!

Generally, immigrants, in reality, tend to be more motivated to work than a lot of rather unmotivated Americans, who may have come from a troubled childhood, without good role-model parenting.

 

[Cypress]

I know, I'm not arguing there is. What I'm saying is that the more diversity a country has, the more difficult it is to have a generous welfare state. Canada is still a little over 70% white, which makes it way more homogeneous than America.
Social Democracy is possible in America, but it's going to be way harder to achieve, and perhaps even harder to maintain.

I do not think skin color, religion, eye color, ethnicity should have anything to do in theory with the establishment of generous social welfare state.

There is a political problem in that rightwing politicans use ethnic diversity to create fear, paranoia, resentment, division, which has to be dealt with.

But, the path towards a generous social welfare state begins first and foremost with robust and well organized trade and labor unions, a commitment to equality and the general welfare, and a political system based on justice and the rule of law.

Sweden has a long-standing social system of well organized and robust labor unions and widespread participation in collective bargaining. The interests of labor, families, and women have to be taken strongly into account by industrialists and by the government. And the strength of unions, of labor rights, and the commensurate commitment to the general welfare is why I believe Sweden has a generous social welfare state. It is not because they are blonde and blue eyed.

 

[Cypress]

Hello Cypress,



Well, you have to understand. Such views are predicated on the propaganda that immigrants are a burden on the economy. Naturally, they are not going to want to see the peer-reviewed studies which show that immigrants actually cause a net contribution to the economy, and even begin businesses and create some jobs of their own!

Generally, immigrants, in reality, tend to be more motivated to work than a lot of rather unmotivated Americans, who may have come from a troubled childhood, without good role-model parenting.

Nice work

Without socialism, bourgeois practices and the egotistical principle of private ownership gave rise to the "people of the abyss" described by Jack London and earlier by Engels.

Only the competition with socialism and the pressure of the working class made possible the social progress of the twentieth century and, all the more, will insure the now inevitable process of rapprochement of the two systems. It took socialism to raise the meaning of labor to the heights of a moral feat. Before the advent of socialism, national egotism gave rise to colonial oppression, nationalism, and racism. By now it has become clear that victory is on the side of the humanistic, international approach.

The capitalist world could not help giving birth to the socialist, but now the socialist world should not seek to destroy by force the ground from which it grew. Under the present conditions this would be tantamount to the suicide of mankind. Socialism should ennoble that ground by its example and other indirect forms of pressure and then merge with it.

- Andrei Sakharov, eminent Soviet-Russian nuclear physicist, dissident and human rights activist

.

 

[archives]

In certain American progressive circles the northern-European welfare state has been embraced as their ideal. That's not what we have in America, at least not nearly to their degree. At the end of the day you can label it whatever you want but that's what is being discussed here.

And feel free to blame right-wingers for us not having it and call us racist but the reality is even Hillary Clinton said in a debate with Bernie that we are not Norway. So progressives don't even have full buy in from people who generally share their political beliefs.

That is not quite accurate, what those "progressives" do is rebutal with the Scandanvian countries when someone on the right blanketly employs Venezuela as the example of socialism

And I never said anyone was racist, rather that socialism and capitalism aren't mutually exclusive as is often portrayed by the right, Ameircan History validates that point

 

[Charoite]

I know, I'm not arguing there is. What I'm saying is that the more diversity a country has, the more difficult it is to have a generous welfare state. Canada is still a little over 70% white, which makes it way more homogeneous than America.
Social Democracy is possible in America, but it's going to be way harder to achieve, and perhaps even harder to maintain.

That makes very little sense. The only problem we might face is the expense being more because we are a country of excess that leads to health problems. Another thing is our shill FDA that doesn't help much. We still have many things in our food that other countries have banned a way back due to health concerns. Or are you claiming it's just easier because people of the same race would get along better? That isn't exactly true either. Our problem with that is because of our countries history. Other countries have little issue with integrated blacks. There are a few hiccups religiously but not so much racially.

 

[Cypress]

The Lessons-Learned from Sweden is that a generous social welfare state does not need to lead to lazy and unproductive workers, who have a sense of entitlement.

The key finding from Scandinavia is that well-organized labor will work productively and effectively, as long as they feel they are being treated fairly by business, government, and society. I have never heard anyone complain about shoddy and second-rate Swedish products.

After World War II, the Social Democratic–led governments initiated several key policies to establish the Swedish economic system as a mixed economy. Because the Swedish Social Democratic Party was founded and supported by the Trade Union Federation, its most important objective was a high rate of employment. So, the government was an active user of traditional Keynesian fiscal and monetary policies to stimulate economic growth and low rates of unemployment.

But to achieve high levels of employment, the Swedish governments went far beyond standard Keynesian demand management. The Swedish government pursued active labor market policies. These policies were designed to stimulate and support employment, especially when private market demand might be diminishing. Labor market polices included providing government subsidies to private employers to retain workers that might have otherwise been let go.

Because Swedish workers and employers were so well organized, a feature of the Swedish labor market was consensus bargaining and comprehensive labor agreements on wages and working conditions—that every worker gets and thinks is fair. This was especially important due to the dependence of the Swedish economy on exports.

One of the primary findings of labor market research in the realm of efficiency wage theory is that workers will work effectively, and well, if they think they’re being treated fairly. Swedish workers are paid well, so it’s essential that they should also be very productive, if their products are to remain competitive on the world market.


Source citation: Professor Edward F. Stuart, Northeastern Illinois University

 

[cawacko]

That is not quite accurate, what those "progressives" do is rebutal with the Scandanvian countries when someone on the right blanketly employs Venezuela as the example of socialism

And I never said anyone was racist, rather that socialism and capitalism aren't mutually exclusive as is often portrayed by the right, Ameircan History validates that point

This thread, Bernie and others aren't using Sweden, Norway, Finland as a rebuttal they're using it for they would like to see in America.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

This thread, Bernie and others aren't using Sweden, Norway, Finland as a rebuttal they're using it for they would like to see in America.

I hear Bernie refer to a lot of other countries, drawing one good idea from here, another from there. Studying their results, their life expectancy, their access to health care, education, child care, employment, vacations, housing, retirement... All these things are solved on a mass scale. People don't even have to worry about them. They just live their lives and concentrate on doing a good job. Sure, they don't work as many hours per year as Americans do (hundreds less,) but they still have great lives, and who wouldn't like to have 12 weeks paid vacation every year? Now that sounds like a plan to get some work done and enjoy life too. No wonder they are happier than Americans. And no wonder Bernie is looking to them for ideas. Smart man.

 

[Charoite]

As I have looked at these governments I've only found one real issue. It's an issue that's good in ways but unfortunate. People have a longer life expectancy and you end up with an older population that's having fewer kids. You start to have fewer people paying in. That the biggest issue I've noted.