According to reality, but I know you are not big on reality.
The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism
- Thread starter MAGA MAN
- Start date
According to reality, but I know you are not big on reality.
Not schizophrenia...stupidity.
jimmymccready
Verified User
Both?
According to you...
What the meme leaves out are several factors:
1) Norway is mostly culturally homogeneous. Because of this, it's easier to organize society efficiently and for everyone to be on the same page regarding priorities.
2) Norway has a very favorable resource to population ratio. The country largely thrives off of its oil revenue, since the population is relatively small.
3) Norway also has a very capitalistic economy outside of a few key industries.
We could probably attempt to emulate certain aspects of Norway in policy, but we cannot expect them to work the same way here as they work there.
jimmymccready
Verified User
Cultural homogeneousity has nothing to do with social programs in a civilized country.
The USA has a much higher resource to population ration than Norway.
Both Norway and the USA are democratic market economies.
Stop the nonsense, please.
The USA has a much higher resource to population ration than Norway.
Both Norway and the USA are democratic market economies.
Stop the nonsense, please.
It most certainly does have something to do with how well welfare states function. If there is a high variance in the values of the people present, then you're going to see a lot of people end up living off of the system. This is what has happened with the migrant crisis in Europe, for example.
It's not as simple as saying that some people are lazy. It's that some cultures adapt better to a system than others. In the case of Sweden, for example, the Afghanis that immigrated to Sweden have largely become dependent on government money. They don't typically know the local language, and they don't have any needed job skills.
There are plenty of less extreme examples of where this variance in values and skills has effects on a system as well.
Actually, it doesn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
We're close to Norway in that regard, although Norway also has substantially less poverty than America. That also plays into how well systems work. We'd have to change things quite a lot to match Norway's relative lack of poverty.
If you mean mixed market, yes. Although, the US is considerably more economically free.
https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
This is why the establishment always uses the word "Socialism" to describe ANY attempt to help the working-class. Remember when Obama was a Socialist and the ACA was Socialism? The good news is that the establishment has used this word so many times for so many different things that it's lost its power.
Another good thing is that Bernie, in a stroke of genius, has begun calling right-wing policies that help the rich "Corporate Socialism." He's pointing out that the establishment is fine with regulation to help the rich, but only cry about Socialism when the regulations help the working-class.
Only freeloaders want social democracy. Real Americans prefer to be responsible for doing for themselves not voting for someone else to do it for them.
The countries where you claim it works in Europe work because of Capitalism not socialism or social democracy.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
What makes you think it works better there?
What you want is the high taxes they have in Europe in order to fund the social welfare programs.
I am still waiting for conservatives to explain the contradiction as to why they called Barack Obama a "socialist" for the better part of a decade,
but the generous social welfare states of Scandinavia are not socialist.
Also too, exactly what nations were conservatives referring to when they spent decades calling western Europe "socialist"???
>> https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-SOCIALISM-IN-VENEZUELA&p=2926319#post2926319
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
It just shows how silly and inconsistent "Socialism" is in the Fox News bubble. While I don't mind being called a Socialist, I don't use the term because it means nothing now. "Socialism" can be anything from hardcore authoritarian Marxism to mostly free-market Capitalism with a few regulations to keep parents from selling their kids into slavery.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
Interesting how you lefties claim you'd pay higher taxes if it meant people getting healthcare. You do realize there is a way for those you think should have care to get it without anyone else being taxed more?
How much do you say I'll save?
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
Your, actually the article's, whole arguement is blown given that socialism/capitalism isn't a dichotomy, it is not an either or choice, you don't give up a market economy by adopting socialist principles, or vica versa
The right likes to portray any mention of socialism as if it is an upheaval in the economy, nothing could be further from the truth, no economy today in the World is a straight socialist nor capitalist economy, even Cuba or China, they are all mixed economies, a little bit of both, in fact, the US has been part socialist since the 19th Century, if not before then
Higher taxes but less cost. You don't have to pay for healthcare or copays. You do not have the burden of healthcare and its operation on the back of companies. That would make them immediately more competitive on a world market that competes with companies that do not have that cost. They would be able to pass some of that savings on higher wages and benefits.
Our system is just plain wrong.