Why does socialism seem to "work" in Nordic countries?

It works in Norway and Finland. Sweden is an inexcusably weird and perverted place, so you can't say it works there.

This is because Norwegians and Finns are smarter than everyone else.

I may be somewhat biased but it is true.

Twenty-twooooooo the avenuueee wrote:

Or does it work? I usually hear something like "Oh, it only works because they're small nations with a homogenous population. That's why it couldn't work here."

Discuss.

That's more or less it. Socialism only works when everyone is on board to work. In large populations and/or diverse populations, there will be "cheaters." This is simply a matter of frequency dependent selection, a well understood and described concept in evolutionary biology.

It "works" in Norway because they have a lot of natural resources (oil).

Maybe it works - if it works - because no one of those nations, unlike the USA, spends on its military as much as the approximately 12-17 highest military spending nations combined.

I think it's the lack of rednecks

Maybe if you bothered to educate yourself just a tiny little bit (watching Fox News doesn't count) you wouldn't be asking such stupid questions.

What the Nordic countries have is not "socialism". They are capitalist societies just like the US and their populations are not "homogeneous" just because 90% of them are white. The difference is that the people there have voted, in democratic elections, for a model of social responsibility where people are guaranteed access to healthcare, education, shelter and basic necessities if and when they need them.

The reason it works is basic economics - or even basic common sense. The healthier and happier the labor force is, the higher the output and productivity. So there's enough wealth generated in those societies for people to chip into the collective provision of services and still be affluent enough to live in relative luxury.

I'm not saying that it doesn't have some downsides or that it would work equally well everywhere, but the Republican talking point that this style of social responsibility leads to poverty is just flat-out false. The Nordic countries are among the richest in the world and their populations are among the healthiest and happiest (if you believe the "happiness" rankings that are out there).

But Republicans don't look at facts and data. If they did, they would cease to be Republicans. So carry on with your paranoid "socialism" fantasies.

Mortician wrote:

It "works" in Norway because they have a lot of natural resources (oil).

Isn't the US on track to be the world's top oil producer by 2020?

Irenaeus wrote:

Maybe it works - if it works - because no one of those nations, unlike the USA, spends on its military as much as the approximately 12-17 highest military spending nations combined.

So this could also mean that those 12-17 nations should be spending more

Or it could mean that we have a reason to fund such activities and those 12-17 nations don't have that reason

Or maybe it means that those countries would spend that much if they could

Think for a second man.

Socialism doesn't work anywhere. Those economies of Scandinavia are improving because the pendulum is swinging away from socialism toward capitalism. Whatever degree of socialism they have holds them back.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Mortician wrote:

It "works" in Norway because they have a lot of natural resources (oil).

Isn't the US on track to be the world's top oil producer by 2020?

Yes, but the US will still be a net importer because we use so much.

It would not work here because a large part of the population(mostly conservative republicans) does not want it to work here. There are people in this country that will and do everything they can to prevent the United States from being more like Nordic countries. By the way they are not really socialist nations just more liberal than the United States.

IQ and social capital are fundamental, not economics.

Austrian Economics wrote:

Socialism doesn't work anywhere. Those economies of Scandinavia are improving because the pendulum is swinging away from socialism toward capitalism. Whatever degree of socialism they have holds them back.

If by "work" you mean that the standard of success is an improvement in the material well-being of most people, socialism is incapable of working anywhere. It produces nothing but corruption and suffering.

On the other hand, if by "work" you mean literally putting people to work without allowing them to enjoy the fruits of their labor, then indeed socialism "works" great.

sjjsj wrote:

Irenaeus wrote:

Maybe it works - if it works - because no one of those nations, unlike the USA, spends on its military as much as the approximately 12-17 highest military spending nations combined.

So this could also mean that those 12-17 nations should be spending more

Or it could mean that we have a reason to fund such activities and those 12-17 nations don't have that reason

Or maybe it means that those countries would spend that much if they could

Think for a second man.

Ya man think for a second!

I'd like to know what reason we have to spend that much on our military budget that other countries don't have? I'm sure that many "socialist" countries could spend more on their military but they know that it's easier to just mind your own business and keep yourselves out of trouble than to be constantly prepared for war. The US didn't always used to be like this. Pre WWII we didn't have this insane budget for the military and it didn't stop us from mobilizing and saving Europe's butt when it came time.

So what exactly in the military's budget should be cut?

Norway is rich through oil, so it's not a fair comparison.

Finland is an interesting example. They value education very highly, and teaching is an elite and respected job - pretty much the opposite of in the US.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2012/apr/09/finish-school-system

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Mortician wrote:

It "works" in Norway because they have a lot of natural resources (oil).

Isn't the US on track to be the world's top oil producer by 2020?

As usual, the truth is more complex than the sound bites so

beloved of politicians. Why the so-called right can't bring attention to the nonsense purveyed by socialists is beyond me. Here is the news:

Research

The surprising ingredients of Swedish success – free markets and social cohesion

Nima Sanandaji 27 Aug 2012

New IEA (Institute of Economic Affairs-London) paper demonstrates that Swedish success is a result of the free market and not the welfare state

Here is a link to the full paper, a summary of which is presented below. Cuts through the BS propagated by lefties intent on making people dependent and earning their vote forever.

Executive Summary:

Sweden did not become wealthy through social democracy, big government and a large welfare state. It developed economically by adopting free-market policies in the late 19th century and early 20th century. It also benefited from positive cultural norms, including a strong work ethic and high levels of trust.

As late as 1950, Swedish tax revenues were still only around 21 per cent of GDP. The policy shift towards a big state and higher taxes occurred mainly during the next thirty years, as taxes increased by almost one per cent of GDP annually.

The rapid growth of the state in the late 1960s and 1970s led to a large decline in Sweden’s relative economic performance. In 1975, Sweden was the 4th richest industrialised country in terms of GDP per head. By 1993, it had fallen to 14th.

Big government had a devastating impact on entrepreneurship. After 1970, the establishment of new firms dropped significantly. Among the 100 firms with the highest revenues in Sweden in 2004, only two were entrepreneurial Swedish firms founded after 1970, compared with 21 founded before 1913.

High levels of equality and favourable social outcomes were evident before the creation of an extensive welfare state. Moreover, generous welfare policies have created numerous social problems, including high levels of dependency among certain groups.

Descendants of Swedes who migrated to the USA in the 19th century are characterised by favourable social outcomes, such as a low poverty rate and high employment, despite the less extensive welfare state in the USA. The average income of Americans with Swedish ancestry is over 50 per cent higher than Swedes in their native country.

Third World immigrants have been particularly badly affected by a combination of high welfare benefits and restrictive labour market regulations. In 2004, when the Swedish economy was performing strongly, the employment rate among immigrants from non- Western nations in Sweden was only 48 per cent.

Since the economic crisis of the early 1990s, Swedish governments have rolled back the state and introduced market reforms in sectors such as education, health and pensions. Economic freedom has increased in Sweden while it has declined in the UK and USA. Sweden’s relative economic performance has improved accordingly.

yes, and these nations don't have to spend anything on their military since the US has signed treaties to protect them from the big bad wolf.

Training pretty well. wrote:

I'm sure that many "socialist" countries could spend more on their military but they know that it's easier to just mind your own business and keep yourselves out of trouble than to be constantly prepared for war. The US didn't always used to be like this. Pre WWII we didn't have this insane budget for the military and it didn't stop us from mobilizing and saving Europe's butt when it came time.

I'm not saying the U.S. needs to insert itself into every corner of the world or needs to get involved in unnecessary wars, but your comments demonstrate that you are blithely unfamiliar with history and how the world works. Unfortunately it benefits no one if we decide to become isolationist and sit on the sidelines. And, as another poster alluded to, the U.S. indirectly subsidizes the defense budgets of many other countries who rely on our protection and equipment. It's a mutually beneficial relationship, which just so happens to allow certain countries to retain more money in their coffers to pay for their beloved and bloated social programs.