Scandinavia - working socialist economies?
 

Or not...

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

The results are shocking. High taxes and government spending in Scandinavian countries have lead to anemic growth in job creation and GDP.

Will

Re: Scandinavia
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

The results are shocking. High taxes and government spending in Scandinavian countries have lead to anemic growth in job creation and GDP.

[/ QUOTE ]

As poster PVN is fond of saying, "You have to be rich to be a success?"

By the measurements of purely GNP, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finnland, or Iceland might not be your "runaway success stories" but methinks there are other measurements too. Or they should be.

As a friend of mine was fond of saying, "When we pump out the last barrel of oil and cut down the last tree, we will discover that we cannot eat money."

Re: Scandinavia - working socialist economies?
 

This is a very deceptive article on a number of fronts. In the last twenty years, the Nordic countries have not done appreciably worse than other European countries except for Ireland. But Ireland was starting from a low GDP base anyway and took advantage of many idiosyncratic advantages like a very educated workforce and a favorable mix of social actors. It is one interesting piece of evidence in the debate about how to best compete today. But it would be foolish and simplistic to latch onto Ireland's performance and proclaim it to be evidence for the superiority of a general model of political economy. If you want the counter-argument, after all, just look at how well the variations on the "Irish model" have performed in Latin America. And Ireland itself is now probably in for rougher times than it has experienced in the last decade.

Re: Scandinavia - working socialist economies?
 

This is a great book to read about the Irish

Basically, the Irish Scholars kept much of the written part of Western Civilization alive while Europe when thru the Dark Ages - They saved much of our written Western tradition - part of Cahill's "Hinges of History" series.

They are a unique culture - and it's odd because it's strongest influences on modern society these days are from immigrants, not the locals. I've been told it's much easier to make a living in an Irish band in the US then in Ireland - well, trad. bands - not necessarily U2 - LOL

I'm obscenely proud to be part Irish.

RB

Re: Scandinavia
 

[ QUOTE ]
As poster PVN is fond of saying, "You have to be rich to be a success?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, that was a completely different context.

I would argue that one should have to show *some* improvement as a minimum requirement for being a success. Here, we're talking about massive government intervention that *reduces* all measureable aggregate indicators.

[ QUOTE ]
By the measurements of purely GNP, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finnland, or Iceland might not be your "runaway success stories" but methinks there are other measurements too. Or they should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as? Maybe you'd like a Gross National Plundering index that measures how much is stolen from the producers and squandered. That seems like something most European nations would score high in.

[ QUOTE ]
As a friend of mine was fond of saying, "When we pump out the last barrel of oil and cut down the last tree, we will discover that we cannot eat money."

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't eat oil or trees, either.

Re: Scandinavia - working socialist economies?
 

Maximizing job creation or GDP growth has rarely been the main goal of Scandinavian governments, so the whole discussion is meaningless. The Swedish government is not stupid, they know that certain alternative policies would increase GDP faster. It is a choice.

Re: Scandinavia - working socialist economies?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maximizing job creation or GDP growth has rarely been the main goal of Scandinavian governments, so the whole discussion is meaningless. The Swedish government is not stupid, they know that certain alternative policies would increase GDP faster. It is a choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least they're up front about the damage their policies are doing.

Re: Scandinavia - working socialist economies?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maximizing job creation or GDP growth has rarely been the main goal of Scandinavian governments, so the whole discussion is meaningless. The Swedish government is not stupid, they know that certain alternative policies would increase GDP faster. It is a choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least they're up front about the damage their policies are doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damage/success is very relative in this context. It is a value judgment. The Scandinavian model is more focused on increasing the utility of those who are worst off in society based on a philosophical belief that this is the main aim of the state, whereas in the US the economic model is more focused on high GDP based on the philosophical belief that this is the main aim of the society.

Of course this isn't black and white. Neither US or Scandinavia is on either extreme side of this spectre.

Re: Scandinavia - working socialist economies?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Damage/success is very relative in this context. It is a value judgment.

[/ QUOTE ]

A judgement some make and impose on others. A judgement that does cause damages to some (and enrichment of others).

Re: Scandinavia - working socialist economies?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Damage/success is very relative in this context. It is a value judgment.

[/ QUOTE ]

A judgement some make and impose on others. A judgement that does cause damages to some (and enrichment of others).

[/ QUOTE ]

Only your ideology is free of this (no sarcasm). Still I don't support it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Re: Scandinavia - working socialist economies?
 

our GDP is high and growing, our GDP includes everything bad that happens. cancer is good for our economy because of all the treatment for it involved and all the money it generates. that is how we measure growth here in the good united states.

would sweeden include treatemnt all the medical stuff sicne it's done by the government? is that not included in their gdp?

Re: Scandinavia - working socialist economies?
 

[ QUOTE ]
our GDP is high and growing, our GDP includes everything bad that happens. cancer is good for our economy because of all the treatment for it involved and all the money it generates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bruiser, I am pretty sure this general take is mistaken in the matter of chronic diseases, because the costs of chronic diseases include enormous amounts of lost productivity in the workplace, as well as other costs. I read some years ago of studies done regarding the effects of cigarette-induced illnesses and the net economic effect of such was quite negative. Greater health care costs also contribute to rising insurance premiums which drain the pockets of the average citizen, so Joe Blow can't go spend that money elsewhere and thus can't raise the GDP in that manner either.

If Joe gets a nasty cold, he buys NyQuil maybe and loses a few days work, or works less effectively if he does go to work. Common colds reduce our country's GDP. Diseases like emphysema, chronic heart disease, and long-term cancer also reduce our GDP. Short-term cancer which quickly kills, raises GDP immediately, but costs GDP in the long run as the victim can no longer contribute years of work to future GDP's, nor can the (dead) victim purchase consumer goods or services in the future.

Re: Scandinavia - working socialist economies?
 

government purchases are included in GDP but government transfer payments are not.

Scandinavia state of mind
 

[ QUOTE ]
That was a completely different context.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah there it is, found it! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] What a distortion of your words, I apologize for using your quote without permission and out of context. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Seriously, an apophthegm, a maxim, is almost always taken "out of (its original) context". I simply considered the phrase you wrote worthy of that status, and that's how I used it, i.e. "You don't have to be rich to be a success!"

Quotations "by great men" are used that way, i.e. in varying contexts.

I'm not implying anything about your size, btw. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Here, we're talking about massive government intervention that *reduces* all measureable aggregate indicators.

[/ QUOTE ] If by "here", you are still referring to Scandinavian economies, you are seriously wrong.

"All measurable aggregate indicators"?! Hah. Not even in your dreams.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you'd like a Gross National Plundering index that measures how much is stolen from the producers and squandered. That seems like something most European nations would score high in.

[/ QUOTE ] People in Europe have been consistently responding quite positively about their standard of living, in general, when everything is taken into account, i.e. working conditions, environmental conditions, social policies, etc etc etc. Yes, the people of Europe are whining and moaning about the "Brussels bureaucracy" and would dearly love to have their taxes lowered, as everybody would, but they are unwilling to part with what those taxes are providing them for -- no matter how "inefficiently"...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a friend of mine was fond of saying, "When we pump out the last barrel of oil and cut down the last tree, we will discover that we cannot eat money."

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't eat oil or trees, either.

[/ QUOTE ]
Even if your rebuttal consists of a simplistic literal interpretation, it's not making it : One can eat off a tree.

...You can keep the oil. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Scandinavia state of mind
 

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, an apophthegm, a maxim, is almost always taken "out of (its original) context". I simply considered the phrase you wrote worthy of that status, and that's how I used it, i.e. "You don't have to be rich to be a success!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. We're talking about countries here, we were talking about individuals there.

[ QUOTE ]
People in Europe have been consistently responding quite positively about their standard of living, in general, when everything is taken into account, i.e. working conditions, environmental conditions, social policies, etc etc etc. Yes, the people of Europe are whining and moaning about the "Brussels bureaucracy" and would dearly love to have their taxes lowered, as everybody would, but they are unwilling to part with what those taxes are providing them for -- no matter how "inefficiently"...

[/ QUOTE ]

All of them??? Of course, those that are getting more than they are putting in love the system. And of course, those same people would love to get more "free stuff" at the expense of the producers while putting in even less of their own. These same people don't care if it's inefficient because it's someone else's money.

Unfortunately, those people aren't *everyone* in Europe. You're taking the opinion of some individuals and applying it "the people of Europe" (who don't have a single, unified opinion) - what you should say is "some people in Europe."

Re: Scandinavia - working socialist economies?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
our GDP is high and growing, our GDP includes everything bad that happens. cancer is good for our economy because of all the treatment for it involved and all the money it generates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bruiser, I am pretty sure this general take is mistaken in the matter of chronic diseases, because the costs of chronic diseases include enormous amounts of lost productivity in the workplace, as well as other costs. I read some years ago of studies done regarding the effects of cigarette-induced illnesses and the net economic effect of such was quite negative. Greater health care costs also contribute to rising insurance premiums which drain the pockets of the average citizen, so Joe Blow can't go spend that money elsewhere and thus can't raise the GDP in that manner either.

If Joe gets a nasty cold, he buys NyQuil maybe and loses a few days work, or works less effectively if he does go to work. Common colds reduce our country's GDP. Diseases like emphysema, chronic heart disease, and long-term cancer also reduce our GDP. Short-term cancer which quickly kills, raises GDP immediately, but costs GDP in the long run as the victim can no longer contribute years of work to future GDP's, nor can the (dead) victim purchase consumer goods or services in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, Bruiser has used the broken window fallacy.

Re: Scandinavia state of mind
 

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever. We're talking about countries here, we were talking about individuals there.

[/ QUOTE ]And, in bringing finally the two sub-threads together, I will maintain that, in the context of either individuals or countries, the rhetorical question applies equally aptly: Do you have to be rich to be success?

Anyone who does not answer that (rhetorical!) question negatively, has issues.

(And I do not mean underlying issues. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img])

[ QUOTE ]
Those people aren't *everyone* in Europe ... What you should say is "some people in Europe."

[/ QUOTE ] I did not imply that everyone in Eruope is in agreement. Europeans have not been unanimous or nearly unanimous about anything in the last two millenia, bless their inventive, belligerent, nervous souls!

The fact is that a significant number, oftentimes the majority, of Europeans are quite content with the social policies associated with the European Union, although, at the same time, they complain about the "bureaucracy" that comes with 'em.

Guess what? Collective policies, inculding collective decision-making, involve by definition some of that "bureaucracy". Most people in Europe realize this, when all is said and done -- and this is why they keep returning to power politicians that are carrying them on.

Re: Scandinavia state of mind
 

[ QUOTE ]
I did not imply that everyone in Eruope is in agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why do you use terms like "the people of europe" if not to downplay the dissenters?

Obviously, a lot of people support these policies. That doesn't make them legitimate (it doesn't necessarily make them illegitimate, either). Theft doesn't magically become legitimate when your gang grows past some critical size.

Re: Scandinavia state of mind
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have to be rich to be success?

Anyone who does not answer that (rhetorical!) question negatively, has issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on what definition of success you're using for a particular question, which was exactly my point when I first made that statement. In that thread, the OP had used a well-defined condition (bankruptcy) for failure, and a vague and easily-redefined condition ("being rich") for success.

Re: Scandinavia state of mind
 

Your statement was ill stated in the thread I started (which is why I ignored it there). In that thread there was no reference to success or failure as I consider those to be rich or bankrupt. There are successful people who are poor and vice-versa. The term success and failure are too subjective for me to use in a post (I am very precise [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img])

We can discuss that further in the other thread if you like. Now on to the meat of this thread.

By one measure the European nations are very successful. If you measure the number of young people willing and able to travel out of their countries for extended periods of time, America is way behind Scandanavia, Europe, and even Canada. I have noticed this in Africa and in Asia and have a recollection from parts of the Carribean that it is true over there as well.

I suggest this comes from the policies of the European Government to wit:

1. Greater vacation time per annum for travel. Two weeks per year is a great way to prepare workers for early graves.
2. Health Insurance. A 30 year Dane and his girl friend can take a year off and travel the world knowing that their health coverage is available at home when needed and on their return. An American who does that risks not getting coverage on his return, unless he quickly finds a job, has no preexisting conditions and was not hurt while travelling.

So, in these cases the government is acting to build an attractive life environment for their citizens. I guess the assumption is that Nokia, BMW, and the other corporation are good at negotiating their way through the government for goodies to improve the corporations well being -- however Nigel, Claudette, Milla, and Horst need their representatives (the people these folks voted for) to get goodies that improve their well being(such as vacation time and health care)

In America, the middle class (specially those who are rapidly falling into the poor class as posited by me in the other thread) keep falling for the myth that when their government (the people they elected yet) passes laws that make it easier for Credit Card companies to collect from bankrupt individuals somehow they are being helped!!!

Of course, it is the same middle class that buys the myth that the tax cuts primarily benefit them.

No wonder Rush Chortles on and on during his entertainment programs

Magical Demos
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I did not imply that everyone in Eruope is in agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why do you use terms like "the people of europe" if not to downplay the dissenters?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the majority of people think that way. I assumed that people here are above a certain level of intelligence and, thus, can understand that when someone says "Americans like burgers", one means "most" or "a significant number of", etc. I could be wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, a lot of people support these policies. That doesn't make them legitimate (it doesn't necessarily make them illegitimate, either). Theft doesn't magically become legitimate when your gang grows past some critical size.

[/ QUOTE ] Well, it may surprise you to know that when (for example) theft becomes institutionalised, it is legitimate, in both senses of the word. As a matter of fact, when such choices are made voluntariyl by a group of people, large (society) or small, who are you to say otherwise?

Ah yes, this is where we enter the realm of "absolute morals", a realm where democracy and the will of the individual might not rule! (It's a realm, after all...)

Re: Scandinavia state of mind
 

[ QUOTE ]
I did not imply that everyone in Eruope is in agreement. Europeans have not been unanimous or nearly unanimous about anything in the last two millenia, bless their inventive, belligerent, nervous souls!

The fact is that a significant number, oftentimes the majority, of Europeans are quite content with the social policies associated with the European Union, although, at the same time, they complain about the "bureaucracy" that comes with 'em.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might be worth pointing out that very little of what would normaly be considered social policies (unemployment benefits, health care, welfare, pensions etc etc) is actually done at the EU level. Those things are still firmly in the hands of the national goverments.

In fact I don't really think it is worthwile to classify what "europeans" think on most subjects. We don't share a common language, havn't had similiar histories, havn't got any sort of unified culture don't use (or even have access to) the same media and so on.

/Bjorn

Re: Scandinavia - working socialist economies?
 

I don't know about GDP but one of the big slogans of the Social Democrats (who has been ruling in sweden for most of the post-WW2 era) allways used to be "Full Employment". So jobs have definitly been a big priority at least in sweden.

/Bjorn

Scraping foetus off the wheel
 

In this thread, it was argued that financial performance is THE indicator of a society's well-being. Or words to that effect.


Perhaps the following two links will prove useful to those who wanna have a second thought about that :

Infant mortality comparison across nations : How goes America ?



Defense spending in the United States.

http://www.sensiblepriorities.org/im..._2005_half.gif

Re: Scraping foetus off the wheel
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.sensiblepriorities.org/im..._2005_half.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, the federal government is a "society"?

Seriously, though, thanks for showing yet another reason that statism is undesirable.

Re: Scraping foetus off the wheel
 

20 European entries in the top 25 in the world, sounds like a good flyer. Good post.

Mack

Re: Scraping foetus off the wheel
 

Our infants, statistically, do worse than Cuba.

I certainly would not have expected that ranking. The table is a shocker!

Re: Scraping foetus off the wheel
 

Cuba has free healthcare.......

Re: Scraping foetus off the wheel
 

[ QUOTE ]
Cuba has free healthcare.......

[/ QUOTE ]

No shocker there (free as in govt paid that is).

Our healthcare system is the best in the world (the aggregated and restated sentiment of many of the Right Wing posters on this forum).

Re: Scraping foetus off the wheel
 

I don't know the details of all the countries, but those with a strong, wellfunctioning government seem to do best. Who else than a strong government can secure the well-being of a small child? (given the reality that not all parents are good)

Re: Scraping foetus off the wheel
 

I don't see you hoping on a plane to get you health care treatment from cuba, or even France for that matter.

In fact, where does everyone come when they are sick?

Re: Scraping foetus off the wheel
 

Lehighguy,
If I would become sick I would get free healthcare in Norway. If the Norwegian government would consider my disease to be so special that expertise/treatment isn't good enough in Norway, they would send me abroad. Then, I would likely be sent to the US, since many of the leading hospitals are there. The same situation in many other European countries, I think.

Re: Scraping foetus off the wheel
 

You are ducking the issue.

Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the US (as does Macau, Slovenia, not to mention much of the European world). This appears to be a statistical fact. Now if you state that this particular statistic is irrelevant, OK at least we understand each other.

I still contend that this table is an absolute shocker. That our society cannot do as well as Cuba is protecting small childre, is and should be a shocker. You can choose to ignore the statistic if you like. If you have an explanation for the statistic, that would be interesting -- statements about where I would go for treatment are irrelevant, unless you show the connection.

Re: Scraping foetus off the wheel
 

[ QUOTE ]
That our society cannot do as well as Cuba is protecting small childre, is and should be a shocker.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it shocks you, I advise you to look deeper into this issues or travel more (not meant as insult).

Re: Scraping foetus off the wheel
 

Your post implies that the fact that Cuba has a better infant mortality rate means it's a better health care system. This is absolutely silly.

When people say we have the best healthcare in the world they mean we have the best drugs, hospitals, doctors, equipment, and facilities. We also have shorter waiting lists and more healthcare options.

The fact that foriegners come here to be treated is a reflection of these things.

Kids aren't getting treated, that sucks. But it isn't the end all be all in determining the quality of healthcare.

Re: Scraping foetus off the wheel
 

Part of why medical care is so good in the US is because it is privatised. There is more incentive for people to become doctors or open hospitals here. Also, most new drugs are deeveloped here because we offer them generous patents and prices.

To my knowledge, there is a shortage of such services and R+D in Europe. In general I feel universal healthcare is often a way of partying now at the expense of tommorrow. For instance, if you won't pay drug makers alot for a new drug then they will stop developing them.

America basically subsidizes most advances in healthcare, as these would not take place in the European framework because of the incentive scheme.

Re: Scraping foetus off the wheel
 

I agree that the subject needs deeper study.

I expect that I have travelled more than most on this forum and have lived (notjust visited) on three continents.

Re: Scraping foetus off the wheel
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your post implies that the fact that Cuba has a better infant mortality rate means it's a better health care system. This is absolutely silly.


[/ QUOTE ]

Any implication drawn from my post is your own.

My post was quite clear. The statistic in the table shocks me. This is not the same as saying that the Cuban Health System is better or that treatment of cancer or other disease is better in Cuba that in the US or anyother conclusion that you have drawn. All it is saying is that if you are an infant you are better off in Cuba than in the US.

My statement is simple -- it is shocking that the best healthcare system in the world has an infant mortality rate that is lower than that of a third rate dictatatorship with few resourcse such as Cuba.

If you are willing to dismiss the statistic as meaningless because we are better able to cure cancer in 70 year olds, or perfrom heart-lung transplants on the same demographic then that is your perogative.

Re: Scraping foetus off the wheel
 

[ QUOTE ]
Part of why medical care is so good in the US is because it is privatised. There is more incentive for people to become doctors or open hospitals here. Also, most new drugs are deeveloped here because we offer them generous patents and prices.

To my knowledge, there is a shortage of such services and R+D in Europe. In general I feel universal healthcare is often a way of partying now at the expense of tommorrow. For instance, if you won't pay drug makers alot for a new drug then they will stop developing them.

America basically subsidizes most advances in healthcare, as these would not take place in the European framework because of the incentive scheme.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have commercial drug making industry and a few private hospitals as well, in addition to resultsbased research funding etc.; so there are some incentives. However, I think you are right they are stronger in the US.

Re: Scraping foetus off the wheel
 

[ QUOTE ]
Our infants, statistically, do worse than Cuba.

I certainly would not have expected that ranking. The table is a shocker!

[/ QUOTE ]

Who controls the publishing of statistics in Cuba? What impartial organization verified these findings?