Scandinavia - working socialist economies?

[WillMagic]

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

[Cyrus]

[ 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."

[tylerdurden]

[ 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.

[Cyrus]

[ 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]

[tylerdurden]

[ 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."

[Cyrus]

[ 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.

[hetron]

Try asking some middle class swedes or norwegians if they would trade their lifestyle for that of a middle class person in the US. Go ahead, ask them.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Try asking some middle class swedes or norwegians if they would trade their lifestyle for that of a middle class person in the US. Go ahead, ask them.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the fact that some people enjoy a policy makes it just?

Like I've said before, it's not surprising that plunderers enjoy plundering.

[hetron]

If the economic policy is pretty much widely supported throughout the society, is it plundering?

Do you understand the concept of "general consensus"?

[sam h]

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.