So What is Wrong With the Nordic Model of Economics?

Its the flank power idea.

The usa is not a flank power but it can't allow any nation to dominate Eurasia and its resources.

Like Britain would intervene to stop one nation dominating Europe. The us can't let one country dominate eurasia.

Russia is a potential threat. It cant be allowed to dominate that sphere or markets.

There is a fundamental clash of interests.

Russia was not threatening to dominate Europe, and the U.S. has no interest in Ukraine.
 
Russia was not threatening to dominate Europe, and the U.S. has no interest in Ukraine.

Explain.

Ukraine is kinda in both spheres of interest.

edit- I said Eurasia not europe. Russian influence is more relevant in some stan than eg portugal.

Lets not misquote each other.
 
Explain.

Ukraine is kinda in both spheres of interest.

No, it's not. And if you had said this at any time for the first few years after the fall of the Soviet Union, informed people would've laughed at you.

What interest does the U.S. have in a country that's so closely tied to Russia that it's sometimes hard to see where one begins and other ends?
 
edit- I said Eurasia not europe. Russian influence is more relevant in some stan than eg portugal.

Lets not misquote each other.

How could Russia, with its 140 million people and small economy, dominate a super-continent of over four billion people that included rising states like China and India, and powerful established interests like the E.U. and NATO?
 
Last edited:
How could Russia, with its 140 million people and small economy, dominate a super-continent of over three billion people that included rising states like China and India, and powerful established interests like the E.U. and NATO?

It can't. We seem to be talking at cross purposes.

While the US hegemon is firmly established the ussr was challenging that from Angola to Indonesia.

I'm sorry, is ukraine more tied to russia than baltic states now in nato?

So if it is in us interests to bring latvia into nato. How exactly is it not in their interests to bring ukraine into the fold?
 
No, it's not. And if you had said this at any time for the first few years after the fall of the Soviet Union, informed people would've laughed at you.

What interest does the U.S. have in a country that's so closely tied to Russia that it's sometimes hard to see where one begins and other ends?

Fukiyama?
 
Obviously, many countries are implementing policies which want to reverse it, and they're failing. How come?

Don't answer by turning it into a train metaphor. Describe the specific process by which a semi-authoritarian country is preventing from doing what it obviously wants to do.



I think you're mistaking various trends as some sort of global depopulation program. The elites aren't that smart.

Because they are up against a culture which has been shaped and has a lot of momentum. How do you reverse a culture with numerous Trojan horses within it? And besides, the depopulation directives are coming from very high up. Much higher than any single national government.

So they are failing because they aren't addressing the root causes, and they are up against a much larger directive that is still pushing hard.

I also highly doubt there is much political will to make a serious attempt, because of how unpopular dealing with the root causes would be. It would not be politically correct.

When you add up all the various programs and see how much support they had globally, it's obvious that it's coordinated. It may look random on the surface, but it isn't.

It's not like I'm making this up, it's all researchable stuff.
 
I'm sorry, is ukraine more tied to russia than baltic states now in nato?

But you're assuming the Baltic States represent some real interest to the E.U. and the U.S. They don't.

And so the fact that Moscow allowed those states to gain NATO membership shows the degree to which Russia is an overhyped threat.

It was also really a stupid move by the West. Why should we be obligated for the defense of the Baltic nations? They're small, unimportant, filled with quite a few Russians (two of them, anyway), and if Moscow ever decides it wants to invade them, we could do nothing to stop it.

The border of Estonia is just a two-hour car drive from Saint Petersburg, for Christ's sakes.
 
Because they are up against a culture which has been shaped and has a lot of momentum. How do you reverse a culture with numerous Trojan horses within it? And besides, the depopulation directives are coming from very high up. Much higher than any single national government.

I asked you to specifically describe the process, and you have switched a freight train metaphor for a Trojan horse metaphor.

What exactly are those Trojan Horses in Singapore? Where are those directives influencing and effectively countermanding that state's population policies?
 
How about George H. W. Bush? Or George Kennan?

Same thing.

I agree russia is an overhyped threat.

However these nations are in russias traditional sphere of interest.

So how does the us approach this?

Give up on nato expansionism?

What is real politik in this scenario?
 
I asked you to specifically describe the process, and you have switched a freight train metaphor for a Trojan horse metaphor.

What exactly are those Trojan Horses in Singapore? Where are those directives influencing and effectively countermanding that state's population policies?

Three specific examples of such Trojan horses would be the feminist movement, a promiscuous culture, and abortion. All of which are protected through a thick layer of political correctness.

I don't know enough about Singapore to know how their culture has absorbed Western culture and/or policies so I'd have to examine it specifically, but I'm assuming we are talking generally because the same pattern can be seen all across the Western world.

How are those directives carried out? Universities (political activism), politics (abortion laws), and media(culture/values) is how they do it here so that is where I would look since I'd assume it would be implemented the same way across the board for the most part.
 
Same thing.

I agree russia is an overhyped threat.

However these nations are in russias traditional sphere of interest.

So how does the us approach this?

Give up on nato expansionism?

What is real politik in this scenario?

Yes, I think NATO expansionism should be over. We've provoked Russia enough, and Moscow is potentially a useful ally for many things we might like to do around the world. But, frankly, at this point, any idea of Russian/American cooperation in the Middle East or on China is probably a dead letter, too.

And all over something as stupid as Ukraine. It boggles the mind.
 
Three specific examples of such Trojan horses would be the feminist movement, a promiscuous culture, and abortion. All of which are protected through a thick layer of political correctness.

Not in Singapore.

I don't know enough about Singapore to know how their culture has absorbed Western culture and/or policies so I'd have to examine it specifically, but I'm assuming we are talking generally because the same pattern can be seen all across the Western world.

Birth rates are falling dramatically all across the world - not just in the West. Even in places as varied as Latin America and the Arabian peninsula they are crashing.

How are those directives carried out? Universities (political activism), politics (abortion laws), and media(culture/values) is how they do it here so that is where I would look since I'd assume it would be implemented the same way across the board for the most part.

I think the more likely explanation is the spread of cheap and widely available birth control methods, the increase in young people putting off forming a family to get an advanced education, and the increase of women in the work force.

And I don't think any of those changes except for the first were deliberately done to depopulate the planet.
 
Yes, I think NATO expansionism should be over. We've provoked Russia enough, and Moscow is potentially a useful ally for many things we might like to do around the world. But, frankly, at this point, any idea of Russian/American cooperation in the Middle East or on China is probably a dead letter, too.

And all over something as stupid as Ukraine. It boggles the mind.

I view it like the modern version of the great game.

I disagree Moscow is not a potential ally.

It still funds enemies of the us. Every regime hostile to america has links to russia.

Syria, Iran etc.

Are they a threat? no not in the least.

I'd like you to extrapolate on how Russia are such a useful ally. Islamic extremism?
 
Not in Singapore.



Birth rates are falling dramatically all across the world - not just in the West. Even in places as varied as Latin America and the Arabian peninsula they are crashing.



I think the more likely explanation is the spread of cheap and widely available birth control methods, the increase in young people putting off forming a family to get an advanced education, and the increase of women in the work force.

And I don't think any of those changes except for the first were deliberately done to depopulate the planet.

Really i'd have to examine each of those cultures then because there are a lot of techniques and factors. That's interesting that none of those factors are present in Singapore. Japan is another interesting case.
The factors you mentioned are certainly part of it, yes. Undermining of religion is another.

Most people won't think there is a deliberate effort (I certainly wouldn't think that off hand), but I have since come to the conclusion that it definitely is. Some degree of it I'm sure is organic, but the proportion that is being engineered is quite high. That possibility is certainly worth investigating if you are ever find the time. It gets into social engineering techniques which I always find interesting.
 
I view it like the modern version of the great game.

But wouldn't it be nice to play the game well. The last fifteen years of U.S. geopolitical moves have been like watching a series of skits on amateur hour.

I disagree Moscow is not a potential ally.

Well, I think they could've been our allies, but at this point I don't think that's in the cards anymore.

[ By the way, based on your remarks below, it appears you miswrote the sentence above, and that you meant to write that you disagree Moscow is a potential ally. Or perhaps you left out a period after "I disagree". In any case, I'll play it straight until told otherwise. ]


[ Moscow ] still funds enemies of the us. Every regime hostile to america has links to russia.

So it cozies up to Syria, Iran, and Venezuela. Who cares?

Part of this is them playing the Great Game, and part of it is financial. It's not like there is any ideological commitment or deep national interest to their actions. Moscow wants to be a major player, but it's not interested a nuclear-armed Iran on its border - not unless we push the Russians into being interested in it.


Are [ the Russians ] a threat? no not in the least.

Well, they are a threat for anyone who sees serious U.S national interests in Georgia and Ukraine. As we just discovered, they still have the ability to swing their elbows sharply in their own neighborhood, and there's not much we can do about it.

I'd like you to extrapolate on how Russia are such a useful ally. Islamic extremism?

Yes, and containing China.

China is a much bigger geopolitical threat to U.S. interests than is Russia, but you wouldn't know it by listening to our politicians.
 
Last edited:
Leaving aside that you're calling an extensive welfare state combined with free market economy, "socialism" (especially problematic with Sweden and it's comparatively fast and extensive adoption of neoliberal policies, which has nonetheless maintained similar levels of equality).
You could flip the coin and say the same about democracy and "intensive capitalism", with or without high levels of ethnic diversity.
In fact we've also seen a rise of far-right leaderships amongst all the most neo-liberal capitalist states in S. E. Asia.
As for coups and protests, that seems to track better with rampant inequality.
Just look at Thailand...

Yeah, those kinds of little rules of society can be used to explain everything, and thus nothing, and they are always thrown off when you look more closely at the details. It just reflects the lens with which you choose to look at stuff (class struggle, race, race relations, psychology, etc.).
 
Leaving aside that you're calling an extensive welfare state combined with free market economy, "socialism" (especially problematic with Sweden and it's comparatively fast and extensive adoption of neoliberal policies, which has nonetheless maintained similar levels of equality).
You could flip the coin and say the same about democracy and "intensive capitalism", with or without high levels of ethnic diversity.
In fact we've also seen a rise of far-right leaderships amongst all the most neo-liberal capitalist states in S. E. Asia.
As for coups and protests, that seems to track better with rampant inequality.
Just look at Thailand...

I think I was pretty clear that I was referring to socialism, loosely, as reflected by the degree that the state controls, takes, and spends the national income. In other words, rather than saying some nation was "socialist" or "capitalist," I argued that a better starting point was the degree to which the state dominates the economy. Hence my link to a chart showing exactly that. Rough, yes that's a very rough measure, and it doesn't really focus on whether the socialism is "class" or "national/ethnic" based.

At any rate, I pointed out that by that measure, Sweden was much less socialist than people think, given the recent reforms, as well as that Canada was much less socialist and much more like America. That was kind of exactly my point -- socialism has been systematically eroded by capitalism (I think neoliberalism hardly matters, because that's describing a particular ideology). So you are arguing my point by reiterating that.

Then I pointed out that the encroachment of capitalism on socialism tends to require authoritarian means to reverse, engineering social solidarity. This is why recent European political conflicts have taken on more of a character of nationalist socialism versus global capitalism.

Finally your examples are perfect illustrations of what I was arguing -- the effects of capitalist encroachment (disintegration of social homogeneity and solidarity) leading to a predictable rise of far-right ideology -- so why pointing out that that is exactly what has happened in Southeast Asia would be a rebuttal, I'm at a loss, it's pretty much Exhibit B (rise of right-wing dictatorships in Asia after capitalist chaos) follow up to Exhibit A (rise of right wing in Europe after capitalist chaos). You could theoretically also see a rise of leftist social authoritarianism, which has historically been an option, but that's extremely difficult in modern democracies. Again, this is basically political science 101, so I can hardly claim ingenious insight, my only point here is that the very NATURE of capitalism (particularly by forcing nations to open their doors to immigrant labor) has made it more difficult to assert leftist socialist resistance in a society that doesn't tolerate authoritarian social engineering any more. Instead such resistance has taken increasingly nationalist forms, hoping to leverage existing concepts of national/racial/ethnic homogeneity against the levelling influences of capitalism.

You could always argue the reverse, that the Nordic model hasn't had to break before capitalist inroads and permit developments that are eating away at its foundation, that it is readily exportable to diverse societies without authoritarianism, etc. But it's not somehow self-evident, and it would require evidence to support as a thesis. Given that the contemporary world seems to be structured exactly the opposite, with a beautiful continuum between more capitalist/diverse nations (like USA/Australia) through middle nations (France/Germany) to the Nordic nations, almost exactly tracking social diversity, and given the mountains of social scientific evidence (I know lol but it's hardly controversial) about the effects of immigration and social diversity on social solidarity (for example, support for redistributive tax policies), the shoe is on the opposite foot. You can make a USA or Australia (highly diverse, relatively low socialism) or a Sweden or Norway (highly homogeneous, relatively high socialism). But nobody has a good idea how to make a Swedish USA (highly diverse, relatively high socialism) without Soviet-style overlords. And we don't allow those overlords anymore in modern democratic societies.

What we are seeing over and over again is that social cohesion that was forged with blood and iron by authoritarian states is disintegrating before the process of advanced capitalism, which is its natural enemy. No, this doesn't mean every political event happens out of necessity, but it does mean that arguments in favor of the exportability of Nordic socialism have to explain away why this isn't a problem. Which is not aided by the fact that Nordic socialism has become increasingly fictitious over the last few decades.

Thailand is an interesting example because it's precisely what I expect to become more and more common -- as uncontrollable global capitalism makes democracy more and more laughable as an alleged process of governance, you will see the rise of *parallel political factions*, which is one of the defining characteristics of fascism. Street mobs and military juntas being classic examples.

None of this is necessary, of course, and the future is always contingent, with intervening variables (wars, world depressions, etc.). But the dynamics still have to be dealt with.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top