So What is Wrong With the Nordic Model of Economics?

[Rusk]

Weren't the Nordic countries actually doing better without their social-welfare programs?

Why aren't all the other countries that enjoyed rampant social policy spending emerge on those lists? Why are some countries that had heavy entitlement programs about to collapse the entire Euro currency?

Tell you what, I'll take a nice rich neighborhood and turn it socialist. Then I'll take a poor neighborhood and turn it socialist. When one stays rich and the other stays poor I'll point at the rich ones that their policies are a one-size-fits-all for economic and political success. Everyone likes to make fun of libertarians by telling them to take Libertarianism to Somalia... well to that I say take your socialism there too and see where that leaves you.

To hell with it, if you really want more social welfare policy feel free to give more of your paycheck to the IRS... the SAME entity that collects money already to hand over to the SAME government that spends your money so wisely on all the things it promises. One thing about America is that almost every taxpayer isn't satisfied with how their 'share' is being spent.... yet people are calling for MORE money as if it will somehow be used for better purposes rather than divided up into where it's already going. If anyone is going to waste my money I'd rather it be me spending it on useless junk food and overpriced alcohol.

If i remember correctly a real economic growth happened in Norway when the Right Party were in charge, but then it was also a time when Norway found oil.

 

[SuperGNP]

That we are comparing a country of 5 million homogeneous, oil wealthy, historically similar, NON R&D spending, military and world insignificant people to a country of 315 million people the size Europe, with massive amounts of poor immigrants, a percentage of the population that is still recovering from slavery and JIM Crow, a world Military power, a country that is asked to give billions in aid, food, first aid, military help, etc.

Actually, when it comes to aid (per capita), the US is barely in the top 20. The nations you called "insignificant" are topping the list. Sweden 1, Finland 2, Denmark 4, Finland 7.

Before I knew any better I was also under the impression that America, as we hear from during foreign policy debates at presidential elections, was giving a lot of money to poor nations. Well, we do help a lot, but a lot of this "aid" has strings attached and in many cases this money finds its way back, like our military aid to Israel and Egypt which is nothing more than a welfare check to our defense contractors.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/foreign-aid-development-assistance

 

[SuperGNP]

If i remember correctly a real economic growth happened in Norway when the Right Party were in charge, but then it was also a time when Norway found oil.

Norway gdp growth has oscillated in the last 30 years, much more impacted by the price of oil in the international market than the political party in power. GDP per capita (ppp) has grown from 2012, and the center-left party is in power.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/norway/gdp-per-capita-ppp

 

[Thames]

If i remember correctly a real economic growth happened in Norway when the Right Party were in charge, but then it was also a time when Norway found oil.

Oh please.. Ever heard the story of the danish foreign minister who sold one the world biggest oil reserves in the world for a few nickels, because his norwegian counterpart got him drunk? You know it's a national trauma here man...

Spoiler

 

[Rusk]

Oh please.. Ever heard the story of the danish foreign minister who sold one the world biggest oil reserves in the world for a few nickels, because his norwegian counterpart got him drunk? You know it's a national trauma here man...

Spoiler

Lmao, but i oil isn't everything, i don't think that Denmark is so much poorer than Norway.

Or is it?

 

[Rusk]

Norway gdp growth has oscillated in the last 30 years, much more impacted by the price of oil in the international market than the political party in power. GDP per capita (ppp) has grown from 2012, and the center-left party is in power.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/norway/gdp-per-capita-ppp

yeah, that what i thought

 

[Thames]

Lmao, but i oil isn't everything, i don't think that Denmark is so much poorer than Norway.

Or is it?

No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

It's a myth anyway, a myth that has been debunked. It started because the minister (Per H

 

[CableandThanos]

I am calling you out for taking a stance on something that you do not understand. You can get pissy about it all you want, but that's just the fact of it. You said you didn't want to give up a portion of your paycheck, citing that it would only serve to increase the income of someone who could, by your estimations, make said money by working as hard as you have.

You neglect to factor in the larger effects such policies would instate. So, yes, you lack understanding and, as is common with such reactionary thinkers, based your opinion on the effect that was the most immediately apparent to you.

You think maybe it is possible that someone can understand an issue and still disagree with you?

Jesus Christ dude you did a 10 page paper on it and you think you are Some genius level economics and governmental policy deep thinker.

I understand all the issues that may or may not effect a country that is 5 million versus 315 million. Just because it is working in one instance doesn't mean it would work in all instances.

People are comparing apples and oranges. If this were a medical or scientific debate, you would be laughed off the internet for trying to compare two totally different sets of circumstances.

I think in a small country, with certain conditions, it is possible. But I disagree that that in a totally different country with different social and political, military, etc circumstances, that it would work out so great.

AND I SAURE AS HELL DON'T WANNA GIVE UP 50% OF MY CHECK TO TRY AND FIND OUT.

 

[Uchi Mata]

LOL, I just wrote a post containing facts about the scandinavian model before you posted. I have read and know all about it.

Here is a HINT for not sounding like an asshole in the future--- Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they have not read the same shit as you.

How am I (and people like me) better off from giving up 50% of my check so that someone else can make $25,000 instead of $20,000?

Ok Mr. 70K, you willing to give up 50% of that? What's stopping you Now? Donate to public school, adopt a kid, write a check to the IRS, don't take deductions on your income taxes.

But of course you won't, be cause you have no real desire to put your money where your mouth is. You'll only do it if everyone else is forced to do it.

Until then you'll just take your moral high horse to the internet and spout off about how much more enlightened you are . LOL

That's pretty stupid. Even you can figure out that what works at a social level (taxation and social spending) doesn't work at an individual level. Yes, I'd pay more taxes if we had high quality state sponsored day care like France. But that's a change I'd make at the national (or state) level. As it is, I have to pay for daycare so of course I'm not going to give that money to a public school. But if we had state sponsored daycare that was as good as France I'd definitely put my kid in it, pay higher taxes, and be perfectly happy about it. Plus other people would also have access to daycare, including people who can't afford it now. That would be a net benefit for all society. You can disagree all you want with the Nordic model, but acting as if one person individually can create a societal system is retarded.

 

[CableandThanos]

Actually, when it comes to aid (per capita), the US is barely in the top 20. The nations you called "insignificant" are topping the list. Sweden 1, Finland 2, Denmark 4, Finland 7.

Before I knew any better I was also under the impression that America, as we hear from during foreign policy debates at presidential elections, was giving a lot of money to poor nations. Well, we do help a lot, but a lot of this "aid" has strings attached and in many cases this money finds its way back, like our military aid to Israel and Egypt which is nothing more than a welfare check to our defense contractors.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/foreign-aid-development-assistance

I Love how people try and break it down per capita. lol

If you are in desperate need of money/aid, which one do you take or want the most.

$1 million from a country of 5 million or 125 million from a country of, who the hell cares, it's 125 million!!!

People who need the money are not thinking wow, per capita the people of Norway gave me 1 million. They are saying thanks god for the 125 million.

My grandmother game me a birthday card with $50 in it. She is on a fixed income, my rich uncle gave me a card with $1000 in it. It's cool granny gave me $50 but I am sure glad that I had an uncle give me $1000.

 

[Rusk]

No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

It's a myth anyway, a myth that has been debunked. It started because the minister (Per H

 

[speakhandsforme]

You think maybe it is possible that someone can understand an issue and still disagree with you?

Jesus Christ dude you did a 10 page paper on it and you think you are Some genius level economics and governmental policy deep thinker.

I understand all the issues that may or may not effect a country that is 5 million versus 315 million. Just because it is working in one instance doesn't mean it would work in all instances.

People are comparing apples and oranges. If this were a medical or scientific debate, you would be laughed off the internet for trying to compare two totally different sets of circumstances.

I think in a small country, with certain conditions, it is possible. But I disagree that that in a totally different country with different social and political, military, etc circumstances, that it would work out so great.

AND I SAURE AS HELL DON'T WANNA GIVE UP 50% OF MY CHECK TO TRY AND FIND OUT.

Well, that was when I was 19. I've ended up doing close to 200 pages of work on Nordic public policy since then. But, no, I am by no means a genius on economics. But that's the point: you don't need to be to try and grasp a very basic level of understanding.

You are basically saying "I don't understand the issues, so I'll use the population variance to validate my refusal to learn them."

Gotcha.

 

[CableandThanos]

That's pretty stupid. Even you can figure out that what works at a social level (taxation and social spending) doesn't work at an individual level. Yes, I'd pay more taxes if we had high quality state sponsored day care like France. But that's a change I'd make at the national (or state) level. As it is, I have to pay for daycare so of course I'm not going to give that money to a public school. But if we had state sponsored daycare that was as good as France I'd definitely put my kid in it, pay higher taxes, and be perfectly happy about it. Plus other people would also have access to daycare, including people who can't afford it now. That would be a net benefit for all society. You can disagree all you want with the Nordic model, but acting as if one person individually can create a societal system is retarded.

I am very aware of this, apparently speak doesn't understand that what works in one set of circumstances , may not work in another.

One person may not help but if all the liberals who want the system give or do their part then they can help effect the change. Gotta start somewhere right!!

But again why lead by example, when we can just feel good about having a moral highground on the internet (not aimed at you).

 

[Uchi Mata]

I am very aware of this, apparently speak doesn't understand that what works in one set of circumstances , may not work in another.

One person may not help but if all the liberals who want the system give or do their part then they can help effect the change. Gotta start somewhere right!!

But again why lead by example, when we can just feel good about having a moral highground on the internet (not aimed at you).

Because if something is a collective action, by definition an individual can't lead by example.

And liberals as a group are trying. Like when we got a president and both houses elected and instituted a form of universal healthcare. We'll keep getting closer, it'll just take a long time.

 

[CableandThanos]

Well, that was when I was 19. I've ended up doing close to 200 pages of work on Nordic public policy since then. But, no, I am by no means a genius on economics. But that's the point: you don't need to be to try and grasp a very basic level of understanding.

You are basically saying "I don't understand the issues, so I'll use the population variance to validate my refusal to learn them."

Gotcha.

You may know about the Nordic model but your reading comprehension sucks.

I have not only stated issues with population but, geography, cultural and social issues, political landscape concerns, military might, world financial aid/military aid/food, etc.

There is a plethora of issues. I have listed many.

Can you show me a nation the size of America that ahs used the Nordic model? hell can you show me a country half the size? Ok how about 1/3 the size?

You can't because there has never been a country even 1/3 the size of the us try it and last.

That doesn't mean it is not possible, but i'm not really willing to find out. Because you know once the government has that tax money, No matter how bad a system might be, they aren't giving up that money.

So now we have a shitty system and I'm losing more money out of my check.

I and I think a lot of other people aren't willing to risk 50% of our check to find out if it would work.

 

[CableandThanos]

Because if something is a collective action, by definition an individual can't lead by example.

And liberals as a group are trying. Like when we got a president and both houses elected and instituted a form of universal healthcare. We'll keep getting closer, it'll just take a long time.

Well I'm just wanting MR. 200 pages on Nordic policy to admit that just because it works in one country, doesn't mean it will work in all/other countries.

Also just because we disagree I must have not read anything on the Nordic system or anything else.

It's possible to have read the same thing and disagree on a what if, well maybe situation.

Again that is a stupid point-- Well you don't agree with me so apparently you are stupid or haven't done any reading on the subject.

Could you imagine if we replied this way to each other on the board all day long?

 

[speakhandsforme]

That doesn't mean it is not possible, but highly unlikely/

No, that means that the two political environments are different. That's what that means. It also means that instituting similar systems would be done is a way that is administratively different because of the variables. There is no evidence that all such variables are definitive predictors of the successful applicability of expansive public programs.

Nevertheless, such hurdles in implementation have little to do with your "not worth giving 50% of my paycheck so someone can make 25k instead of 20k when they can just work two jobs like I did" statement.

 

[CableandThanos]

No, that means that the two political environments are different. That's what that means. It also means that instituting similar systems would be done is a way that is administratively different because of the variables. There is no evidence that all such variables are definitive predictors of the successful applicability of expansive public programs.
Nevertheless, such hurdles in implementation have little to do with your "not worth giving 50% of my paycheck so someone can make 25k instead of 20k when they can just work two jobs like I did" statement.

Thank you, that's all I wanted you to admit, that the differences in applying a Nordic model to the US, may work out or they may not.

You acted like America was stupid for not having a Nordic system, when you yourself admitted that all the variables may or may not help the system work. That just because it works in their country that it would have to work in ours and we are stupid for not having it.

Dude it was one comment I made , half in jest. I didn't have the time or feeling like writing a 1000 page response of every reason besides losing money that I didn't think it would work.

You are acting like I said the Nordic system didn't work for the Nordic people, or that it was a shitty system. I said nothing of the sort and said that if we had the same situation as them it would probably work for us.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Well I'm just wanting MR. 200 pages on Nordic policy to admit that just because it works in one country, doesn't mean it will work in all/other countries.

Also just because we disagree I must have not read anything on the Nordic system or anything else.

It's possible to have read the same thing and disagree on a what if, well maybe situation.

Again that is a stupid point-- Well you don't agree with me so apparently you are stupid or haven't done any reading on the subject.

Could you imagine if we replied this way to each other on the board all day long?

I don't think the Nordic model would really work in the US, personally, though I think there are aspects we'd be wise to adopt and that actually fit in fairly well with America's conception of itself (I use public daycare as an example largely because I think it appeals to the right and left, the left for obvious reasons and the right because it's essentially a pro-family, pro-work policy. Hard to have a family if you can't afford daycare or work if daycare costs more than you earn). But I don't think we'll ever have the sort of broad based life subsidization that the Nordic countries have. Largely because we're too ethnically diverse and no one wants to pay a bunch of taxes to support people they can't identify with who they perceive as lazy and entitled.

 

[CableandThanos]

I don't think the Nordic model would really work in the US, personally, though I think there are aspects we'd be wise to adopt and that actually fit in fairly well with America's conception of itself (I use public daycare as an example largely because I think it appeals to the right and left, the left for obvious reasons and the right because it's essentially a pro-family, pro-work policy. Hard to have a family if you can't afford daycare or work if daycare costs more than you earn). But I don't think we'll ever have the sort of broad based life subsidization that the Nordic countries have. Largely because we're too ethnically diverse and no one wants to pay a bunch of taxes to support people they can't identify with who they perceive as lazy and entitled.

As a father that has worked at night and stayed at home during the day for the last almost 9 years to watch my children (still have one year to go with my 4 year old before school, and my wife is pregnant now, so another 5 years after that), I can agree or understand that.

Again we get back to the homo/hetero societies. There would be a lot of backlash of people thinking of supporting welfare kids and illegal immigrant kids.

I like the idea of making welfare people work/volunteer but then the thought of setting up a government program to watch over and run the system them seems costly and defeating the point. Also how many people want Shanequa and trail park Betty Sue watching their kids (when they are being forced to do something).

There are a lot of things I would be on board with if we didn't blow so much of our tax money. I don't want 50% of my check going to OUR F'ED UP GOVERNMENT.