Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 55

Thread: How do you explain prosperous nations that are built on socialism?

  1. #1
    User requested to be banned for time reasons


    Posts
    1,996
    Join Date
    Nov 2007

    Arrow How do you explain prosperous nations that are built on socialism?

    It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier. (NY Times)

    In Denmark health care is free, education is free, the government will even pay students around $600 a month to go to school, and if you lose your job you get full unemployment for around 4 years before it goes to 80% of your pay. (this may have changed, but was true a few years ago at least). They also get at least a month of paid vacation a year (I think it's actually 5 weeks). Just try taking 5 weeks of vacation in America, much less get paid vacation.

    So if socialist nations are bound to fail then why do they succeed?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    1. The have little to no military spending and expect countires like the united states to be their body guards when trouble arises. Look at great britain, france, etc. getting its ass kcked by germany two world wars in a row. Come save us you arrogant, dumb, unrefined american cowboys!
    2. They have small states which are easier to regulate more effectively. bureaucracy is exponentially unwieldy and cumbersome.
    3. Who says they are even "successful"?

  4. #3
    Prosperity != people who don't work having the same quality of life as people who do.

  5. #4
    User requested to be banned for time reasons


    Posts
    1,996
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Zuras View Post
    3. Who says they are even "successful"?
    It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier.

  6. #5

    "Well-Known," According to What Standard?

    Quote Originally Posted by rational thinker View Post
    It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier.
    I would be interested in knowing whose ranking system they're in the first tier, and what is the political ideology of the person or group doing the ranking of nations.
    "Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the battle lines of Israel, Whom you have reproached.'" - 1 Samuel 17:45

    "May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in moment of great crisis, stood up to their politicians, the opinion-makers, and the Establishment, and saved their country." - Dr. Ron Paul

  7. #6
    Its amazing what just a LITTLE bit of freedom can do for a society. Even so, you're a bit optimistic in your appraisal of socialist countries. First off, what are you comparing Sweden to? Socialist England? Socialist America? Moreover, Sweden doesn't have an immigration problem, or a foreign policy nightmare. Its easier for them to afford what socialism they have. Sweden is also full of hot babes. I don't know if that's relevant, but it should be. Sixteenthly, IKEA is 90% of their GDP.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenophage View Post
    Sweden doesn't have an immigration problem
    hahahahahhahahah
    oh dear

    sweden presently has a greater percent of foreign born people than the united states.

    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat
    I would be interested in knowing whose ranking system they're in the first tier, and what is the political ideology of the person or group doing the ranking of nations.
    adult mortality rate per 1000 ages 15-60 in 2006: 109.0 in US, 88.0 in Denmark, 64.0 in Sweden; under-5 mortality rate per 1000 live birth: 8 in US, 4 in Denmark, 4 in Sweden (WHO, can't link due to weird flash based website, you'll have to dick around with http://www.who.int/whosis/en/ for the numbers from the source)

    math: sweden 502, denmark 513, united states 474
    science: sweden 503, denmark 496, united states 489
    from 2006 PISA (http://www.pisa.oecd.org/document/2/..._1_1_1,00.html)

    percent satisfied with lives us 65 sweden 72
    http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=257

    american exceptionalism: lol
    Marxist-Leninist-Maoist for Ron Paul!

  9. #8
    nt
    Last edited by Live_Free_Or_Die; 11-28-2009 at 01:22 PM.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    nt
    Last edited by Live_Free_Or_Die; 11-28-2009 at 01:22 PM.

  12. #10
    If you are an infant you are more likely to die in the US than in Cuba.

    But their right to life? What is that?

    Fiat currencies are bound to fail, but semi-socialistic countries are not bound to fail. They may not do as well but I think that it is a big stretch to say that any country not already in anarchy is bound to fall into anarchy.
    Last edited by idiom; 03-01-2009 at 05:03 AM.
    In New Zealand:
    The Coastguard is a Charity
    Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
    The DMV is a private non-profit
    Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
    The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
    5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
    A tax return has 4 fields
    Business licenses aren't a thing
    Prostitution is legal
    We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care

  13. #11
    Norway should to be added to that list as well.

  14. #12
    I think a lot of people on this forum makes a mistake constantly arguing the superiority of the free market from an economic viewpoint. All though you are most
    likely correct you leave it open for debate. The best argument for the free market is not the economic but the the moral one. Anything but the free market will have to be based upon force and violence or as Hayek puts it

    "And it regards competition as superior not only because in most circumstances
    it is the most efficient method known but because it is the only method which does not require the coercive or arbitrary intervention of authority."


    This is in my experience much harder for a modern collectivist to argue against, There base values are not that different from ours they just canīt seem to understand that the redistributing of wealth requires the use of violence on the part of the state. They are usually shocked of the notion that they "the great humanitarians" base there entire system on force and violence.

    A good example of the discussion going wrong is in the bailout of the banking system where the discussion is centered on if the bailouts is necessary to save the economy or not.

    That is irrelevant it dos not really matters if it saves the economy it would still bee immoral to tax some for the mistakes of others . It would probably bee economically sound to run sterilization programs (Sweden social democrats) and simply kill of the old and the sick. That nobody even suggest because for most people itīs easy to see that itīs immoral. In places were itīs harder to see people just need it pointed out for them.

    To the discussion on my native country Sweden,

    As some has pointed out the comparison is halting because America is hardly a free economy. Shore you tax a bit less but because of size and worse corruption you probably waste a bit more. The overall negative effect on the economy may very well not bee that different. Look at health care for example you currently spend about 16% of GDP on health care while Sweden spends 9% producing comparable results.

    Also the Swedish socialist model is nowadays based on the idea that the free market produces the most wealth. So the idea is to impair it as little as possible and then tax and redistribute the profits it produces. Which probably is quite an efficient way to impose socialism. It is not based on the idea of huge state runned companies and monopolies any more. The state monopolies on railways, post services, telephone services and energy has been broken up(early 90:s).
    Last edited by Varin; 03-01-2009 at 05:30 AM.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by qaxn View Post
    hahahahahhahahah
    oh dear

    sweden presently has a greater percent of foreign born people than the united states.
    Ahem?

    Sweden's total population is less than 10 million people. Most of its immigrants are Finnish. Put that into perspective.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by rational thinker View Post
    It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier. (NY Times)

    In Denmark health care is free, education is free, the government will even pay students around $600 a month to go to school, and if you lose your job you get full unemployment for around 4 years before it goes to 80% of your pay. (this may have changed, but was true a few years ago at least). They also get at least a month of paid vacation a year (I think it's actually 5 weeks). Just try taking 5 weeks of vacation in America, much less get paid vacation.

    So if socialist nations are bound to fail then why do they succeed?
    Because they are not essentially 'socialist' (Public control of the means of production)

    They haven't got the balls to impose, rob and coerce the industries etc. They just do that to the individuals afterwards.

    What they do is welfarism, welfare state.

    They have low barriers, largely open markets but then they do all the wealth distribution afterwords. Progressive taxation, etc. etc.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  17. #15

  18. #16
    Measure them against them RP standards.

    "Freedom, Peace and Prosperity" -- Ron Paul



    Last edited by Truth Warrior; 03-01-2009 at 08:07 AM.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    I don't know why you would want to compare those countries to the USA, we haven't had a free market here since around the Civil War times.
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  21. #18
    I haven't read all of the posts so this may reiterate something. You should look at the birth rates, and population growth of these welfare states. Their population is getting older but the next generation of tax payers is going to be much smaller. This, plus the fact the highest growing population in these countries are non assimilated immigrants from the middle east, is going to cause massive problems as the entitled outnumber the taxed ones in the coming years. In all of these nordic countries you see strong Conservative/Classical Liberal parties gaining support for both anti-immigrant reasons, and pro market/less welfaristic reasons because they realize the dangers coming down the road. It will fail. And as a final argument I would point out that welfare states cause a dying population to occur because incentives to have children are stripped away due to dependency on the state, therefore this cycle will always occur, and for various other obvious economic reasons, all welfare states come to an end.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by rational thinker View Post
    It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier.
    Not all of these "metrics" are actually good things. Life expectancy itself is good, but theirs may be higher because of heavy regulation of food and allowable diets and also high safety standards. Child welfare, though a very compassionate idea, still functions on the backs of many who do not give a crap. Governments should not act as our conscience. Also, I don't see how economic equality is such a good thing. I mean, in an ideal society I don't think everyone should be making the same amount of money. Face it, not every job and every employee is worth the same amount of money. Janitors are not as valuable as doctors (since the former is easier to replace) so I don't think they should have the same income before OR AFTER taxes.

    It's not the government's job to make sure everyone has a balanced diet, keep fatal accidents from happening, take care of orphan children, and make sure everyone makes about the same amount of money.
    "My pride in my country is inversely proportional to Michelle Obama's pride in her country."
    - Me

  23. #20
    nt
    Last edited by Live_Free_Or_Die; 11-28-2009 at 01:23 PM.

  24. #21
    How do you explain prosperous nations that are built on socialism?
    I don't.
    There are NO nations "Built" on Socialism. There are some that are turned that way, but none built.
    Last edited by pcosmar; 03-01-2009 at 03:05 PM.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  25. #22
    LibForestPaul
    Member

    Quote Originally Posted by Live_Free_Or_Die View Post
    I would like to start here:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman33.html

    Please dispute anything that is untrue so we can have a common ground to start with. This way as closets are opened and human rights skeletons start piling up like indian burial grounds we have an accurate definition of successful.
    Wow lewrockwell article biggest bunch of pooh I have read in long time.

  26. #23

  27. #24
    LibForestPaul
    Member

    Their utopia will be coming to an end like everone elses.

    1. No spending on military. How great could their lives have been without the US protecting them from Russia. Yes, lets look at neighbors such as Latvia and Lithuania. Doing wonderful are they not? How much money did West Germany have to put into East Germany to bring the m up to Western standards. We should be sending bills to our Western "Allies".

    2. Homogenous group...easier for clan mentality. Not too mention after war there was some communal spirit. Will this spirit persist, I doubt it.

    3. United States - where would Sweden be if we did not include them in our post war industrial rebuilding of Europe?



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25

    Sweden and the Myth of Benevolent Socialism

    Heh, not a pretty picture of my country. But you should keep in mind that the sterilization program was mostly active more than 50 years ago and that USA and many other countries had similar programs.

    The ties between state and church were cut a couple of years ago. That the government was running the church is probably why so many Swedes are Atheist or non religious.

    With the regard to unwed pregnancies I donīt see the problem. The important thing for the child should bee that the parents live together and raise the child together. As previously stated swedes are not religious many families live together without being married, even more have there first kids before being legally married. This kind of partnership is regulated by a special law (sambolagen) making it a lot like a regular marriage.

    The more interesting number would bee number of kids living with both there parents thats 73% not the 44% that the article indicates.

    http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publika...e110sa0501.pdf

    Further there are crazy people on the streets. You do see them every now and then. i know about at least two regulars here in Gotheburg.

    Other than that I think the article makes some good points. Sweden did not turn really wealtharist/socialist until the sixties and seventies Sweden was then perhaps the richest country in the world and since then Iīm pretty shore we have been on a relative decline.

    Itīs also correct on the Myrdals (have read some of there writings) they argued for sterilization programs and the governments involvement in raising all children.
    Both were very influential in the social democratic party laying out the foundation for the Swedish wealthfare state.

    I would say that they were both intelligent people who unlike most socialists saw the necessary consequences of there ideology and were prepared to accept them.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by LibForestPaul View Post
    Their utopia will be coming to an end like everone elses.

    1. No spending on military. How great could their lives have been without the US protecting them from Russia. Yes, lets look at neighbors such as Latvia and Lithuania. Doing wonderful are they not? How much money did West Germany have to put into East Germany to bring the m up to Western standards. We should be sending bills to our Western "Allies".
    Sweden is neutral and not an allied, we are not a NATO member.

    We have an army I served in it for over a year. We have troops in both Afghanistan, Kosovo and probably still some in diffrent African countries.

    But otherwise I think you are almost right our dystopia not utopia will come to an end. There will bee an ever increasing parasitic population living of the work of an ever decreasing productive population.

  31. #27
    One random thing I'm going to point out about the statistics regarding "higher standard of living" among other nations is that they are often deliberately skewed to make them look better (because the criteria have been set by statisticians hired by the governments being ranked).

    For example, I read on the Cato website something about WHO rankings of health-care systems that said one of their criteria is that nations with "good" health-care systems have a lower range of percentages of people's income that people spend on health-care.

    In other words, everyone in the country spends between, say, 5-10% of their income on health-care. The problem is that a country like the US may have very wealthy people only spending .001% of their income on health-care (because they aren't being forced to pay for others'), and other people who spend 40% of their income on their own (because they actually have higher health-costs and lower incomes). Why is it is "better" if wealthy people are forced to pay 10% of their income on health services they aren't using so that other people's health-care costs can be kept artificially low? And who gets to decide why that is a criteria for ranking health-care *performance*?

    Or for another example, different countries have different standards for determining what counts as "infant mortality". Part of the reason the US has a higher infant mortality rate is because it includes deaths of premature infants. So if two babies are born 24 weeks into a pregnancy and one dies and one lives, the one that dies is counted in our infant mortality statistics. But if *both* babies were to die in a country like France, *neither* would be counted among their infant mortality rates.

    In other words, these statistics are inflated to make socialistic countries look better than the competition... imagine that, governments monopolizing the systems that hold them accountable for shortcomings...

  32. #28
    nt
    Last edited by Live_Free_Or_Die; 11-28-2009 at 01:22 PM.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    I don't know why you would want to compare those countries to the USA, we haven't had a free market here since around the Civil War times.
    This.

    Your post infers that the US doesn't do well compared to countries with socialism. I'd say we have plenty of it here.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    If you are an infant you are more likely to die in the US than in Cuba.
    Even that figure is misleading. Our medical system is capable of keeping premature babies alive at early ages that Cuba won't even attempt to perform life saving measures on.

    If a baby is born at 26 weeks and dies, they count it as a premature birth. We put it on life support and if it doesn't make it, we call it an infant death.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Anyone know a good video to explain how socialism leads to communism?
    By ds21089 in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-23-2015, 06:27 PM
  2. Why was the American economy prosperous under Clinton?
    By CroSpartacus in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 11-08-2012, 12:01 AM
  3. The most prosperous nations on every continent
    By Knighted in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-07-2012, 09:46 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-06-2010, 09:20 PM
  5. Can a Country be Prosperous Without Screwing Others?
    By Baptist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 02-11-2010, 10:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •