• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scandinavian Socialism

I was measuring external debt

Oh my bad. In which case indeed you are correct.

For information purposes, I compared the public debt in relation to GDP per person to the external debt in relation to GDP for different countries, and did a simple average :

Capture.PNG

Source : IMF, CIA

I personally am quite surprised by this numbers. I was sure the US would top the list. Well what do you know.
 
It is possible for a country to have a strong economy that is good for business and still have a lot of ”socialist policies”. Take for example my country Sweden that for example have universal health care, 5 weeks payed vacation, 480 days of paid parental leave, heavily subsidized daycare for children and free universities. We also have strong unions and collective agreements that apply to most workers.

https://sweden.se/society/10-things-that-make-sweden-family-friendly/

The Swedish Trade Union Confederation - The Collective Agreement

While at the same time Sweden is the best country for business according to Forbes and have a very innovative and competitive economy.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017...ost-other-countries-at-just-about-everything/

Swedish blue and white collar workers have also gained real wage increased during the last couple of decades while for example workers in USA barely have had any real wage increases.



Denmark have been part of NATO from the start and also particapted in the wars both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Denmark have also had more fatalities per capita than USA during the Afghanistan war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan#cite_note-51

Actually, I was referring to Finland.

BTW, what are the down sides to living in these countries that were mentioned?
 
The reason socialist countries like Denmark are doing so well is because they are NOT socialist. Denmark ranks 18th out of 180 countries on the Index of Economic Freedom, far higher than the vast majority of countries. Denmark enjoys high levels of economic freedom in most areas: property rights, business freedom, labor freedom, trade freedom, investment, freedom, financial freedom and monetary freedom, but low levels of economic freedom in two areas: government spending and taxation. Denmark would be doing even better economically if it improved on those two areas.
a.png[/IMG]

I dont think it can be reduced to one thing or another. Their GDP has been declining the last 10 years for example. Thats the opposite of doing fine.
 
All modern developed and/or developing economies in the world today are mixed economies, meaning some uneasy and always dynamic balance of free market economic policies to grow and some socialist policies to create basic safeguards and safety nets, as well as to prevent too big of a disparity in the extremes of wealth and poverty. It's like trying to decide how much you want to work and how much time you want to spend with your family. The answer to that question is going to be a little different for everyone, and may change even for the same person under different circumstances. But there are no perfect answers. It's a give and take requiring constant attention and revisiting of the question. It's the same with balancing socialism and capitalism. You can balance them and their often competing demands as best you can, but anyone who completely tramples one underfoot at the expense of the other is likely to feel the negative consequences and be forced to correct course eventually.

This idea that you should chose only one or the other is a false dichotomy and is just so 19th century.

Good post.

Show me a pure libertarian or pure socialist country. There isn't one, because pure 'isms' don't work when you mix humanity with them.
 
Actually, I was referring to Finland.

BTW, what are the down sides to living in these countries that were mentioned?

Finland for example have universal male conscription.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces

All countries of course have down sides and what there are dependent on who you ask. If you ask a right leaning Swede the answer could be that Sweden is too "socialist" while if you ask a left leaning Swede the answer is that Sweden have adopted to many neo liberal during the last couple of decades just like the rest of the western world. A concrete problem is housing shortage but there you with the new red green coalation is seeing a drastic increase in new housing. Another problem is decline in school result, that up to the year 2000 Sweden was in the top but since then have a sharp decline. One reason can be the neoliberal policies of "The free school choice" with free establishment of public funded for profit schools. Hopefully you can see changes now to that system. Also I really don't like the weather right now because we have a really cold spring.
 
The reason socialist countries like Denmark are doing so well is because they are NOT socialist. Denmark ranks 18th out of 180 countries on the Index of Economic Freedom, far higher than the vast majority of countries. Denmark enjoys high levels of economic freedom in most areas: property rights, business freedom, labor freedom, trade freedom, investment, freedom, financial freedom and monetary freedom, but low levels of economic freedom in two areas: government spending and taxation. Denmark would be doing even better economically if it improved on those two areas.
Yeah, not so much.

Government spending and taxation keep income inequality in check, and cushion some of the harsher blows of the free markets, without seriously damaging individual incentives.

Free markets also don't result in paid parental leave, guaranteed vacation, better safety nets, universal health care

Oh, and Denmark actually has a smaller deficit as a percentage of GDP than the US, along with higher GDP growth. Go figure.

Of course, anyone who quotes Mises is likely to completely ignore and/or take for granted the benefit of government. I'm shocked and stunned. No, really. Seriously. Shocked and stunned.
 
Finland for example have universal male conscription.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces

All countries of course have down sides and what there are dependent on who you ask. If you ask a right leaning Swede the answer could be that Sweden is too "socialist" while if you ask a left leaning Swede the answer is that Sweden have adopted to many neo liberal during the last couple of decades just like the rest of the western world. A concrete problem is housing shortage but there you with the new red green coalation is seeing a drastic increase in new housing. Another problem is decline in school result, that up to the year 2000 Sweden was in the top but since then have a sharp decline. One reason can be the neoliberal policies of "The free school choice" with free establishment of public funded for profit schools. Hopefully you can see changes now to that system. Also I really don't like the weather right now because we have a really cold spring.

Sweden has the problems of every overly socialised country. When more money is used for consumptive activities it comes out of reinvestment or when too much goes into productive plant or human capital that does not produce the returns, it comes out of productivity and the economy grows more slowly. Everything looks snazzy and cool, while the society grows at a suboptimal rate. The USA has similar problems, if not structured the same and coming from a wealthier positiin.
 
Why do you always change things into a race thing. He didn't say anything about blacks, and you know, they aren't the only minority.

You missed the point entirely. If someone goes around blaming all socioeconomic issues on the existence of minorites they're a ****ing racist. What the hell do you think "They can do it because they have a homogenous population!" means? Yeah, we could have affordable healthcare too if it wasn't for those pesky minorities ruining it for us nice white folk. :roll: It's a stupid argument and should be ridiculed on the spot.
 
Finland for example have universal male conscription.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Defence_Forces

All countries of course have down sides and what there are dependent on who you ask. If you ask a right leaning Swede the answer could be that Sweden is too "socialist" while if you ask a left leaning Swede the answer is that Sweden have adopted to many neo liberal during the last couple of decades just like the rest of the western world. A concrete problem is housing shortage but there you with the new red green coalation is seeing a drastic increase in new housing. Another problem is decline in school result, that up to the year 2000 Sweden was in the top but since then have a sharp decline. One reason can be the neoliberal policies of "The free school choice" with free establishment of public funded for profit schools. Hopefully you can see changes now to that system. Also I really don't like the weather right now because we have a really cold spring.

I would thing the major downsides are the lack of protections for speech, personal defense, etc. Euros might not care about that stuff, but Americans do.
 
You missed the point entirely. If someone goes around blaming all socioeconomic issues on the existence of minorites they're a ****ing racist. What the hell do you think "They can do it because they have a homogenous population!" means? Yeah, we could have affordable healthcare too if it wasn't for those pesky minorities ruining it for us nice white folk. :roll: It's a stupid argument and should be ridiculed on the spot.

Or maybe you can make a civil argument instead of ridiculing people and name calling. For example, that humans are more than just their skin color. Homogeneous can also mean similar ideologies, religion, culture, wealth.
 
It is possible for a country to have a strong economy that is good for business and still have a lot of ”socialist policies”. Take for example my country Sweden that for example have universal health care, 5 weeks payed vacation, 480 days of paid parental leave, heavily subsidized daycare for children and free universities. We also have strong unions and collective agreements that apply to most workers.

https://sweden.se/society/10-things-that-make-sweden-family-friendly/

The Swedish Trade Union Confederation - The Collective Agreement

While at the same time Sweden is the best country for business according to Forbes and have a very innovative and competitive economy.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017...ost-other-countries-at-just-about-everything/

Swedish blue and white collar workers have also gained real wage increased during the last couple of decades while for example workers in USA barely have had any real wage increases.

Denmark have been part of NATO from the start and also particapted in the wars both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Denmark have also had more fatalities per capita than USA during the Afghanistan war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan#cite_note-51

If your government and culture is benevolent enough to make sure people have a decent standard of living regardless of merit/employability, relative equality, and so forth, what really causes there to be the need or justification for "strong unions?" And are your "strong unions" heavily concentrated within government itself, the way they are in the U.S.?
 
Sweden has the problems of every overly socialised country. When more money is used for consumptive activities it comes out of reinvestment or when too much goes into productive plant or human capital that does not produce the returns, it comes out of productivity and the economy grows more slowly. Everything looks snazzy and cool, while the society grows at a suboptimal rate. The USA has similar problems, if not structured the same and coming from a wealthier positiin.

Sweden is the second most innovative country in the world.

https://www.thelocal.se/20160816/sweden-worlds-second-most-innovative-country

You can also think about what gives the best returns. Is it that the rich can be even richer like they can be in USA? Or is it like in Sweden have universal healthcare so everyone can get the healthcare they need and be healthy and thereby be able to work instead of being too sick to work and live on welfare. Or having free universities so the best and brightest can attend University instead of the kids that have parents with thick wallets? Or having heavily subsidized daycare so that both parents can work.

I would thing the major downsides are the lack of protections for speech, personal defense, etc. Euros might not care about that stuff, but Americans do.

Sweden ranks third on the Democracy Index and second on the World Press Freedom Index.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

https://rsf.org/en/ranking

Then it comes to free speech we have stricter laws against hate speech but it can also be a good thing. In some areas, Sweden have strong protection of free speech for example only individuals can sue for defamation. So, journalist and bloggers can’t be sued by corporations like they can in the USA.

Also, no Swedish politician are for laws against burning the Swedish flag. While you in USA have a president that have tweeted “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!”

Donald Trump: Burn the flag, go to jail - CNNPolitics.com

Then it comes to violence in Sweden It mostly drunk guys vs. drunks guy, criminals vs. criminals and domestic violence so I don’t see what good guns would do in those situations.

Also, if you like guns you can hunt, join a shooting club, you can also join the home defense or the military their you can play with assault rifles.

If your government and culture is benevolent enough to make sure people have a decent standard of living regardless of merit/employability, relative equality, and so forth, what really causes there to be the need or justification for "strong unions?" And are your "strong unions" heavily concentrated within government itself, the way they are in the U.S.?

Sweden have historically had and today have in many areas a deregulated labor market. For example, Sweden have no minimum wage set by law. Instead are working terms, working condition and salaries set in collective agreement that are negotiated between the unions and the employer federations.

This for example means that specific jobs have their own minimum wage, and that you for the same job you can have different minimum wages. For example, for skilled and less skilled workers and worker above or under 20 years of age. This have also lead to that Swedish workers have gotten real wages increases every year since mid 90's and most of years since 1950.

https://translate.google.se/transla...i/Aktuell-Pong/31243/EK0203/70534/&edit-text=

That a vital part of the unions is therefor to negotiate and upheld the collective agreements. You also for example have union safety representative that help see to that the working condition are safe. They also help their members then they have legal and other conflict with their employer. Unions also have a say then it comes to business decisions that affects their members working conditions.
 
Last edited:
Sweden is the second most innovative country in the world.

https://www.thelocal.se/20160816/sweden-worlds-second-most-innovative-country

You can also think about what gives the best returns. Is it that the rich can be even richer like they can be in USA? Or is it like in Sweden have universal healthcare so everyone can get the healthcare they need and be healthy and thereby be able to work instead of being too sick to work and live on welfare. Or having free universities so the best and brightest can attend University instead of the kids that have parents with thick wallets? Or having heavily subsidized daycare so that both parents can work.

........

Yes. It is quite an interesting question how to treat incomes and how it affects different segments of the society at different points in time, it is not the whole story and leaves out the main part. The real question is how to optimize the general welfare and not individual desires or ideological whims. The general statement of economics is that having government produce private goods does not optimize the economy but prevents this. Now there can always be exceptions to the rule for subsystems or for specific circumstances. You will often find an index outperforming without seeing the cost appearing elsewhere in society. Ignoring that cost is not, however, a proof of the generality of the benefit. But, if you claim the theory is wrong in this situation, the proof would be on you. I will gladly read such a proof, as I read your article happily and found interesting.
 
Sweden ranks third on the Democracy Index and second on the World Press Freedom Index.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

https://rsf.org/en/ranking

Then it comes to free speech we have stricter laws against hate speech but it can also be a good thing. In some areas, Sweden have strong protection of free speech for example only individuals can sue for defamation. So, journalist and bloggers can’t be sued by corporations like they can in the USA.

Also, no Swedish politician are for laws against burning the Swedish flag. While you in USA have a president that have tweeted “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!”

Donald Trump: Burn the flag, go to jail - CNNPolitics.com

Then it comes to violence in Sweden It mostly drunk guys vs. drunks guy, criminals vs. criminals and domestic violence so I don’t see what good guns would do in those situations.

Also, if you like guns you can hunt, join a shooting club, you can also join the home defense or the military their you can play with assault rifles.

ions.

And again, the American way is the President is free to say what he wants. Our fundamental freedoms are there to prevent it from becoming law. Your whole argument is based on what the govt allows you to do based on circumstance. "we dont have violence, so you dont need a gun". Thats the opposite of the American way, "i have a right to have a gun, and dont need your permission". In essence, the american way is to distrust govt and keep them on a short leash.
 
Yes. It is quite an interesting question how to treat incomes and how it affects different segments of the society at different points in time, it is not the whole story and leaves out the main part. The real question is how to optimize the general welfare and not individual desires or ideological whims. The general statement of economics is that having government produce private goods does not optimize the economy but prevents this. Now there can always be exceptions to the rule for subsystems or for specific circumstances. You will often find an index outperforming without seeing the cost appearing elsewhere in society. Ignoring that cost is not, however, a proof of the generality of the benefit. But, if you claim the theory is wrong in this situation, the proof would be on you. I will gladly read such a proof, as I read your article happily and found interesting.

I can agree that the market economy works in many sector, but there you have example of also successful cooperative and government own companies. While at the same time you have areas there the market economy doesn’t work that well.

Like for example that countries with universal health care seem to have better health care to a lower cost than USA. Also, both before ACA, during ACA and with AHCA you have a lot of government involvement in health care. That even in USA your government need to be heavily involvement so people will not die, suffer or spread dangerous diseases. That at the same time USA on top of that have the private bureaucracy of the insurance and debt industry in the health sector.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

Legatum Institute Prosperity Index: Healthiest Countries in the world - Business Insider

Also, it’s important that it was economist that promoted the neoliberal policies of deregulation, drastic cuts in taxes for the rich during Reagan that have most benefit the wealthy while ordinary citizens have had barely had any real wage increased in the USA.

The Rising Costs of U.S. Income Inequality | HuffPost

That it’s more and more studies today that instead show how unrestricted capitalism leads to concentration of wealth in the top and great inequity. Like for the example the book Capital in the Twenty-First Century.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/05/economist-explains

Also books like the Spirit level that describe the negative effects of to much inequality in a society.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/09/society-unequal-the-spirit-level




And again, the American way is the President is free to say what he wants. Our fundamental freedoms are there to prevent it from becoming law. Your whole argument is based on what the govt allows you to do based on circumstance. "we dont have violence, so you dont need a gun". Thats the opposite of the American way, "i have a right to have a gun, and dont need your permission". In essence, the american way is to distrust govt and keep them on a short leash.

Yes, but even with your constitution, laws can be changed and that Trump choices for the supreme court can now be accepted by a simple majority in the republican senate. So why don’t you worry about the fact that Trump doesn't seem to care about free speech?

The right to keep and bear arm doesn't seem to stop the oppression of minorities. That you instead risk having the minorities oppressed by both the government and armed citizens belonging to the majority. Take for example the KKK during the segregation era.
 
I can agree that the market economy works in many sector, but there you have example of also successful cooperative and government own companies. While at the same time you have areas there the market economy doesn’t work that well.

Like for example that countries with universal health care seem to have better health care to a lower cost than USA. Also, both before ACA, during ACA and with AHCA you have a lot of government involvement in health care. That even in USA your government need to be heavily involvement so people will not die, suffer or spread dangerous diseases. That at the same time USA on top of that have the private bureaucracy of the insurance and debt industry in the health sector.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

Legatum Institute Prosperity Index: Healthiest Countries in the world - Business Insider

Also, it’s important that it was economist that promoted the neoliberal policies of deregulation, drastic cuts in taxes for the rich during Reagan that have most benefit the wealthy while ordinary citizens have had barely had any real wage increased in the USA.

The Rising Costs of U.S. Income Inequality | HuffPost

That it’s more and more studies today that instead show how unrestricted capitalism leads to concentration of wealth in the top and great inequity. Like for the example the book Capital in the Twenty-First Century.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/05/economist-explains

Also books like the Spirit level that describe the negative effects of to much inequality in a society.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/09/society-unequal-the-spirit-level






Yes, but even with your constitution, laws can be changed and that Trump choices for the supreme court can now be accepted by a simple majority in the republican senate. So why don’t you worry about the fact that Trump doesn't seem to care about free speech?

The right to keep and bear arm doesn't seem to stop the oppression of minorities. That you instead risk having the minorities oppressed by both the government and armed citizens belonging to the majority. Take for example the KKK during the segregation era.

Thats peoples fault if they dont defend their freedoms. Plenty of us do, we cant really help that the other half of the country think like you do, that the law, the constitution, natural rights dont exist or dont matter. The american ideology is that all are equal and free, and have a right to consent to be governed, and to abolish their govt when it no longer serves those interests.

Can Denmark say the same?
 
Raising the minimum wage is a formula for causing unemployment among the least-skilled members of society. The higher wages are, the higher costs of production are. The higher costs of production are, the higher prices are. The higher prices are, the smaller are the quantities of goods and services demanded and the number of workers employed in producing them. These are all propositions of elementary economics.

Left-wing economic policies cause economic stagnation. Here's a list of the top 5 most and least economically free developed countries.

5 Most economically free

#1 Hong Kong: 3.3% unemployment, 2.9% growth
#2 Singapore: 3.3% unemployment, 4.0% growth
#3 New Zealand: 5.9% unemployment, 2.5% growth
#4 Switzerland: 4.3% unemployment, 1.5% growth
#5 Australia: 6.3% unemployment, 2.7% growth

5 Least economically free

#127 Greece: 24.9% unemployment, -3.8% growth
#79 Italy: 12.1% unemployment, -0.7% growth
#77 Portugal: 12.1% unempolyment, -0.9% growth
#72 France: 10.6% unemployment, 0.8% growth
#69 Spain: 21.9% unemployment, -0.1% growth

Source: Index of Economic Freedom: Promoting Economic Opportunity and Prosperity by Country

Well if the Heritage Foundation told you then it must be true. :lol:
 
I can agree that the market economy works in many sector, but there you have example of also successful cooperative and government own companies. While at the same time you have areas there the market economy doesn’t work that well.

Like for example that countries with universal health care seem to have better health care to a lower cost than USA. Also, both before ACA, during ACA and with AHCA you have a lot of government involvement in health care. That even in USA your government need to be heavily involvement so people will not die, suffer or spread dangerous diseases. That at the same time USA on top of that have the private bureaucracy of the insurance and debt industry in the health sector.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

Legatum Institute Prosperity Index: Healthiest Countries in the world - Business Insider

Also, it’s important that it was economist that promoted the neoliberal policies of deregulation, drastic cuts in taxes for the rich during Reagan that have most benefit the wealthy while ordinary citizens have had barely had any real wage increased in the USA.

The Rising Costs of U.S. Income Inequality | HuffPost

That it’s more and more studies today that instead show how unrestricted capitalism leads to concentration of wealth in the top and great inequity. Like for the example the book Capital in the Twenty-First Century.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/05/economist-explains

Also books like the Spirit level that describe the negative effects of to much inequality in a society.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/09/society-unequal-the-spirit-level






Yes, but even with your constitution, laws can be changed and that Trump choices for the supreme court can now be accepted by a simple majority in the republican senate. So why don’t you worry about the fact that Trump doesn't seem to care about free speech?

The right to keep and bear arm doesn't seem to stop the oppression of minorities. That you instead risk having the minorities oppressed by both the government and armed citizens belonging to the majority. Take for example the KKK during the segregation era.

I do not really know of many instances, where public production of private goods has worked efficiently. You see, the decision is made by people that have their jobs from politicians and therefore act to please the politician and not efficiency, where the two contradict. And yes, of course I know the story about health care. But you will not find the problems in Wikipedia, I am afraid.
 
Thats peoples fault if they dont defend their freedoms. Plenty of us do, we cant really help that the other half of the country think like you do, that the law, the constitution, natural rights dont exist or dont matter. The american ideology is that all are equal and free, and have a right to consent to be governed, and to abolish their govt when it no longer serves those interests.

Can Denmark say the same?

Do you really believe armed rebellion by black citizens would have been a good way to abolish segregation and the denying of rights during the segregation period in USA? I’m not an American so I’m of course not an expert on your history. Still I believe it could have led to more governmental oppressions and that more white people would have supported that oppression. Also, that you could have seen a lot more atrocities done by KKK and other armed groups that supported the oppression.

Denmark just like Sweden rank very high on Democracy Index and The World Press Freedom Index.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

https://rsf.org/en/ranking

I do not really know of many instances, where public production of private goods has worked efficiently. You see, the decision is made by people that have their jobs from politicians and therefore act to please the politician and not efficiency, where the two contradict. And yes, of course I know the story about health care. But you will not find the problems in Wikipedia, I am afraid.

Sometimes it can be good to not only think about short term profit but also about environmental and social responsibility. That a publicly own company can both deliver a profit and contribute to the wellbeing of the citizens and a stronger economy.

Sweden is today like many other western countries affected by neoliberalism, so we have also seen the opposite. That politician has had a hands-off approach and let the government owned companies be run like any other businesses. That in some case like the power company Vattenfall, it have led to both very bad business decision as well as decisions that had a negative effect on the environment.

Then it comes to private business their goal is to make a profit for the owners and that can contradict societal goals. For example, American lead paint companies was good at marketing, PR and lobbying so they could sell lead paint decades after it had been banned in Europe. This was good for the owners of the companies but very bad for the American society.

 
Do you really believe armed rebellion by black citizens would have been a good way to abolish segregation and the denying of rights during the segregation period in USA?
]

Armed rebellion wasnt necessary because they used non violent resistance, refusing to comply with illegal laws, using free speech, assembly and lobbying. Such things are not possible in a socialist world.
 
Armed rebellion wasnt necessary because they used non violent resistance, refusing to comply with illegal laws, using free speech, assembly and lobbying. Such things are not possible in a socialist world.

What do you mean with a socialist world? The Scandinavian countries is at the top of both the Democracy Index and The World Press Freedom Index. We also have a multiparty systems so more voices can be heard in our parliaments and a voting turnout around 80 % in our elections. While at the same we don’t have politicians that call the media 'enemy of the people'.

History of Trump's phrase an 'enemy of the people' - Business Insider
 
What do you mean with a socialist world? The Scandinavian countries is at the top of both the Democracy Index and The World Press Freedom Index. We also have a multiparty systems so more voices can be heard in our parliaments and a voting turnout around 80 % in our elections. While at the same we don’t have politicians that call the media 'enemy of the people'.

History of Trump's phrase an 'enemy of the people' - Business Insider

In a democratic socialist country fundamental protections dont exist to protect minorities from the majority. Thats how you get hate speech laws. The majority classifies any ideas it disagrees with as hate speech. So in Denmark you can be jailed for making racist jokes or insulting islam.
 
Do you really believe armed rebellion by black citizens would have been a good way to abolish segregation and the denying of rights during the segregation period in USA? I’m not an American so I’m of course not an expert on your history. Still I believe it could have led to more governmental oppressions and that more white people would have supported that oppression. Also, that you could have seen a lot more atrocities done by KKK and other armed groups that supported the oppression.

Denmark just like Sweden rank very high on Democracy Index and The World Press Freedom Index.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

https://rsf.org/en/ranking



Sometimes it can be good to not only think about short term profit but also about environmental and social responsibility. That a publicly own company can both deliver a profit and contribute to the wellbeing of the citizens and a stronger economy.

Sweden is today like many other western countries affected by neoliberalism, so we have also seen the opposite. That politician has had a hands-off approach and let the government owned companies be run like any other businesses. That in some case like the power company Vattenfall, it have led to both very bad business decision as well as decisions that had a negative effect on the environment.

Then it comes to private business their goal is to make a profit for the owners and that can contradict societal goals. For example, American lead paint companies was good at marketing, PR and lobbying so they could sell lead paint decades after it had been banned in Europe. This was good for the owners of the companies but very bad for the American society.



What you seem to be implying is that poor business decisions or external effects justify producing private goods publicly. But while the latter problem is well known and has optimizing solutions that do not require public sector production, the prior is more a reason to forbid public production.
 
In a democratic socialist country fundamental protections dont exist to protect minorities from the majority. Thats how you get hate speech laws. The majority classifies any ideas it disagrees with as hate speech. So in Denmark you can be jailed for making racist jokes or insulting islam.

Oppression against minorities is a real threat and problem in western countries. Including USA with almost hundred years of enslavement and after that almost hundred years of segregation. You also have the holocaust as the extreme example how the horrific consequences of hate propaganda against minorities. Therefor have many countries have laws against public hate speech. While at the same time you can of course can say what you want in private conversations.

While at the same time you can for example can publicly criticize Islam just that you can’t say things like all people from a minority should die or that all people from a minority are criminals in public speeches. While at the same time Sweden have more free speech in other areas. Like for example only individuals can sue for defamation so journalist and bloggers can’t be sued by big corporations in Sweden.

What you seem to be implying is that poor business decisions or external effects justify producing private goods publicly. But while the latter problem is well known and has optimizing solutions that do not require public sector production, the prior is more a reason to forbid public production.

I just don’t believe that you can make broad statement like the one you made before, ‘The general statement of economics is that having government produce private goods does not optimize the economy but prevents this.’. This doesn’t of course mean that you should ban private companies. Just that in some sector it can be good to have also government owned corporations like for example housing. While at the same time privatizing and/or make government owned companies be run like private companies can fail in some sectors, like for example the railway and energy sector in Sweden. That at you of course need regulations in many sectors.
 
Back
Top Bottom