Why are socialist Scandinavian countries the happiest in the world?

[vegas giants]

You sure have that right !
Socialism has a specific definition but it seems to have gotten lost.
It is true that Scandinavia toyed with socialism during the 1980s ..
recognizing the financial boondoggle of the undertaking, they began reversing those programs during the 1990s;
outside of some expanded healthcare not much, if any, remains.
Thanks for the polite response
make it a great day Ataraxia.

That is simply not true. Depending on the country they have extensive social benefits such as free college to include medical or law school

 

[Gator]

Yes, I agree, there has never been a communist government.

They catagorise them as that because those countries call themselves that not because they actually practice communist ideology. And again anyone who can actually read a map would know that north korea is a democratic republic.

None of the countries that call themselves communist actually meet the criteria of being communist. And , once again north korea is a one party rule yet is a democratic republic. You are being inconsistent.

I am not being inconsistent. There has never been a communist government based on purely Marxist theory. But, when we describe different types of governments one of those categories is communist because they claim adherence to Marx-Lenin and have several other distinguishing characteristics. It is a way to describe and categorize reality, not Marxist theory.

North Korea has none of the characteristics of a democratic republic no matter what it calls itself. It does not fit the reality comparative political systems seeks to describe.

 

[Sweden]

OK- but regardless, what they are doing now is working well. Doesn’t mean we can’t learn from it.

But getting noticeably worse. The ER in my local hospital in Uppsala is very poor, with very long waiting times. Old age care is in steep decline. School outcomes have got a lot worse. Pensions are now so low that many old people cannot afford dental work - the State subsidises it but the individual has to pay about 80% of the cost.

 

[Thom Paine]

Sure thing. You too, man.

But just to be clear, it’s a little more than just about healthcare.

generally, by observation, I agree with the article save for the last paragraph.
probably, I should have been more specific in my statement; the benefits listed in the article are
what I include within the scope of general healthcare.
"Because government takes care of all their necessity of their lives ...
to the above ... maybe so, maybe it's semantics, maybe the writer's opinion;
I find curious the value/meaning of that statement.
meh, maybe another thread another time.

keep smilin' ... it makes people curious !

 

[Thom Paine]

That is simply not true. Depending on the country they have extensive social benefits such as free college to include medical or law school

Yes, Depending on the country
It remains though that even with such benefits socialism is not the prevailing economy of Scandinavia.
make it a grand day !

 

[joko104]

“ About 100 years ago, Sweden was one of the poorest countries in Europe. People were dying of hunger; many were forced to emigrate. So how did it go from abject poverty to becoming one of the richest nations in the world?”
5 Reasons Sweden beats most countries | World Economic Forum

You mean the Sweden that the MSM and Democratic talking heads claim is mass murdering their people by not throwing millions into unemployment and poverty, destroying most small businesses, shutting down their educational system, ordering people gather in big box stores and in mass gathering riots in every city, and throwing away trillions and trillions of dollars - as the Democrats and MSM have successfully done in the USA?

 

[vegas giants]

Yes, Depending on the country
It remains though that even with such benefits socialism is not the prevailing economy of Scandinavia.
make it a grand day !

If you promote any of their programs you are considered a marxist

 

[Gator]

Bernie talks about emulating Norway, call it what you will.

Norway calls it a representative democracy constitutional monarchy with a capitalist economic system.

 

[ataraxia]

Norway calls it a representative democracy constitutional monarchy with a capitalist economic system.

That’s fine. I’m OK with that. I think even Bernie and AOC are OK with it. If the hangup is on the label you put on it, we can use your preferred label.

As Meg Ryan said in the movie when Harry Met Sally, “I’ll have what she’s having”.

 

[Highlanders]

When it comes to the word "socialism", there is much confusion- often because the meaning of the word has changed so much over time.

When conservatives today hear the word "socialism", the mental association that immediately comes to their minds are tyrannical, poor, corrupt nations- places like the former Soviet Union, Venezuela today, N. Korea, Cuba, etc... This is certainly the more traditional sense the word has been used.

But when liberals use the word "socialism", they have countries like modern-day western Europe/Scandinavian nations, or places like Singapore, Japan, etc... Bernie, for example, whose name sends shudders down conservatives' spines, only talks of the "Nordic model", pointing to the success of these nations in creating happy and prosperous societies.

So we need to clarify what we mean by "socialism" today to clarify what it is we are really talking about when we use that word, and so avoid talking past each other so much.

Let's look specifically at the Scandinavian countries- the so called "Nordic model" which Bernie talks about. Scandinavian nations have, in the last decade or so, consistently ranked in the top 5 or 10 happiest countries in the world. The following is an interesting article examining WHY this may be, looking at everything from the weather, to the welfare state model, to the level of racial/ethnic homogeneity, to the role of the work ethic and other cultural foundations, etc... looking at what we know to be true about these countries, dispelling myths which we know to be false, and looking at questions we still don't have good answers for:



So what do YOU mean when you talk of "socialism"? What countries specifically come to your mind, and which countries do you think the other side should not use as an example of "socialism" when discussing this topic? Of those countries which call themselves "socialist" today but which you don't think represent real "socialism", do you think they are mistaken in thinking of themselves as such?

Socialism :- A balance of society, where everyone has a right to law and freedom, where government ensures no one can stand on the back of another because they have a position of power.
I think it's Finland where the minimum wage is $25.00 an hour.... everyone can afford a roof over there head, food for there stomach and medical treatment, children's school, and university education. Aye.... the same as Gadaffi did for his people.... but much more! Pity America prefers slavery and boots for the neck of the person in front of them! Regardless if they are black or white.... but racism is great to point each other at each other, rather than see, if cut we bleed, when a loved one dies we feel pain, if we laugh at something funny, it doesn't matter our colour... it's all the same emotion, regardless of race colour or creed.

 

[soylentgreen]

I am not being inconsistent. There has never been a communist government based on purely Marxist theory. But, when we describe different types of governments one of those categories is communist because they claim adherence to Marx-Lenin and have several other distinguishing characteristics. It is a way to describe and categorize reality, not Marxist theory.

They do not and never have adhered to marxist ideology. Leninism is a creed that justified his dictatorship, not a philosophical treaties.

So then you agree that north korea is in fact a democratic republic because it to claims to adhere to democratic principles and it is on that simple basis that you accept these other countries are communist.

North Korea has none of the characteristics of a democratic republic no matter what it calls itself. It does not fit the reality comparative political systems seeks to describe.

And again you are being inconsistent. Russia or any of the other countries you call communist do not fit any of the characteristics of communism no matter what they call themselves. It does not meet the reality of the system described by communism.

You really cannot have this both ways. Either a country is what it calls itself as you seem to argue and end up being inconsistent with n korea or in fact these countries including n korea are not what they say they are.

 

[Gator]

That’s fine. I’m OK with that. I think even Bernie and AOC are OK with it. If the hangup is on the label you put on it, we can use your preferred label.

As Meg Ryan said in the movie when Harry Met Sally, “I’ll have what she’s having”.

It has nothing to do with my preferred label. I am just using standard definitions.

The current usage of "socialism" (and communism) are not based on any economic definition but is a political term used by the right to make something negative by using an unpopular label. Since that time the left has adopted the term to apply to social welfare programs but usually with a more favorable connotation.

Political consultants regularly attempt to discover language to make something more palatable or negative: "pro-choice," "pro-life," "Democrat" rather than Democratic, "death tax" rather than estate tax, "previously owned" rather than "used" car....

Rather than switching to the current usage of the word which presents a complete misconception of the term, we should make efforts to use the word correctly rather than have our language changed by political consultants designed to create negative attitudes.

 

[mrdeltoid]

I don't want government controlled healthcare. I don't want government to to control any more than they presently do.

 

[ataraxia]

I don't want government controlled healthcare. I don't want government to to control any more than they presently do.

What’s wrong with having that as a safety net, and having a parallel private system for those who can afford it? We’re talking about a system similar to what we have with public and private schools in this country. That’s how it works in many developed countries around the world, and it works pretty well. Better than what we have here I almost a metric of public health.

 

[mrdeltoid]

Oh yeah, and to the thread question: "Why are socialist Scandinavian countries the happiest in the world?" Answer: Because there are countries that do the heavy lifting, like, oh yeah, saving them from the Nazi's, imperial Japan, fascism etc. America isn't for everybody. Maybe it's because me, my cousins, my dad, all 9 uncles all served. Oh yeah, and 3 uncles on my mothers side. One of my uncles was on the first assault wave in Iwo Jima. 2 of my uncles ran into each other in France in WW2. Another uncle was in a tank battalion in Africa. He actually fought against Rommel's forces! Yeah, I America. I think I'll stay.

 

[ataraxia]

It has nothing to do with my preferred label. I am just using standard definitions.

The current usage of "socialism" (and communism) are not based on any economic definition but is a political term used by the right to make something negative by using an unpopular label. Since that time the left has adopted the term to apply to social welfare programs but usually with a more favorable connotation.

Political consultants regularly attempt to discover language to make something more palatable or negative: "pro-choice," "pro-life," "Democrat" rather than Democratic, "death tax" rather than estate tax, "previously owned" rather than "used" car....

Rather than switching to the current usage of the word which presents a complete misconception of the term, we should make efforts to use the word correctly rather than have our language changed by political consultants designed to create negative attitudes.

But the problem is this: we already have “socialism” for what we consider basic necessities, like public schools (and don’t tell me about charter schools, as those are publicly/socially funded as well), fire departments, police departments, interstate highways, even the military, etc... those are all socialist programs if you want to go by your strict definition. So does that mean that we are a socialist country or not? Are we not socialist if we have those things, but we don’t have a similar program for healthcare? I don’t see healthcare being specifically included in the definition of socialism.

These become difficult and fruitless questions, and the answer will depend on who you ask. So that’s why I’m thinking it may be best to just avoid the term altogether and look instead to seeing what basic protection of human dignity and security do we want to provide for our citizens.

 

[ataraxia]

Oh yeah, and to the thread question: "Why are socialist Scandinavian countries the happiest in the world?" Answer: Because there are countries that do the heavy lifting, like, oh yeah, saving them from the Nazi's, imperial Japan, fascism etc. America isn't for everybody. Maybe it's because me, my cousins, my dad, all 9 uncles all served. Oh yeah, and 3 uncles on my mothers side. One of my uncles was on the first assault wave in Iwo Jima. 2 of my uncles ran into each other in France in WW2. Another uncle was in a tank battalion in Africa. He actually fought against Rommel's forces! Yeah, I America. I think I'll stay.

The military is a publicly funded program. As is the VA hospital healthcare system.

 

[Gator]

But the problem is this: we already have “socialism” for what we consider basic necessities, like public schools (and don’t tell me about charter schools, as those are publicly/socially funded as well), fire departments, police departments, interstate highways, even the military, etc... those are all socialist programs if you want to go by your strict definition. So does that mean that we are a socialist country or not? Are we not socialist if we have those things, but we don’t have a similar program for healthcare? I don’t see healthcare being specifically included in the definition of socialism.

These become difficult and fruitless questions, and the answer will depend on who you ask. So that’s why I’m thinking it may be best to just avoid the term altogether and look instead to seeing what basic protection of human dignity and security do we want to provide for our citizens.

No, those are not socialist under my definition. My definition is not strict because it is the definition and understanding economics has always used. None of those involve the production and distribution of goods. We are talking about oil and gas, shipbuilding, manufacturing---major industries.

Almost all nations have public funding of schools, police, fire, highways and military. If we labeled those socialist that makes all nations socialist and destroys the ability to distinguish between them. Those are almost universally funded government programs. The differences are in the other sectors of the economy.

 

[ataraxia]

No, those are not socialist under my definition. My definition is not strict because it is the definition and understanding economics has always used. None of those involve the production and distribution of goods. We are talking about oil and gas, shipbuilding, manufacturing---major industries.

Almost all nations have public funding of schools, police, fire, highways and military. If we labeled those socialist that makes all nations socialist and destroys the ability to distinguish between them. Those are almost universally funded government programs. The differences are in the other sectors of the economy.

Almost all modern developed economies also have basic government funded safety nets for healthcare. So how does that fit in to your definition of socialism?

 

[eman926]

Given that Scandinavian countries are not actually “socialist” as liberals like to think, but actually have open markets and have some of the lowest taxes and regulations for the markets, the OP is sorely mistaken. Yes, they have single-payer healthcare and other entitlements but the taxes go towards the citizens, not businesses. Scandinavian countries also have market-based healthcare as well. Scandinavian countries actually have lower taxes and regulations on businesses than the United States. They have something called the “Nordic Model”. Don’t believe me, go google “Nordic Model”. There is a reason Scandinavian countries are often ranked as some of the most business friendly countries in the world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ataraxia]

Given that Scandinavian countries are not actually “socialist” as liberals like to think, but actually have open markets and have some of the lowest taxes and regulations for the markets, the OP is sorely mistaken. Yes, they have single-payer healthcare and other entitlements but the taxes go towards the citizens, not businesses. Scandinavian countries also have market-based healthcare as well. Scandinavian countries actually have lower taxes and regulations on businesses than the United States. They have something called the “Nordic Model”. Don’t believe me, go google “Nordic Model”. There is a reason Scandinavian countries are often ranked as some of the most business friendly countries in the world.

Yes, very true.

Actually, if you scroll back in this discussion, there’s a lot of talk about the Nordic model. In fact, Bernie Sanders and AOC appeal to it directly as a model of what they want when they talk about socialism. But that’s the problem. They call it socialism. So when they use that word in that sense, conservatives have a very different definition for it. So the problem seems to be one of not having mutually agreed-to definitions of the word and so misunderstanding.

 

[Gator]

Almost all modern developed economies also have basic government funded safety nets for healthcare. So how does that fit in to your definition of socialism?

Most of those programs are not socialist because they are not government owned and operated. They are like our Medicare system in which hospitals, drugs, doctors, nurses, etc. are all private. The VA and British health care system are government operated. Most of the European nations have private health care systems using government funding and private/non-profit health insurance.

I'm not sure if health care is considered a means of production and distribution. Comparative economics text break down socialist systems into many different variations including central planning or market economy.

I used to have a great chart with all the developed nations down the side and the major industries across the top. In each cell was a pie chart showing how much of that industry was government owned. The top country had the most government owned industries and it steadily decreased to the one with the least.

The only thing similar I could find is a list of the OECD nations and the percentage of employment in state owned businesses (SOE). The highest is Norway with 9.6%, Finland (3.5%), Sweden (2.9%). These SOEs tend to be most concentrated in transportation and utilities.

https://www.oecd.org/industry/ind/Item_6_3_OECD_Korin_Kane.pdf

 

[ataraxia]

Most of those programs are not socialist because they are not government owned and operated. They are like our Medicare system in which hospitals, drugs, doctors, nurses, etc. are all private. The VA and British health care system are government operated. Most of the European nations have private health care systems using government funding and private/non-profit health insurance.

Well, whatever it is, proposed programs like Medicare-for-all are readily labeled socialism and therefore dismissed by today’s American conservatives.

I'm not sure if health care is considered a means of production and distribution.

Healthcare is considered a service. Remember that economic output is measured by the production of goods AND services, not just goods.

I used to have a great chart with all the developed nations down the side and the major industries across the top. In each cell was a pie chart showing how much of that industry was government owned. The top country had the most government owned industries and it steadily decreased to the one with the least.

The only thing similar I could find is a list of the OECD nations and the percentage of employment in state owned businesses (SOE). The highest is Norway with 9.6%, Finland (3.5%), Sweden (2.9%). These SOEs tend to be most concentrated in transportation and utilities.

https://www.oecd.org/industry/ind/Item_6_3_OECD_Korin_Kane.pdf

Many of those countries you mention have also programs like generous publicly funded maternity and paternity leaves and daycare. But any such proposed programs here in the United States are, again, readily dismissed by conservatives as socialism, and with some scary buzzword like being a road to serfdom or becoming the next Cuba or Venezuela- somehow they never threaten us with the idea of becoming the next Norway.

So the merits of such programs are never able to be discussed or considered in any serious way, because the conversation qiuckly gets short circuited with this scary label of socialism. So it does not matter whether you, or economists in general, don’t really consider these things socialism. Much of the population of the United States that calls themselves conservative certainly does, and so refuses to have any conversation about the pros and cons. As you know, in politics, perception is everything. So all folks like Carl Tuckerson or Donald Trump have to do Is say something like say “we will never be a socialist country”, mention Venezuela or Cuba, and that conversation is gone.

That’s why that word socialism just needs to go. It carries too much baggage and misunderstanding and opportunities for talking past each other.

 

[mrdeltoid]

The military is a publicly funded program. As is the VA hospital healthcare system.

As national security is one of the governments primary responsibilities, of course it's publicly funded. As Churchill said; "“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” Some become wounded in battle. That, is what the V.A. is for, along with any other malady these brave patriots may be afflicted with. To conflate it with socialized health care, kind of misses the point. I think we can agree to disagree, agreeably. It's all good. JMHO

 

[Gator]

Well, whatever it is, proposed programs like Medicare-for-all are readily labeled socialism and therefore dismissed by today’s American conservatives.



Healthcare is considered a service. Remember that economic output is measured by the production of goods AND services, not just goods.



Many of those countries you mention have also programs like generous publicly funded maternity and paternity leaves and daycare. But any such proposed programs here in the United States are, again, readily dismissed by conservatives as socialism, and with some scary buzzword like being a road to serfdom or becoming the next Cuba or Venezuela- somehow they never threaten us with the idea of becoming the next Norway.

So the merits of such programs are never able to be discussed or considered in any serious way, because the conversation qiuckly gets short circuited with this scary label of socialism. So it does not matter whether you, or economists in general, don’t really consider these things socialism. Much of the population of the United States that calls themselves conservative certainly does, and so refuses to have any conversation about the pros and cons. As you know, in politics, perception is everything. So all folks like Carl Tuckerson or Donald Trump have to do Is say something like say “we will never be a socialist country”, mention Venezuela or Cuba, and that conversation is gone.

That’s why that word socialism just needs to go. It carries too much baggage and misunderstanding and opportunities for talking past each other.

I understand. I am trying to avoid the unnecessarily partisan rhetoric used by both sides and stick to reality. Even if the opponents did not use the socialist label to describe such programs, I don't think Americans would accept the very high taxes of those nations.

Like the emotional labeling of social programs as socialist by the right, the left sells the programs by saying the rich will pay for them by the inaccurate claim that the rich don't pay their "fair share." Both sides try to control political power by relying on uninformed voters.