Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
American liberals on this board are going to have a fit with this since their dream countries are turning to privatization and universal vouchers, things that they bash (since they bash all choice outside of abortion rights), but it's showing success in the Nordic countries.
The point of the article: Successful countries use a combination of socialism and capitalism, as they always have. Anyone who can't see benefits of both socialism and capitalism can't be considered a serious thinker.
The point of the article: Successful countries use a combination of socialism and capitalism, as they always have. Anyone who can't see benefits of both socialism and capitalism can't be considered a serious thinker.
I think those economies are labeled as mixed. Public and private investment in our economy is the way to go.
When all Americans realize that printing money to throw around everywhere to everybody is the most perfect financial system ever created then they will embrace the smart Scandinavian countries approach to happiness. I mean, if it isn't worth anything anyway and it still spends who really cares about the details?
Don't alot of people fly out to Estonia to go drinking because the alcohol in the Scandinavian countries are unbelievably expensive?
Well, the interesting thing about Norway is that none of the oil money is being spent. It does make the GDP look bigger, but all the oil income goes to is buying stocks that go into a sovereign wealth fund. Which at the moment owns between 1 and 2 % of all the publically listed stocks on the planet.
Stock dividents enter the budget, but it is a comparativly small amount. Less, I believe than the oil income percentage in the UK and Danish budgets.
The Norwegian welfare state, infrastructure, standard of living etc is fueled off the non-oil economy and non-oil taxation.
I find that hard to believe since oil is around 60% of their exports are petrolium and related products. Thought I would supect that they have a surplus that they put it in.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,456,964 times
Reputation: 6670
The whole point of the article is actually spelled out further in the first link, which describes how the Nordic countries are basically finally scaling back after a long period of ever more social spending (finally reaching 67% of GDP). But by comparison, the U.S. would still have a long way to go, before we reached even their "scaled back" figures... a top marginal tax rate of 57%, a corporate-tax rate reduced from 26.3% to 22%, and public spending as a proportion of GDP reduced from the 67% in 1993 to 49% today (the U.S. is only at 24% of GDP)!
Heck, even their "scaled back" figures make our current levels of social spending look downright miserly!
The whole point of the article is actually spelled out further in the first link, which describes how the Nordic countries are basically finally scaling back after a long period of ever more social spending (finally reaching 67% of GDP). But by comparison, the U.S. would still have a long way to go, before we reached even their "scaled back" figures... a top marginal tax rate of 57%, a corporate-tax rate reduced from 26.3% to 22%, and public spending as a proportion of GDP reduced from the 67% in 1993 to 49% today (the U.S. is only at 24% of GDP)!
Heck, even their "scaled back" figures make our current levels of social spending look downright miserly!
I don't think the OP thought about any of this when he started the thread.
I find that hard to believe since oil is around 60% of their exports are petrolium and related products. Thought I would supect that they have a surplus that they put it in.
Nevertheless, that is how it works. I suppose you could say that the oil activity has financial benefits as well, but those tend to be local.
You and padcrasher are putting out there that the US needs to follow this Nordic model, yet the US is right in the thick of your "Best Nations in Which to Live" list, in fact it is above most of the nations that you would probably point to as other models we should follow.
Please explain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
