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.
Well, those countries are certainly not nearly as dependent on natural resources as Norway, but they aren't exactly without natural resources.
If we look at just oil for a minute. Denmark produces 262,000 barrels a day compared to America's 8.1 million. The United States has a population about 55 times greater than Denmark's. If we adjusted for population, Denmark's per-capita production of oil is nearly twice as high as the United States. Keeping in mind our current economic recovery has been fueled almost entirely from the fracking oil boom.
Sweden relies heavily on its natural resources as well. But in Sweden's case, it is Iron ore and timber. In World War II, Germany was so reliant on the Iron produced in Sweden, that Hitler occupied Denmark and Norway to prevent Britain from cutting off Germany's access to Sweden's resources.
Regardless, we need to keep in mind that adjacent countries tend to support each other economically. If Mexico wasn't our neighbor it would probably be a lot poorer. The proximity of Denmark, Finland, and Sweden to Norway certainly helps their economies. The "rise of Scandinavia" largely coincides with the rise of Norway and its oil wealth. If you removed Norway and Sweden from the region, Denmark and Finland would probably be significantly poorer.
I mean, even if you dropped Norway and all its oil into the middle of the Pacific Ocean, it would be just as wealthy. If you dropped Denmark into the middle of the Pacific, it would be significantly poorer. If you took all the natural resources away from all of those countries and split them up. Finland would be the wealthiest, then Sweden, then Denmark then Norway in last place.
As for "investing in education". I have a tendency to cringe at the notion that anything good comes out of government investing in education. I think education is incredibly important. I think individuals want to be educated to the extent that they individually value education. But I think people too often associate education with going to college and getting a degree. In America, at least half of all college degrees seem to be completely wasted. Getting a college degree in many cases is less about learning a marketable skill, and more about just having a degree.
People who get college degrees in almost all cases are employed by "someone else". In fact, a surprising number of businesses were founded by people who either never got a formal education, or dropped out of college to pursue their entrepreneurial activities.
If you are trying to get a degree so you can just work for someone else, then obviously there is a demand for people with that set of skills. As an employer, you will seek out people with the skills necessary for the position you have available. If for some reason there was a lack of people with those skills, it would be in your interest to create training programs to make sure you always had access to people with the required educations/training. In the past, a lot more companies offered "on-the-job training" and other types of education programs.
In my view, government's don't really invest in education in the practical sense, because their investment is basically completely unnecessary and largely wasteful. There are two effects of public-education. One is "equality". Making sure everyone has access to a quality education is an egalitarian principle. The second is about offloading the cost of education away from employers onto the public. This is a huge benefit for employers who don't have to spend nearly as much to educate and train their employees.
The point is, I don't believe that America would have been any worse off intellectually if there never had been a public-education system. Much of America's rise to economic prominence was long before we had anything remotely resembling a public-education system.
In my view, you can make a better argument that government should be investing in technology startups and other businesses, rather than education. And that would probably be a lot cheaper. Something like a government sponsored "kickstarter".
Some of the best research universities are public universities.
Where would you place the offshore oil rigs like the ones Sweden relies on to finance their social state?
Sweden produces 11,000 barrels of oil a day. Norway produces more than 1 million a day. Why does Sweden have a welfare state that is as lavish as Norway's? Not to mention the fact that Sweden has millions more people than Norway. Please explain, I would love to know
No they aren't. No first world country is homogenous at this point. Peep the birth rates.
South Korea and Japan are ethnically homogeneous first world countries. Poland is ethnically homogeneous. Croatia and Serbia are relatively homogeneous. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Ireland have a much higher percentage of whites than England.
Even the Nordic countries are relatively homogeneous, despite their immigrant populations. The immigrant populations in the Nordic countries are heavily concentrated in the capitals and other major cities. The same can be said for Europe in general.
Outside of London, Birmingham, Manchester, Berlin, Hamburg, Paris, Marseilles, and other major European cities and their suburbs, the immigrant populations tend to thin out pretty quickly. Ironically, Moscow, the largest city wholly in Europe, is very homogeneous, as it's over 90% ethnic Russian.
South Korea and Japan are ethnically homogeneous first world countries. Poland is ethnically homogeneous. Croatia and Serbia are relatively homogeneous. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Ireland have a much higher percentage of whites than England.
Even the Nordic countries are relatively homogeneous, despite their immigrant populations. The immigrant populations in the Nordic countries are heavily concentrated in the capitals and other major cities. The same can be said for Europe in general.
Outside of London, Birmingham, Manchester, Berlin, Hamburg, Paris, Marseilles, and other major European cities and their suburbs, the immigrant populations tend to thin out pretty quickly. Ironically, Moscow, the largest city wholly in Europe, is very homogeneous, as it's over 90% ethnic Russian.
South Korea and Japan are the only ethnically homogenous countries that have such high incomes that they do. The rest of white, ethnically homogenous countries on the level of Poland are economic backwaters that are barely first world.
So? Here in the US immigrant populations thin out very fast once you reach the suburbs. According to the US Census, in 2012, the native born population of the US was almost 269M out of 308M. Our foreign born population is pretty low as a percentage of the population.
I'd also like to point out that, culture, and not racial DNA, makes up whether or not a country's welfare state is successful or not if Sweden was 30% non-Swedish, but that 30% acted and lived like ethnic Swedes, they would still have their welfare state as it is now. But, you and the other right-wingers seem to have this idea in your heads that only countries with 90%+ white populations can only have welfare states
Last edited by theunbrainwashed; 09-11-2014 at 04:49 PM..
South Korea and Japan are the only ethnically homogenous countries that have such high incomes that they do. The rest of white, ethnically homogenous countries on the level of Poland are economic backwaters that are barely first world.
So? Here in the US immigrant populations thin out very fast once you reach the suburbs of almost every city except the top 5 or so
Suburbia is rapidly becoming more diverse in the US. This isn't 1960 anymore where every suburb is 99% white. Suburbs of most major metros in the US have racial and ethnic diversity. Even here in the Twin Cities, one of the whitest metros in the US, is becoming less white with each passing year. A few examples: Burnsville, the suburb I live in, went from 86% non-Hispanic white in 2000 to about 74% in 2010. Brooklyn Park (75,000 people) was 70% white in 2000 but is now 50% or less. Brooklyn Center (30,000 people) is less than 45% white.
LA, San Francisco, San Diego, New York, Miami, Houston, San Antonio, and pretty much every major city in the US have diversified suburbs. The country as a whole is diversifying. The only major part of the country that's seeing an increase in whites in both number and percentage is Washington DC.
Here's an interesting article regarding diversity around the globe. European countries are among the most homogeneous.
South Korea and Japan are the only ethnically homogenous countries that have such high incomes that they do. The rest of white, ethnically homogenous countries on the level of Poland are economic backwaters that are barely first world.
So? Here in the US immigrant populations thin out very fast once you reach the suburbs. According to the US Census, in 2012, the native born population of the US was almost 269M out of 308M. Our foreign born population is pretty low as a percentage of the population.
I'd also like to point out that, culture, and not racial DNA, makes up whether or not a country's welfare state is successful or not if Sweden was 30% non-Swedish, but that 30% acted and lived like ethnic Swedes, they would still have their welfare state as it is now. But, you and the other right-wingers seem to have this idea in your heads that only countries with 90%+ white populations can only have welfare states
What the hell are you talking about? Don't brand me as a "right winger" when you don't even know me.
Asolutely nothing wrong with it except that it is a specific consequence of Nordic Culture.
Firstly, the USA and Norway actually are somewhat similiar. Both are wealthy and prosperous. Both are democratic, Norway being a constitutional monarchy, the USA a republic. Both are each other's allies.
And if you travel from Minnesota to Washington State, you would find that the Nordic system has implanted itself to varying degrees due to...wait for it...Nordic settlement of the past. North Dakota has a lot more in common with Norway than Italy or France does.
Travel to places like New Orleans or Los Angeles and you will see the opposite.
Secondly, the Nordic/Scandinavian System derives from an inate Culture of Consensus prevalent in those societies. Except for the aforementioned examples, we do not have it in total in the USA. Most European countries do not have it either. Compare Norway to Serbia, Poland, Italy, the UK, Portugal, etc, etc sometime.
Again, both Norway and the USA are prosperous, Western countries.
The question you should be asking is why Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Honduras, Fiji, Somalia, and a host of other nations do not seek to emulate Norway.
I suspect you now have your answer. Skol.
Agreed.
Tho word was 50 years ago Socal was a lot like Wash St, Minnesota and so on in culture. Probably because so many of the people there were OF Scandinavian family. 2014, nope.
South Korea and Japan are the only ethnically homogenous countries that have such high incomes that they do. The rest of white, ethnically homogenous countries on the level of Poland are economic backwaters that are barely first world.
So? Here in the US immigrant populations thin out very fast once you reach the suburbs. According to the US Census, in 2012, the native born population of the US was almost 269M out of 308M. Our foreign born population is pretty low as a percentage of the population.
I'd also like to point out that, culture, and not racial DNA, makes up whether or not a country's welfare state is successful or not if Sweden was 30% non-Swedish, but that 30% acted and lived like ethnic Swedes, they would still have their welfare state as it is now. But, you and the other right-wingers seem to have this idea in your heads that only countries with 90%+ white populations can only have welfare states
Thank you of agreeing that cutting OFF most immigration from places like LatAm, Africa and the Middle East and so on is an good idea. Their "cultures" DON'T work in the US.
Some of the best research universities are public universities.
Only the government has enough money to invest in basic research, one that doesn't immediately produce marketable technologies. Without government grants the science and higher education dies.
Republican policy of fighting spending money on science and higher education is simply a form of economical sabotage.
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.
