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.
What does the title of your post have to do with the body of your post? The body talks about the Danish PM allegedly correcting someone running for office in the US. OK??? The title talks about a 'liberal myth.' What does that mean and where is this coming from exactly? I think you need to start over. Good luck!
Not who you are talking to, but the Danish Prime Minister did publicly rebuke Bernie Sanders for repeatedly misidentifying Denmark as socialist.
In fact, the Danish Prime Minister seemed to take the word socialism as slander.
Denmark is clearly not socialist. The means of production and distribution are privately owned. By some measures Denmark has more economic freedom for business owners than the US.
Both the Sanandaji brothers are critizising social democracies and not the best choice if you want to learn about it´s economics.
And much of their data is questionable. They claim to 'prove' that the Scandinavian economic model is a failure by comparing the mortality rate of Scandinavians in the US vs Scandinavia, but they considered all deaths in Scandinavia including immigrants and refugees which have a higher mortality than native born, had they only considered native born or 2nd generation Scandinavians they would have gotten a different result.
Sanandaji is full of BS but the right uses him to further their agenda. And it's easy here because a majority of Americans don't even have a passport so the only thing they know about other Countries is what they are spoon fed by their favorite media source.
And much of their data is questionable. They claim to 'prove' that the Scandinavian economic model is a failure by comparing the mortality rate of Scandinavians in the US vs Scandinavia, but they considered all deaths in Scandinavia including immigrants and refugees which have a higher mortality than native born, had they only considered native born or 2nd generation Scandinavians they would have gotten a different result.
Sanandaji is full of BS but the right uses him to further their agenda. And it's easy here because a majority of Americans don't even have a passport so the only thing they know about other Countries is what they are spoon fed by their favorite media source.
Sanandaji is excellent--have you read his book? You might have a point about the mortality rate comparison--I don't know. But that is a tiny part of his overall argument. He also compares lifespan numbers, income numbers, and many other things to show that the biggest factor in Scandinavian success is culture, not economic policy.
You're taking one tiny item, and implying that it discredits his entire work. This is the 'hasty generalization' logical fallacy. BTW Americans don't have to have a passport to research. In fact I find that knowledge gained via travel can be inferior to knowledge gained by research, because the former tends to be anecdotal. So that is another fallacy. But I'm sure it makes you feel superior to look down your nose at the 'non-passport' group.
One more thing to mention is that the 'Nordic Model' can entail a high level of government paternalism. In Viking Economics (p. 112) a story is recounted about a Norwegian case worker's handing of an alcoholic. The caseworker wants 'Ole' to get a job. The social worker responds that Ole is drunk from Fri. to Tues. every week. The caseworker says to get him to rehab. The social worker responds that he always relapses. Finally, the caseworker says to find Ole a part time job working only Wed. and Thur. "He needs to be a productive citizen," concludes the caseworker.
Would the American left stand for that? No way. Just consider the yowls when people suggest drug testing for welfare recipients here.
Sanandaji is excellent--have you read his book? You might have a point about the mortality rate comparison--I don't know. But that is a tiny part of his overall argument. He also compares lifespan numbers, income numbers, and many other things to show that the biggest factor in Scandinavian success is culture, not economic policy.
You're taking one tiny item, and implying that it discredits his entire work. This is the 'hasty generalization' logical fallacy. BTW Americans don't have to have a passport to research. In fact I find that knowledge gained via travel can be inferior to knowledge gained by research, because the former tends to be anecdotal. So that is another fallacy. But I'm sure it makes you feel superior to look down your nose at the 'non-passport' group.
No, I did not just pick one tiny item,
Here is a rebuttal to his argument that government spending on social programs reduces the work incentive:
Quote:
"This article investigates how welfare generosity and active labour market policies relate to employment commitment. As social policy is increasingly directed towards stimulating employment in broader sections of society, this article particularly studies employment commitment among groups with traditionally weaker bonds to the labour market. This is also theoretically interesting because the employment commitment in these groups may be more affected by the welfare context than is the employment commitment of the core work force. A welfare scepticism view predicts that disincentive effects and norm erosion will lead to lower employment commitment in more generous and activating welfare states, while a welfare resources perspective holds the opposite view. Using multilevel data for individuals in 18 European countries, the article finds increasing employment commitment as social spending gets more generous and activating. This was also evident for weaker groups in the labour market, although the effect was less pronounced in some groups."
His Heritage data was wrong, or he cherry picked it
The Heritage Economic freedom index for 2018 ranks the US as #18 behind countries like Denmark, Sweden, Iceland and the UK https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
Contrary to Sanandaji's theory, government spending on social programs is more efficient than money spent by the private sector, i.e. employers.
In terms of gross public social expenditures as a percentage of GDP, the US ranks 24th out of 26. But in term of total social expenditures as a percentage of GDP, the US ranks 5th. Notably, the US is spending more of its GDP on social expenditures (which again include things like retirement security, income security, unemployment benefits, health insurance, and so on) than such notables as the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, and Norway.
Quote:
The problem is not that we lack social expenditures; rather, it is that our social expenditures are structured so poorly. The famed social democracies tend to concentrate their social expenditures in state-run universal programs, which makes a lot of sense for a lot of reasons. Putting those expenditures in the hands of employers, as the US does, diminishes their value as insurance (because they come and go with employment) and also directs them primarily towards the middle and upper classes. Those employed in low paying jobs do not get access to the private safety net at all and the tax benefits that really set the stage for the private safety net disproportionately flow to the rich.
So the next time you read a story about the inequality-reducing, poverty-reducing, security-enhancing social programs of northern and western European nations, just remember that we could easily have that here. We don't lack in social expenditures, we just undertake them in the worst possible ways.
One more thing to mention is that the 'Nordic Model' can entail a high level of government paternalism. In Viking Economics (p. 112) a story is recounted about a Norwegian case worker's handing of an alcoholic. The caseworker wants 'Ole' to get a job. The social worker responds that Ole is drunk from Fri. to Tues. every week. The caseworker says to get him to rehab. The social worker responds that he always relapses. Finally, the caseworker says to find Ole a part time job working only Wed. and Thur. "He needs to be a productive citizen," concludes the caseworker.
Would the American left stand for that? No way. Just consider the yowls when people suggest drug testing for welfare recipients here.
What does that have to do with drug testing? It's a rational holistic solution that put a man with an alcohol addiction back into the workforce. The Social worker recognized that forcing Ole to work on days when he was drunk would fail so they put him to work on the days when he was sober. That's part of a bigger philosophy known as harm reduction which entails acknowledging that we can't force people to quit drinking or using drugs but we can give them structure and support and believe it or not, over time a number of those people decrease their substance abuse
Sanandaji is excellent--have you read his book? You might have a point about the mortality rate comparison--I don't know. But that is a tiny part of his overall argument. He also compares lifespan numbers, income numbers, and many other things to show that the biggest factor in Scandinavian success is culture, not economic policy.
You're taking one tiny item, and implying that it discredits his entire work. This is the 'hasty generalization' logical fallacy. BTW Americans don't have to have a passport to research. In fact I find that knowledge gained via travel can be inferior to knowledge gained by research, because the former tends to be anecdotal. So that is another fallacy. But I'm sure it makes you feel superior to look down your nose at the 'non-passport' group.
Does your "research" show 16 year old Danes walking into town to the disco to drink beer and having a great time? I'll bet it doesn't. In fact, my 16 year old daughter took up with some of the locals when I was visiting and she got pretty buzzed (for the first time)....
Does your research show you that their equiv. of the EPA is vastly tighter - and that, for many decades, every chemical and product that is used must be followed "from cradle to grave" to avoid excess pollution?
Does it show happy people on their bikes in "real" bike lanes separated from the streets...heading to the plant to work their 33-35 hour work week? Does it show even the top people in the company spending a lot of their day (yes, work days) eating and even drinking (yes, a shot of aquavit at lunch)....
Does it show you that virtually EVERY Dane has worked in foreign countries...usually a couple of them? I'm not talking the next country over (Germany), but maybe in Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, etc.??
You are the one with the inferiority complex about passports. Data is a tiny part of our complex world - it doesn't show a "feeling" of community nor a smile. It doesn't show the confidence a person has when they know their medical is covered.
Mortality means a LOT. Danish drink quite a bit and their diet is definitely full of fat, although they don't eat as much "junk" as many Americans do.
Getting back to the subject - the "Socialist" aspect is needed before the "culture" can change. Americans who are always worrying about money, health care, status, addictions, violence, politics and all the other stuff often do not have the TIME to create a better community.
In a general sense, I find European culture to be very much like ours here in the States. Of course, I am talking about the East Coast from the Mason-Dixon line up...which is what I am most familiar with.
Note - I have lived in WV, TN, PA, NJ, MA, RI, FL and visited quite a few other states - so I do have some idea of the culture or lack of such in many places.
To summarize - we are quite close to our Euro brothers and sisters. It's just that we have radical elements which inject poison into our culture and refuse to move our country forward.
To quote Churchill "Americans will always do the right thing - after ALL other possibilities have been expended". That very much describes our health care, budgeting, political and many other aspects of our culture (or lack of such).
The Danish Prime Minister, after seeing Denmark misrepresented by a US candidate, said the following in late 2015:
I have no wish to interfere [with] the presidential debate in the US...I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy
None of the five Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, & Iceland) are socialist. Sweden had a flirtation via a plan called 'employee funds' in 1984. The plan would have amounted to a true socialist reform. But after a center-right government took over in 1991, the plan was abolished. Sweden made other free-market reforms during the 90s. Taxes were cut, and privatization measures were enacted. Sweden was once arguably the furthest to the left of the five, and now has school vouchers--to the right of even the US.
There is actually no unitary 'Nordic Model,' as often implied by US liberal pundits. The countries all have varying polices, and as with Sweden, have varied over time. This should not have been a surprise to these pundits in a country that elected Ronald Reagan in 1980, and Barack Obama in 2008.
The notion that the Scandinavians have figured out some magic formula under which 'socialism works' is yet another American liberal myth.
Socialism isn't an economic model, its a political model.
Market economy and socialism can co-exist.
Americans have an extremely hard time understanding socialism.
That welfare creates a disincentive to work is just econ 101. But I respect that at least this time you post a link instead of crying 'b.s.'
Quote:
His Heritage data was wrong, or he cherry picked it
The Heritage Economic freedom index for 2018 ranks the US as #18 behind countries like Denmark, Sweden, Iceland and the UK https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
His book was published in 2016, and IIRC his heritage data is from 2013. Yours is from 2018.
Quote:
Contrary to Sanandaji's theory, government spending on social programs is more efficient than money spent by the private sector, i.e. employers.
In terms of gross public social expenditures as a percentage of GDP, the US ranks 24th out of 26. But in term of total social expenditures as a percentage of GDP, the US ranks 5th. Notably, the US is spending more of its GDP on social expenditures (which again include things like retirement security, income security, unemployment benefits, health insurance, and so on) than such notables as the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, and Norway.
This again is highly debatable. There are no doubt economists who would agree that the public sector is more efficient than the private sector, but there are hordes who would disagree with that.
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.
