What's wrong with the Nordic Model? (Iran, suspected, Obama, carry)

[Motion]

Nordic countries are smaller so it's easier for their gov'ts to play a bigger role in relation to their population sizes. With 300 million people it'll be more complicated for the U.S to duplicate Sweden's 9 million people system.

[Opin_Yunated]

Originally Posted by Motion

Nordic countries are smaller so it's easier for their gov'ts to play a bigger role in relation to their population sizes. With 300 million people it'll be more complicated for the U.S to duplicate Sweden's 9 million people system.

No it's not.

[armory]

Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated

No it's not.

Liberal math won't work here.

[kidkaos2]

Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated

Typical conservative sentiment; I'm okay with my tax dollars supporting other white people, but I don't want minorities getting any of it.

He said unlike minded, not unlike colored.

Also, when you're trying to take someone to task for bigotry and then say something like "typical conservative statement" you just put your own bigotry on display for all to see.

If you don't like black and brown people, have more white children. White people have the lowest birth rates on planet earth. The only group responsible for this population decline is white people.

He never said he didn't like black or brown people. When you debate in such an intellectually dishonest manner, all you do is add strength to your opponent's arguments.

[brownbagg]

Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated

Typical conservative sentiment; I'm okay with my tax dollars supporting other white people, but I don't want minorities getting any of it.


If you don't like black and brown people, have more white children. White people have the lowest birth rates on planet earth. The only group responsible for this population decline is white people.

you're a bigot. never heard any conservative any hint of that notion.

[random_thoughts]

Originally Posted by armory

Liberal math won't work here.

Is there any other math? You realize that most college professors are liberals, don't you?

I mean, you can't be smart and educated and be conservative, unless you're a sociopath, of course.

[Haakon]

Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated

No it's not.

Of course not, big government can NEVER get to big right?

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

So you want to pay a toll just to pick up a gallon of milk on the corner? That's basically what you're asking for. lol

I think you are having a difficult time understanding what would actually happen if all roads were privatized.


There would never be a toll road for anyone who would want to pick up a gallon of milk. The economics would never allow that to be practical. If you had to choose between paying $2 in tolls to drive across town to pick up a gallon of milk at Wal-mart, and just buying it from a corner market. You would increasingly start buying milk and other goods from the corner markets instead of from the large supermarkets.

Although New York City has roads, the impractically of owning a car in New York City means people tend to buy most of their household stuff from these corner stores. The less practical you make driving cars, the less people will drive cars, and the more they will shop locally. If you ever wanted to "protect the mom and pop stores". The best thing you could do is get rid of publicly-funded roads.


The actual network of roads in the absence of public roads, would be a hodgepodge system of toll roads, free or private access commercial roads, and neighborhood roads(which may or may not be open to public use).


Toll roads would largely be the high-speed arterial roads(IE highways). Though there might be some special-purpose low-speed toll roads in certain areas. To explain the best equivalency, think of how when you enter into a state or national park, you have to pay someone at the gate to enter. There might be an increase in areas where you would have to pay at some sort of gate to enter into that area. Think of it like, instead of paying $5 or $10 to park in downtown. It might instead cost $5 or $10 to just drive into downtown. It doesn't fundamentally change the outcome, you are still effectively paying to go to downtown. Except, it would help to minimize unnecessary traffic. And might encourage people to use alternatives for going to downtown(IE, mass transit).

As for commercial roads. These would either be used by the businesses themselves for transporting their goods(like forestry or industrial roads), or for providing local access to customers. The best equivalent is how Wal-mart will build massive parking lots for their customers to park. Parking lots are basically the same thing as roads, and many businesses might effectively extend their parking lots to be the equivalent of free-access local roads in order to provide access to customers from nearby neighborhoods.


The last road type would be neighborhood roads. Many neighborhood roads are owned by the neighborhoods and maintained through neighborhood associations. Apartment complexes and trailer parks own and maintain their roads. All gated neighborhoods have roads maintained through neighborhood associations instead of the city. Some gated communities are pretty big. I've seen some that are a mile by mile square. The largest gated community in the United States is 55.7 square miles.

Hot Springs Village, Arkansas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If you first understand that it just isn't realistic to think that the road in front of your house would ever be a toll road. To imagine how the system would function, you just have to ask the question, "What would you be willing to pay for as an individual?", and secondly "What would businesses be willing to pay for?".

If the average person wouldn't be willing to pay a toll to buy basic necessities, then there could never be a system which could require that. In the end, a private system might look remarkably similar to a public system with only a few differences. It is these differences which I think would create a far better and less expensive system overall.

Keep in mind, you'll never hear big-business complaining about public roads. The reason is, public roads offload the cost of business onto the public. The bigger the business, the more they are subsidized through the public road system.


In the simplest terms, the absence of public roads and the zoning laws that go along with them, would turn large swaths of America into a bunch of small-scale and inexpensive Manhattans.

[knowledgeiskey]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

I think you are having a difficult time understanding what would actually happen if all roads were privatized.


There would never be a toll road for anyone who would want to pick up a gallon of milk. The economics would never allow that to be practical. If you had to choose between paying $2 in tolls to drive across town to pick up a gallon of milk at Wal-mart, and just buying it from a corner market. You would increasingly start buying milk and other goods from the corner markets instead of from the large supermarkets.

Although New York City has roads, the impractically of owning a car in New York City means people tend to buy most of their household stuff from these corner stores. The less practical you make driving cars, the less people will drive cars, and the more they will shop locally. If you ever wanted to "protect the mom and pop stores". The best thing you could do is get rid of publicly-funded roads.


The actual network of roads in the absence of public roads, would be a hodgepodge system of toll roads, free or private access commercial roads, and neighborhood roads(which may or may not be open to public use).


Toll roads would largely be the high-speed arterial roads(IE highways). Though there might be some special-purpose low-speed toll roads in certain areas. To explain the best equivalency, think of how when you enter into a state or national park, you have to pay someone at the gate to enter. There might be an increase in areas where you would have to pay at some sort of gate to enter into that area. Think of it like, instead of paying $5 or $10 to park in downtown. It might instead cost $5 or $10 to just drive into downtown. It doesn't fundamentally change the outcome, you are still effectively paying to go to downtown. Except, it would help to minimize unnecessary traffic. And might encourage people to use alternatives for going to downtown(IE, mass transit).

As for commercial roads. These would either be used by the businesses themselves for transporting their goods(like forestry or industrial roads), or for providing local access to customers. The best equivalent is how Wal-mart will build massive parking lots for their customers to park. Parking lots are basically the same thing as roads, and many businesses might effectively extend their parking lots to be the equivalent of free-access local roads in order to provide access to customers from nearby neighborhoods.


The last road type would be neighborhood roads. Many neighborhood roads are owned by the neighborhoods and maintained through neighborhood associations. Apartment complexes and trailer parks own and maintain their roads. All gated neighborhoods have roads maintained through neighborhood associations instead of the city. Some gated communities are pretty big. I've seen some that are a mile by mile square. The largest gated community in the United States is 55.7 square miles.

Hot Springs Village, Arkansas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If you first understand that it just isn't realistic to think that the road in front of your house would ever be a toll road. To imagine how the system would function, you just have to ask the question, "What would you be willing to pay for as an individual?", and secondly "What would businesses be willing to pay for?".

If the average person wouldn't be willing to pay a toll to buy basic necessities, then there could never be a system which could require that. In the end, a private system might look remarkably similar to a public system with only a few differences. It is these differences which I think would create a far better and less expensive system overall.

Keep in mind, you'll never hear big-business complaining about public roads. The reason is, public roads offload the cost of business onto the public. The bigger the business, the more they are subsidized through the public road system.


In the simplest terms, the absence of public roads and the zoning laws that go along with them, would turn large swaths of America into a bunch of small-scale and inexpensive Manhattans.

Where's the market incentive to have back roads or neighborhood streets? There's no private investment in having a street in your neighborhood without charging users fees. What if someone can't afford to pay a fee for using a specified street/road? You're basically prohibiting their freedom. You can't put a price tag on every facet of society. It's impractical. What you're asking for is society to implement an economic apartheid system where some people are forbidden transportation rights based on their income.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

Why shouldn't we have it in the US? It would make this country much more prosperous. The Nordic Model is the best example of a mixed economy thus far.

What does Cook County, Illinois have that Norway does not have?

Spoiler

~200,000 more people --- the population of Cook County, Illinois is greater than the Kingdom of Norway.

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

Why Americans oppose it? I have no idea.

I would like to know why you continuously employ these Fallacies:

False Analogy
The problem is that the items in the analogy are too dissimilar. When reasoning by analogy, the fallacy occurs when the analogy is irrelevant or very weak or when there is a more relevant disanalogy.

Faulty Comparison
If you try to make a point about something by comparison, and if you do so by comparing it with the wrong thing, then your reasoning uses the fallacy of faulty comparison or the fallacy of questionable analogy.

Unlike you, I do have an idea why you cannot construct a logical argument based on facts without using Fallacies.

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

There is, but there level of inequality is nowhere as high as ours.

Define "Inequality" objective in no uncertain terms.

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

What does scale have to do with it?

The Laws of Economics apply to everything, which means Economies of Scale are applicable all the time, 100% of the time, and not merely when you have to disregard Reality to crow-bar a hallucination into a fantasy.

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

Tons of small countries are impoverished.

Yes, and that is due to the fact that Imperial USA and sock-puppet Britain have denied them the ability to progress politically, socially and economically, typically by murdering the head-of-State in cold blood, then installing a puppet-dictator who will hand over all of the Wealth, Profits & Resource to Imperial USA and sock-puppet Britain.

Ever heard of BRICS?

BRICS does more development and nation-building in 30 days than Imperial USA and sock-puppet Britain have done since 1898.

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

Not to mention that the US is a huge country, yet has a standard of living much higher than most countries.

That is due to the fact that the Standard of Living and Life-Style of Americans has been subsidized by the 3rd and 4th World since 1898.

According to the Interstate Commerce Commission (now defunct), there were 50,000+ telephone company start-ups between 1914 and 1916.

That includes only those telephone companies that had gross revenues of more than $5,000 (in 1917 US Dollars not adjusted for Inflation).

From where did the Cash/Credit Capital come to fund 50,000+ start-ups?

It came from your rape and looting of your China Colony and your Philippines Colony.

It came from your pillaging and theft of Profits, Wealth and Resources of your Economic Slave States in the Caribbean, and Central and South America.

100% of the Oil Profits from Mexico's oil fields were taken out of Mexico and returned to Imperial USA (until 1939 when President Cardenas nationalized the Mexican oil industry by expropriating US oil company assets for failure to pay taxes).

If 100% of Mexico's oil profits are being taken, then how can Mexico use oil profits to develop itself?

It can't.

All the Profit, Wealth & Resources flow back to the US Empire, where it is invested in America.

That money is what funded the 50,000+ telephone company start-ups. And that doesn't even take into consideration the start-ups to manufacture parts for telephones; to assemble telephones; to build telephone switching exchanges; to build telephone wire; or to install telephones and telephone equipment, plus all of the Capital required to support those services.


Without raping your Imperial Colonies you don't have the money for 50,000+ telephone company start-ups.

Sure, you still have phone company start-ups, but only 5,000 to 10,000.

AT&T's tax-free monopolies in your Colonies and Economic Slave States price-gouged the peoples there.

That did two things: Gave AT&T money to buy up all other telephone companies and create a monopoly, and also to subsidize telephone service for Americans.

Americans use party-lines into the 1970s, because Americans cannot afford to pay to have their own private line.

Take away your Colonies & Slave States, and Americans are using party-lines into the 1990s.

Same is true for your interstate highway system. You could afford it, because your Colonies & Slave States were bearing the costs, not Americans. Same for your electrical grid and everything else.

If you don't understand how America was built, then you will never understand why America is falling right now, or how far it will fall.

You should be one step ahead of where Russia is now in terms of Standard of Living and Life-Style. So why aren't you?

Well, what did you have that Russia/Soviet Union never had?

Aside from a currency that was globally traded, you had Colonies & Economic Slave States. The money you stole by force is the difference.

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

We could do the same here with the right political effort. We just have an ignorant populous that elect the wrong politicians.

And we have an ignorant populous making stupid analogies.

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

This is one of the biggest myths perpetrated from those who oppose Scandinavian prosperity.

It is not a myth, and I for one do not oppose "prosperity" in Scandinavia.

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

Scandinavia is not homogenous.

Yes, it is.

The Kingdom of Norway, Kingdom of Denmark and Kingdom of Sweden are all homogeneous nation-States.

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

Finland is divided by two genetically and culturally different demographics, not to mention a growing immigration population.

The Finns and the Lapps each are a nation. That makes Finland a dual-State rather than a nation-State.

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

You have yet provided an argument as to why the model in question can't work in a large country.

Yes, they have. Homogeneity, nation-State, Economy of Scale etc etc etc are all valid real arguments.

You have failed to provide any substantive economic or financial data to support your claim.

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

Dude, we're no longer on the gold standard. Step into the 21st century for god's sake.

Which one of the Scandinavian currencies are an international reserve currency or an international currency of trade?

That would be another example of how false your analogies are.

How many professional or semi-professional baseball, football, basketball or hockey teams are in Scandinavia?

Seeing how Americans have a greater choice of entertainment for sporting venues, it's absurd that you would claim the Scandinavian Standard of Living is higher than Imperial USA.


By the way.....if Capital is tied up in professional or semi-professional sports, can that Capital simultaneously be used elsewhere?

Analogizing....

Mircea