How do socialist states do so well?

[techs]

To hear tell here on P&N Obama is making the US socialist and thats the end of our economy.
Yet, the US isn't one tenth as "socialist" as many of the countries in Europe.
So, why haven't the European countries gone to hell yet?

Take Sweden:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Economy
Sweden is an export-oriented market economy featuring a modern distribution system, excellent internal and external communications, and a skilled labour force. Timber, hydropower, and iron ore constitute the resource base of an economy heavily oriented toward foreign trade. Sweden's engineering sector accounts for 50% of output and exports. Telecommunications, the automotive industry and the pharmaceutical industries are also of great importance. Agriculture accounts for 2 percent of GDP and employment.



Norway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Economy

Norwegians enjoy the second highest GDP per-capita (after Luxembourg) and third highest GDP (PPP) per-capita in the world. Norway has maintained first place in the world in the UNDP Human Development Index (HDI) for six consecutive years (2001-2006).[
The Norwegian economy is an example of a mixed economy, featuring a combination of free market activity and large government ownership. The government has large ownership positions in key industrial sectors, such as the strategic petroleum sector (StatoilHydro), hydroelectric energy production (Statkraft), aluminum production (Norsk Hydro), the largest Norwegian bank (DnB NOR) and telecommunication provider (Telenor). The government controls 31.6% of publicly-listed companies. When non-listed companies are included the state has even higher share in ownership (mainly from direct oil license ownership).

France:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France#Economy

A member of the G8 group of leading industrialised countries, it is ranked as the sixth largest economy by nominal GDP.
France's economy combines extensive private enterprise (nearly 2.5 million companies registered) with substantial (though declining) government intervention (see dirigisme). The government retains considerable influence over key segments of infrastructure sectors, with majority ownership of railway, electricity, aircraft, and telecommunications firms. It has been gradually relaxing its control over these sectors since the early 1990s. The government is slowly selling off holdings in France Télécom, Air France, as well as the insurance, banking, and defence industries. France has an important aerospace industry led by the European consortium Airbus, and has its own national spaceport, the Centre Spatial Guyanais.

By any standard, even with France reducing government participation, they are light years more involved in their economy than the US will be even if every 'socialist" program of Obamas goes thru.

Why haven't these "socialist" countries self destructed due to the advanced state of socialism?
Or, could it be that there is some amount of socialism that works well in a modern industrialized society?
And have the Europeans found they had gone to far, and is the US finding out it has not gone far enough?

 

[Paddington]

Have you considered that the demographics of Sweden and Norway are dramatically different than they are in the United States? Scandinavian style welfare policies work well... in places like Vermont and Minnesota. They tend not to work so well in California, which is on the brink of economic collapse. Hell, they don't even work that well elsewhere in Western Europe. Basically, to make these socialist policies work you need a small, homogeneous population, wherein people are reluctant to game the system. In bigger, more diverse societies where groups function at different levels, you get too many freeloaders and the whole thing collapses.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Thems are some of the whitest people on the planet...

People are more likely to help out their "own-kind".

Haven't heard about all the riots and problems France is having with minorities lately?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Paddington
Have you considered that the demographics of Sweden and Norway are dramatically different than they are in the United States? Scandinavian style welfare policies work well... in places like Vermont and Minnesota. They tend not to work so well in California, which is on the brink of economic collapse. Hell, they don't even work that well elsewhere in Western Europe. Basically, to make these socialist policies work you need a small, homogeneous population, wherein people are reluctant to game the system. In bigger, more diverse societies where groups function at different levels, you get too many freeloaders and the whole thing collapses.

Were talking economic socialism here. Note that all the links and quotes are about economic socialsm, not social welfare policies.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Paddington
Have you considered that the demographics of Sweden and Norway are dramatically different than they are in the United States? Scandinavian style welfare policies work well... in places like Vermont and Minnesota. They tend not to work so well in California, which is on the brink of economic collapse. Hell, they don't even work that well elsewhere in Western Europe. Basically, to make these socialist policies work you need a small, homogeneous population, wherein people are reluctant to game the system. In bigger, more diverse societies where groups function at different levels, you get too many freeloaders and the whole thing collapses.

Whoa. Time warp. See response above.

 

[OCGuy]

They dont border Mexico.


Also, is this our weekly "Socialism is good" thread?

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Paddington
Have you considered that the demographics of Sweden and Norway are dramatically different than they are in the United States? Scandinavian style welfare policies work well... in places like Vermont and Minnesota. They tend not to work so well in California, which is on the brink of economic collapse. Hell, they don't even work that well elsewhere in Western Europe. Basically, to make these socialist policies work you need a small, homogeneous population, wherein people are reluctant to game the system. In bigger, more diverse societies where groups function at different levels, you get too many freeloaders and the whole thing collapses.

That is entirely too logical for P&N...

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: shiner

Originally posted by: Paddington
Have you considered that the demographics of Sweden and Norway are dramatically different than they are in the United States? Scandinavian style welfare policies work well... in places like Vermont and Minnesota. They tend not to work so well in California, which is on the brink of economic collapse. Hell, they don't even work that well elsewhere in Western Europe. Basically, to make these socialist policies work you need a small, homogeneous population, wherein people are reluctant to game the system. In bigger, more diverse societies where groups function at different levels, you get too many freeloaders and the whole thing collapses.

That is entirely too logical for P&N...

I guess you didn't read the post. It talks exclusively about economic, not social welfare socialism.
To which no one has given an explanation.

 

[Screech]

1) Different demographics
2) Different economies (ie, actually producing something, not service oriented)
3) European comparisons are often sketchy as best on any issue due to the different cultures and values of such cultures

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: screech
1) Different demographics
2) Different economies (ie, actually producing something, not service oriented)
3) European comparisons are often sketchy as best on any issue due to the different cultures and values of such cultures
4) This is obviously a daily techs troll thread so I'm not sure why I bother responding

I get it. A thread that starts Obama is bankrupting our country. Or Obama wants to socialize socialism is ok, yet a comparative economics thread on socialism is a troll.

I really have watch more FoxNews so I can understand the new rules.

 

[Screech]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: screech
1) Different demographics
2) Different economies (ie, actually producing something, not service oriented)
3) European comparisons are often sketchy as best on any issue due to the different cultures and values of such cultures
4) This is obviously a daily techs troll thread so I'm not sure why I bother responding

I get it. A thread that starts Obama is bankrupting our country. Or Obama wants to socialize socialism is ok, yet a comparative economics thread on socialism is a troll.

I really have watch more FoxNews so I can understand the new rules.

I voted for Obama, never watch Fox (it is garbage), and have never started a thread about socialism, but whatever. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and revise my original post here.

 

[Mursilis]

Re France, they're going broke too, as thier public debt:GDP ratio now exceeds ours. If you want to know why they haven't self-destructed, it's because you haven't waited long enough.

 

[ElFenix]

ultimately not much difference between owning the infrastructure and regulating it in nearly every facet (rates charged, profitabilty, where it can be built, etc.). and there are plenty of the latter in the US, even if there isn't as much of the former.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: screech

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: screech
1) Different demographics
2) Different economies (ie, actually producing something, not service oriented)
3) European comparisons are often sketchy as best on any issue due to the different cultures and values of such cultures
4) This is obviously a daily techs troll thread so I'm not sure why I bother responding

I get it. A thread that starts Obama is bankrupting our country. Or Obama wants to socialize socialism is ok, yet a comparative economics thread on socialism is a troll.

I really have watch more FoxNews so I can understand the new rules.

I voted for Obama, never watch Fox (it is garbage), and have never started a thread about socialism, but whatever. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and revise my original post here.

Everyone who dares to disagree with techs is Rush Limbaugh's secret love child. You were right the first time (before your edit).

 

[Moonbeam]

A tremendous amount of money and talent is invested in making sure socialism is unpopular. Because of that fact nothing that people know means anything. It is all the result of very expensive programming. Most people are walking anti-socialist bot machines.

 

[Infohawk]

It's all relative. People that describe the northern and western European states as socialist nightmares are about as clueless as Europeans who describe the US as a racist plutocracy nightmare.

With that said, I agree that the more immigrants you have the harder it is to practice "socialism." Correct me if I'm wrong, but when Irish and Itlians were coming to this country in droves we didn't have workers comp, disability, subsidized higher education, and free health care for poor people.

 

[CLite]

I like to think of myself as middle of the road in politics, unfortunately on these boards I mostly harp on conservatives. However in this thread I feel the need to use facts to point out how socialism isn't all wonderfull and perfect.

As of 2008:

U.S. debt per capita: $44,358
% of GDP: 95.09%
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959/?slide=2

Norway debt per capita: $118,353
% of GDP: 114%
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959/?slide=3

Sweden debt per capita: $73,245
% of GDP: 129%
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959/?slide=5

France debt per capita: $78,070
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959/?slide=9
% of GDP: 168%


And just for the fun "wow" factor. Freaking Ireland has a per capita debt of $549,819, with a % of GDP of 811%. That just blows my mind away personally.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959/?slide=16

Unfortunately these facts will probably be used by some winnar111 wannabe popping their head in and saying how Obama is a facist and socialist.

 

[nCred]

Originally posted by: CLite
I like to think of myself as middle of the road in politics, unfortunately on these boards I mostly harp on conservatives. However in this thread I feel the need to use facts to point out how socialism isn't all wonderfull and perfect.

As of 2008:

U.S. debt per capita: $44,358
% of GDP: 95.09%
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959/?slide=2

Norway debt per capita: $118,353
% of GDP: 114%
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959/?slide=3

Sweden debt per capita: $73,245
% of GDP: 129%
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959/?slide=5

France debt per capita: $78,070
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959/?slide=9
% of GDP: 168%


And just for the fun "wow" factor. Freaking Ireland has a per capita debt of $549,819, with a % of GDP of 811%. That just blows my mind away personally.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959/?slide=16

Unfortunately these facts will probably be used by some winnar111 wannabe popping their head in and saying how Obama is a facist and socialist.

Those numbers mean nothing since it's private debt included, it only shows that people and companies in european nations borrow and receive investments from other european countries. Ireland has received huge amounts of foreign investments, that's why their external debt is so large. So it has actually benefited the country (until the financial crisis).

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: nCred
Those numbers mean nothing since it's private debt included, it only shows that people and companies in european nations borrow and receive investments from other european countries. Ireland has received huge amounts of foreign investments, that's why their external debt is so large. So it has actually benefited the country (until the financial crisis).

hrmmm I was fairly oblivious while reading that article it seems. Anyways, wikipedia of public debt list shows for 2007:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...untries_by_public_debt

*edit* that wikipedia public debt list appears wrong. As somewhere else I'm reading that the U.S. is 36.8% of GDP for the year 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Stupid wikipedia, guess I have to do more googling for other sources.

(% of GDP)

Norway: 83.10%
France: 63.90%
United Sates: 60.80%
Sweden: 41.70%

That is fairly interesting, Sweden is doing a lot better than I thought to be honest.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: nCred
Those numbers mean nothing since it's private debt included, it only shows that people and companies in european nations borrow and receive investments from other european countries. Ireland has received huge amounts of foreign investments, that's why their external debt is so large. So it has actually benefited the country (until the financial crisis).

hrmmm I was fairly oblivious while reading that article it seems. Anyways, wikipedia of public debt list shows for 2007:

(% of GDP)

Norway: 83.10%
France: 63.90%
United Sates: 60.80%
Sweden: 41.70%

That is fairly interesting, Sweden is doing a lot better than I thought to be honest.

The Swedish Bikini Team's a big money maker.

 

[Beattie]

When was the last time your heard of someone's life being saved by Norwegian drugs, or driving a French car, or buying Swedish anything. No, I don't think they are all that successful at all.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Beattie
When was the last time your heard of someone's life being saved by Norwegian drugs, or driving a French car, or buying Swedish anything. No, I don't think they are all that successful at all.

Well:
France builds nucler reactors for other countries.
Sweden: "Telecommunications, the automotive industry and the pharmaceutical industries are also of great importance"
Norway makes ships and oil rigs.

Not bad when you consider Norway has 4.8 million people and Sweden 9.2 million and France about the population of California and Texas combined.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Beattie
When was the last time your heard of someone's life being saved by Norwegian drugs, or driving a French car, or buying Swedish anything. No, I don't think they are all that successful at all.

If all that were true, they've found the Holy Grail of Economics. Wealth without anything to Produce Wealth.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Beattie
When was the last time your heard of someone's life being saved by Norwegian drugs, or driving a French car, or buying Swedish anything. No, I don't think they are all that successful at all.

Well:
France builds nucler reactors for other countries.
Sweden: "Telecommunications, the automotive industry and the pharmaceutical industries are also of great importance"
Norway makes ships and oil rigs.

Not bad when you consider Norway has 4.8 million people and Sweden 9.2 million and France about the population of California and Texas combined.

None of those countries have 800+ military bases in 100+ countries. Not that I support that we do.

If you want to bash capitalism, find a country that practices it. It isn't the US, that's for sure. Not with a central bank controlling price. The problems with socialism are incentive and an inability to calculate price. Our system is only more capitalist because we have incentive, but we are tossing that away every day. And mainly because we continue to try to calculate price.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: Paddington
Have you considered that the demographics of Sweden and Norway are dramatically different than they are in the United States? Scandinavian style welfare policies work well... in places like Vermont and Minnesota. They tend not to work so well in California, which is on the brink of economic collapse. Hell, they don't even work that well elsewhere in Western Europe. Basically, to make these socialist policies work you need a small, homogeneous population, wherein people are reluctant to game the system. In bigger, more diverse societies where groups function at different levels, you get too many freeloaders and the whole thing collapses.

You mean corrupt capitalist pigs at the top of the food chain and their rat cousins on welfare at the bottom. Leaving the middle class(what countries like norway and sweden consist of mostly, not racial as you are suggesting, but a classism which is well balanced) to foot the bill for both.
When a society gets too corrupt you lose the sense of justice and it's a domino effect of thievery- not too proud to begg or dumb to steal! The burden seems pointless to those who do all the "real" work and they revert to being self-sustaining only.