NationStates Jolt Archive

I was responding to a comment on a friends post about socialism. I like to use the Swedish example whenever FREE HEALTHCARE comes up. I used Sweden's socialist cradle-to-grave program as an example of why socialism doesn't work. I liked it so much that I decided to post it here for anybody that is interested.

I used Sweden as an example because their taxes, which finance an exceedingly generous system of cradle-to-grave health, social service and welfare benefits, are THE WORLD'S HIGHEST. Sweden is a fine example of what is known as the socialist state of the 21st century, in which egalitarianism begun in the 1930s, blended with social benevolence, has created a potential economic catastrophe. The free market in Sweden has long since ceased to function.

Sweden's socialist system was based on the concept of the "Folkhemme," or the "People's Home," in which the population received maximum economic security for life. Current financial ills are based on a payment system that requires enormous amounts of revenue from the working segment of the population to sustain the non-working population.

Parliament projects that by 2020 Sweden will have more pensioners than workers. By comparison, the U.S. ratio is projected to be two workers per pensioner at that point. For those that don't understand this means that there won't be any money generated to pay for the welfare programs.

-Swedes receiving pensions complain about young people working jobs that are not reported to the government so less money is contributed to government funds.

-Young people complain that taxes are so high that they are forced to find alternative income sources to survive.

-Unionists want more jobs in their industries but are unwilling to accept lower wages or fewer benefits.

-Corporate managers are upset about their high income taxes and are concerned with attracting talented workers who could easily net higher incomes in other European Union countries.

-75% of small businesses have no employees. The reason is the heavy cost of taking on the responsibility of employing another person.


Now let's talk about the taxes that pay for these socialist programs:

Employers pay 32.7% of their employees' salary in payroll taxes -- four times the U.S. rate. Insurance requirements and hourly-wage scales are much higher than in the United States.

Municipal income-tax rates on individuals run 32.7%; the state gets 20% to 25%, depending on location; and the federal government takes up to 56% of what income is left.

Swedish law limits overall taxation to 85% of salary. In addition, there is a "value-added" tax on purchases that runs from 12% to 25%, depending on the item.

SOCIALISM DOES NOT WORK

BUT HEY!!! look on the bright side...they get free healthcare.

If you would like more information I can tell you about their disability programs, unemployment rates and their sick-day abuse which will make you wonder how the fuck they get anything done over there.

small problem: sweden isn't practicing socialism

Sweden isn't socialist. They are, for lack of a better term, "social-democratic". It is a welfare state with a capitalist market.

Sweden isn't socialist. They are, for lack of a better term, "social-democratic". It is a welfare state with a capitalist market.

Whatever it is, it dose not work.

Whatever it is, it dose not work.

Socialism, in any form beyond almost non-existant, is parasitic, not symbiotic. And like any parasitic creature that relies on a single entity for too long, it will kill its host.

small problem: sweden isn't practicing socialism


Are you kidding me? Did you read the entire thing? Sweden may be catagorized as a Democratic Socialist State, but it's socialism just the same. Perhaps you should read the book A History of European Socialism by A.S. Linemann.

Socialism, in any form beyond almost non-existant, is parasitic, not symbiotic. And like any parasitic creature that relies on a single entity for too long, it will kill its host.

Sounds awfully like capitalism to me, with the product of labour going to one person and all. But it's for the good of everyone, because businesspeople are primarily in it for the good of society. *nods*

However Sweeden also has some of the lowest crime rates, drug use and porverty levels in the world.

Secondly Socialism does work, everyone in the OECD world is an exmaple of that. Even America has a degree of socialism ie public healthcare, schooling, social security, even if it is a crap version compared to the Scandanvain states.

All most all states practice degrees of socialism. Socialism simply implies a central goverment aiding its citizens via publicly funded programs.

Communism and socialism are different and there are certinaly different degrees of socialism. Sweeden is still a capatialist state.

Sweeden also doesnt have a problem with the working poor as you will find in American and so to be Australia - fuck you John Howard, fuck you right in the ear -.

Life expectancy, contentment levels and general health levels are much much better in the Scandinaivan states that almost anywhere else. They also have excellent defence forces.

Sick day abuse? As in taking them?

AS for you other points. Have you been eating neo-liberalist pills.... mmmm wapred conservatism, must believe crap.

Once of the first states to recover from the Great Depression was Sweeden becuase its government introduced large sclae public funded projects that aided the ecconomy, the path Rosevelt later took.

I agree that an over regulated ecconomy has problems, but so does any other system and on the whole your probably going to be better off in Sweeden than in America, especially the poor.

Are you kidding me? Did you read the entire thing? Sweden may be catagorized as a Democratic Socialist State, but it's socialism just the same. Perhaps you should read the book A History of European Socialism by A.S. Linemann.

Perhaps you would like to explain how the Swedish workers have control and ownership over the means of production?

Perhaps you would like to explain how the Swedish workers have control and ownership over the means of production?

BOOM HEADSHOT! Good observation

Sweden may be catagorized as a Democratic Socialist State, but it's socialism just the same.

no, it's a social democracy. there's a difference.

[QUOTE=Brantor]However Sweeden also has some of the lowest crime rates, drug use and porverty levels in the world.


Here are the international rankings showing the rate of risk for being a victim of crime.

Above 24%: Australia, England, Holland and Sweden
20 - 24%: Canada, Scotland, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, France and the United States
Under 20%: Finland, Spain, Switzerland, Portugal, and Japan.

Another point for those arguing that socialism or whatever kills the state.

Anyone care to explain the Chinese Ecconomy? Or the fact that they have a 9% growth rate despite the fact they only joined the WTO in the 90s and have basically ignored the IMF and WTO.

Or perhaps we should turn to Agertina which suffered major ecconomic disaster after following WTO and IMF ecconomic recomendations to the letter?

[QUOTE=Brantor]However Sweeden also has some of the lowest crime rates, drug use and porverty levels in the world.


Here are the international rankings showing the rate of risk for being a victim of crime.

Above 24%: Australia, England, Holland and Sweden
20 - 24%: Canada, Scotland, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, France and the United States
Under 20%: Finland, Spain, Switzerland, Portugal, and Japan.

Source?

I was responding to a comment on a friends post about socialism. I like to use the Swedish example whenever FREE HEALTHCARE comes up. I used Sweden's socialist cradle-to-grave program as an example of why socialism doesn't work. I liked it so much that I decided to post it here for anybody that is interested.


Health spending per capita in US dollars (1998):

USA - $4,178
Sweden - $1,746


Discuss.

Another point for those arguing that socialism or whatever kills the state.

Anyone care to explain the Chinese Ecconomy? Or the fact that they have a 9% growth rate despite the fact they only joined the WTO in the 90s and have basically ignored the IMF and WTO.

They aren't socialist, either. The workers in China are not empowered. Quite the opposite, actually.

Socialism completely works and for those who doubt you probably don't know what socialism is.

Socialism, in any form beyond almost non-existant, is parasitic, not symbiotic. And like any parasitic creature that relies on a single entity for too long, it will kill its host.

First of all the socialism is a form of parasite you can't compare an economic stucture of an economy which many economists have debated about and have agreed that will work if an economy is geared correctly like the scandanavian countires.

Although they have high tax rates is it worse then the american trailer trash and scum who have no welfare that they have to litewrally fight for a decent pay (join the army) Just as the Human Development Index of the United Nation indicates America is definantely no seen as the land of oppurtunity if you come from the poor. At least in the socialist countries they can afford to tax people highly because people arn't living in poverty (not absolute poverty but bad enough that they can never escape the poverty cycle unless a one of event happeans in their life)

75% of small businesses have no employees. The reason is the heavy cost of taking on the responsibility of employing another person.


That 75% of small businesses have no employeess. DAAA in a socialist economy the majority of workers are supposed to be employed by the government.

So For all your bagging of socilaist economies remember according to The U.N the most unbiased organisation in these circumstances they rate these scandanavian countries so much better then the U.S.A when it comes to terms of living. In plain terms It is better to live in these scandanavian countries then the US for the common man

By the way that is supposed to say isn't a form of parasite my bad :(

[QUOTE=Greenham]

Source?

Interpol - International Crime Statistics

and I also found it here

5th UN Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems

Um in the original post the guy talked about an potenetial ecconomic distaster.

The great depression was caused by an unregulated market ecconomy, not by socialism. The Asian crisis in the 90s was cuased by market eccomies growing to fast without proper regulation. When have regualted markets cuased major global ecconomic instability?

[QUOTE=Brantor]

Interpol - International Crime Statistics

Um a link would be nice

In order for socialism to work, a portion (see below) of the population must be commited to making it work,

How large of a majority depends on the production capabilities of a unit of people (sometimes one, sometimes more, theoretically zero is possible). For instance, if all manufacturing is entirely robotic, you need virtually nobody, where as prior to mechanising the workplace, you needed lots of time and effort to even make one simple thing.

Guess which one needs more people commited to making the socialism work?

Another factor is the "mixing" of the population - If you have a unit of people who are not commited, you cannot easily make them act as if they are. Wheras if you have a small portion of a unit of people not commited, and the rest are, via peer pressure or other means they can get that person to act commited.

IN THE END - Socialism is based upon one simple effect that has persisted since the dawn of society, and is, indeed, the nature of society itself - Teamwork.

Socialism will work and fail is the same basic ways as a team will work and fail.

It's also important to note that any society should work when everyone is commited to making it work, but that socialism is a "higher-energy state" than capitalism, which does not need nearly as many people commited to capitalism.

Final note - There's some other stuff that goes on when those not commited to the system are instead commited to a different system (See: Revolutions), but, in general, the simple effect is that it takes less of them to make an effect than people who aren't commited to anything (Read: Opiate of the masses).

Socialism <i>can</i> work, but it <i>has not</i> yet worked <i>on a large scale</i>, esp. past the lifetime of strong leaders. Neither has communism, nor monarchy, nor dictatorship, nor democracy. Only the mercantile and capitalistic Republic has been shown to work on a large scale.

Berkeley area (My home) has domestic and commercial communes (read: where people live, and where people work - Cheeseboard Pizza Collective is a good example) that are small examples of socialisms, and they follow the one basic model of: Teamwork.

Heres a link which you might find useful. It clearly shows that US has higher crime rates than Sweeden

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/r57.pdf

You will also notice that the figures demonstrate how figures can be skewed ie Sweeden has a very high rate of bicylce theft... not exactly a society destroying crime but the crime still counts in the total and each crime counts as equal to a murder in the US or a car theft in the UK

One of the more intereting figures is that the number of people worried about going out at night is more than double in the US than in Sweeden

[QUOTE=Greenham]

Um a link would be nice

I can't give you a link to the Interpol stats because you have to be in law enforcement, but you can check out the UN survey on their website

http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/WCTS/wcts.html

Whatever it is, it dose not work.

Well, they rank better than the USA in the UN Human Development Index, so it would seem that whatever you call the system in the US doesn't work either.

Well, they rank better than the USA in the UN Human Development Index, so it would seem that whatever you call the system in the US doesn't work either.

BUT THE UN DOESNT REFLECT US VALUES!!! OF COURSE SWEDEN IS BETTER THAR BECAUSE IT IS FULL OF PINKO COMMIE PANSIES

Over-exaggerated anticipated response #33

Just a few facts to correct the mistakes of the OP ;) (sorry, got not much time to elaborate more):

First Sweden is _not_ socialist, but just social-democrat.

Then, even social-democracy works much better than pure capitalism. Let's stay in the health domain:

- Countries with a more-or-less socialised health system (like Sweden, France or Germany) spend _less_ in their health care than USA, and have a better result. To take the situation of France, which is the one I know the most, we spend around 9% of our GDP in health care (while USA spends around 15% of its GDP in health care), BUT France ranks higher than USA in all health-related results (lower childdeath rate, longer lifespan, ...).

- Even inside the same country, socialised health care is more efficient. In France, there are 3 kinds of health care systems: the socialised one (which cover all the vital needs), "mutuelles" (cooperative insurance, who by law cannot make profits and have a strict ethical code) and private insurance. Efficiency of socialised health care is above 95% (on every single euro taken by taxes, more than 95 cents end up for paying health costs, while less than 5 cents are used for the inner working of system). For "mutuelles", it's 90% (5 extra percents are lost, for example in advertising). For private insurance, it's the worst, with 85% (5 extra percents are once against lost, going mostly to stock holder pockets). So, in France, the socialised health systems is _3 times_ less inffecient than the private health sector.

- And then, your forget a fundamental point, which is that only one part of the health system is socialised, the one "in front". All the backend, especially the pharmeucital trusts, are NOT socialised. Those use the socialised health systems to sell their drugs and make huge profits. The parasite in this is the capitalist part of society, which parasite the public health system to give more to a few stock holders. A fully socialised health system (with public research instead of private laboratories) would lead to a far higher efficiceny, to _less_ spending in health but an _higher_ level of health coverage. Don't forget that private laboratories tend to concentrate on what make them money, not on what is most useful. Stories of private laboratories closing promising research on Alzeihmer, Parkinson, some cancers, ... in order to open for ... hairloss or other ridiculous issues are very common, just ask any scientist who work in them.

I was responding to a comment on a friends post about socialism. I like to use the Swedish example whenever FREE HEALTHCARE comes up. I used Sweden's socialist cradle-to-grave program as an example of why socialism doesn't work.

Hang on, Sweden spends less per head on healthcare than the US, and has a longer life expectancy than the US, and you claim that their healthcare system is an example of why socialism (not that its socialism, anyhow) doesn't work?

Sweden's more Socialist than a lot of other countries currently are, sure, but they're far from being a true Socialist state. Even so, the standard of living is much higher than in the States...

...You know, the land of hope and glory; the country where if you have a good idea and work at it, you'll be rich. If only that were true.

The free market in Sweden has long since ceased to function.

Good. Now, if only every other country will swing in that direction, we'll be much better off.

[QUOTE=Brantor]

I can't give you a link to the Interpol stats because you have to be in law enforcement, but you can check out the UN survey on their website

http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/WCTS/wcts.html

Nothing there gives you comparable states on crime rates

Some of the data sheets dont even include the US

[QUOTE=Greenham]

Nothing there gives you comparable states on crime rates

Try www.nationmaster.com

[QUOTE=Brantor]

Try www.nationmaster.com

Once again direct information allowing accurate comparison seems to be impossible to find.

The closest I could find was http://www.nationmaster.com/pie-T/cri_tot_cri_cap

but that didnt include Sweeden

[QUOTE=Kanabia]

Once again direct information allowing accurate comparison seems to be impossible to find.

The closest I could find was http://www.nationmaster.com/pie-T/cri_tot_cri_cap

but that didnt include Sweeden

Well, as it says: "Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence."

Am I the only one here that fails to see any relevant correlation between crime rates and the matter at hand? If we were focusing on those crimes which could fall under the heading of distributive justuce (ie. theft but not murder), then I could possibly understand why this debate is going on here, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

Am I the only one here that fails to see any relevant correlation between crime rates and the matter at hand? If we were focusing on those crimes which could fall under the heading of distributive justuce (ie. theft but not murder), then I could possibly understand why this debate is going on here, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

apparently socialist™ sweden is in all respects morally inferior to the u.s. and this is in fact implied and caused by the above mentioned socialism™

or something

Above 24%: Australia, England, Holland and Sweden
20 - 24%: Canada, Scotland, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, France and the United States
Under 20%: Finland, Spain, Switzerland, Portugal, and Japan.

'England'? are Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (which effectively all have the same government) listed separately?

However Sweeden also has some of the lowest crime rates, drug use and porverty levels in the world.


Here are the international rankings showing the rate of risk for being a victim of crime.

Above 24%: Australia, England, Holland and Sweden
20 - 24%: Canada, Scotland, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, France and the United States
Under 20%: Finland, Spain, Switzerland, Portugal, and Japan.I wonder what goes on in the countries that don't fit into any of those categories.

Also, Sweden is not spelled "Sweeden".

Above 24%: Australia, England, Holland and Sweden
20 - 24%: Canada, Scotland, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, France and the United States
Under 20%: Finland, Spain, Switzerland, Portugal, and Japan.
heh, you do know that also Finland and Denmark are examples of this evil non-working socialism?

DAMN YOU! Everybody, forget about Sweden! They're stealing all of Denmark ideas and beliefs! Death to them all, I say! :sniper:

heh, you do know that also Finland and Denmark are examples of this evil non-working socialism?

Thank you, thank you so much, you've just reestablished my faith in humanity once again. :)

Thank you, thank you so much, you've just reestablished my faith in humanity once again. :)
Como?

heeeeey! It looks like you're Danish! You're not only a pinko communist but also a druggie. Have they made any decicions about Kristiania yet? I heard some rumours that they are going to transfer it into a nice family suburbania. Hope not.

Como?

heeeeey! It looks like you're Danish! You're not only a pinko communist but also a druggie. Have they made any decicions about Kristiania yet? I heard some rumours that they are going to transfer it into a nice family suburbania. Hope not.

Heh, they should just leave Christiania alone... If people want to get drugged up and raped by straying dogs, fine by me... Just don't come crawling when someone starts gunning down people in a drugcraze, you've got your voodoo to dispell people like that.

Heh, they should just leave Christiania alone... If people want to get drugged up and raped by straying dogs, fine by me... Just don't come crawling when someone starts gunning down people in a drugcraze, you've got your voodoo to dispell people like that.
:D
Agreed. they make their choice, they carry the consequences. I just like the fact that there is at least a little room left for diversity.

Health spending per capita in US dollars (1998):

USA - $4,178
Sweden - $1,746

Discuss.
Notice how no one wants to?

Indeed, a properly run system, which guarantees some sort of health service(especially cheap GP services) creates a climate in which the really expensive things don't happen as often, simply because of early recognition and so on.

As for the pension system...every Western country will face that at some point. It's a pretty big claim to make social democracy responsible for ageing population, particularly since the US Right has already begun to paint the same gloomy picture of their own pension system (unjustified, by the way).

Sweden, I have no doubt, will move towards more private pension schemes in the future. The government will still be involved, to guarantee some sort of minimum pension, but individuals will do more for themselves.
"Socialist"? Certainly not, but Sweden has never tried to move into that direction. Swedish politicians have always cared about developing something that works - works better than either extreme would.

Sweden continues to be the best example of a successful economic system, and one social democratic country which has actually gone through its own Eurosclerosis and made it through the reforms, and got out on top.

I was responding to a comment on a friends post about socialism. I like to use the Swedish example whenever FREE HEALTHCARE comes up. I used Sweden's socialist cradle-to-grave program as an example of why socialism doesn't work. I liked it so much that I decided to post it here for anybody that is interested.

I used Sweden as an example because their taxes, which finance an exceedingly generous system of cradle-to-grave health, social service and welfare benefits, are THE WORLD'S HIGHEST. Sweden is a fine example of what is known as the socialist state of the 21st century, in which egalitarianism begun in the 1930s, blended with social benevolence, has created a potential economic catastrophe. The free market in Sweden has long since ceased to function.

Sweden's socialist system was based on the concept of the "Folkhemme," or the "People's Home," in which the population received maximum economic security for life. Current financial ills are based on a payment system that requires enormous amounts of revenue from the working segment of the population to sustain the non-working population.

Parliament projects that by 2020 Sweden will have more pensioners than workers. By comparison, the U.S. ratio is projected to be two workers per pensioner at that point. For those that don't understand this means that there won't be any money generated to pay for the welfare programs.

-Swedes receiving pensions complain about young people working jobs that are not reported to the government so less money is contributed to government funds.

-Young people complain that taxes are so high that they are forced to find alternative income sources to survive.

-Unionists want more jobs in their industries but are unwilling to accept lower wages or fewer benefits.

-Corporate managers are upset about their high income taxes and are concerned with attracting talented workers who could easily net higher incomes in other European Union countries.

-75% of small businesses have no employees. The reason is the heavy cost of taking on the responsibility of employing another person.


Now let's talk about the taxes that pay for these socialist programs:

Employers pay 32.7% of their employees' salary in payroll taxes -- four times the U.S. rate. Insurance requirements and hourly-wage scales are much higher than in the United States.

Municipal income-tax rates on individuals run 32.7%; the state gets 20% to 25%, depending on location; and the federal government takes up to 56% of what income is left.

Swedish law limits overall taxation to 85% of salary. In addition, there is a "value-added" tax on purchases that runs from 12% to 25%, depending on the item.

SOCIALISM DOES NOT WORK

BUT HEY!!! look on the bright side...they get free healthcare.

If you would like more information I can tell you about their disability programs, unemployment rates and their sick-day abuse which will make you wonder how the fuck they get anything done over there.

I'd like to know what are you meaning by "working" 'cause I can't see what's wrong with high tax rates... but if you're quite rich and selfish. Of course, there's a problem with the balance between pensionist and workers, but allaround the first world, the answer cannot be your neoliberal recipes, at least you're not concerned qith the happiness of the citizens, the first aim of democracies, or I thought so. Ah, yes, it's within your beloved US constitution, but if you cannot pay your insurance, you've no right to be happy.
The US system it's so cruel as hypocritical (¿?).

LESS WEAPONS AND MORE FOR THE CITIZENS, PLEASE

Perhaps we should use Victorian England as an equally irrelevant example of why Capitalism (another vague ideology with dozens of meanings) doesn't work?

im asuming that Greenham is a USian - if im wrong then sorry.

well rather unfortunatley for anyone who is anti-socialist, europe does work on its so called "welfare state".

I'd much perfer a place where if i failed A levels i at least have a room to sleep in, rather than under a bridge by a burnt out car and an oil drum as so many movies have taught us.

But really, do you think its big and macho to not recieve free healthcare if your dying. Its EVIL to let the government run some things - after all

BIG NEWS The government runs your country, so running a hospital shouldn't be much a deal

.

Above 24%: Australia, England, Holland and Sweden
20 - 24%: Canada, Scotland, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, France and the United States
Under 20%: Finland, Spain, Switzerland, Portugal, and Japan.
'England'? are Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (which effectively all have the same government) listed separately?


Scotland is, apparently. ;)

Perhaps we should use Victorian England as an equally irrelevant example of why Capitalism (another vague ideology with dozens of meanings) doesn't work?

Or, we could go with America's "Guilded Age".

[QUOTE=Greenham]I used Sweden's socialist cradle-to-grave program as an example of why socialism doesn't work.

SOCIALISM DOES NOT WORK

QUOTE]

To make such a sweeping statement, you obviously think that modern Sweden is a perfect (i.e. in the sense of as faithfull to any definition of ''Socialism'' as is possible) model of Socialism. To assume that a country such as Sweden embodies Socialism to such an extent that the validity of the socialist model stands or falls once and for all on it's performance at this moment in time (and indeed your own questionable predictions for the future)is, quite frankly, absurd.

I've got one word for those of you who tout Sweden as some sort of socialist utopia... IKEA

I'm fed up with listening to you quasi-academic retards who get their politics from the side af a breakfast cereal box. Maybe socialism doesn't work, who knows, but hey capitalism doesn't work either. I think we should stop arguing about why my stone axe is better to knock a nail in than your club and start thinking about how to design a hammer

I think we should stop arguing about why my stone axe is better to knock a nail in than your club and start thinking about how to design a hammer
You not only win this thread, but a large set of other threads to be spawned over the next few years.

Congratulations.

Health spending per capita in US dollars (1998):

USA - $4,178
Sweden - $1,746


Discuss.

That doesn't mean that Americans spend more on health spending. Is everyone as rich as each other in America? How can anyone who doesn't have that kind of money spend such an ammount of money on health? Because all of the money is in the private companies, who suck the money out of the poor due to capitalism. Those numbers do NOT mean that the US are richer than the Swedes. Sweden, like other socialist, social-democratic and democratic socialist countries are far more welfaring than the US. The US is as welfaring as a developing country, especially during the present day's dictatorship of GW Bush.

I'm fed up with listening to you quasi-academic retards who get their politics from the side af a breakfast cereal box.

It takes one to know one! :)

dictatorship of GW Bush.
Whenever people start talking such crap, I feel, regardless of their previous statements, that reason has deserted the discution. Sorry for being so blunt, but at least I'm honest. :D

I've got one word for those of you who tout Sweden as some sort of socialist utopia... IKEA

I'm fed up with listening to you quasi-academic retards who get their politics from the side af a breakfast cereal box. Maybe socialism doesn't work, who knows, but hey capitalism doesn't work either. I think we should stop arguing about why my stone axe is better to knock a nail in than your club and start thinking about how to design a hammer
I love you...

The original poster is making a mistake: THe problem isn't swedish economical organization (which is a market economy, with a strong welfare state). It is Swedish population decline. That has little to do with Sweedish economy, even a perfect capitalist state would have problems (albeit smaller ones) if the people in working age started to be outpaced by those that could not work.

The original poster is making a mistake: THe problem isn't swedish economical organization (which is a market economy, with a strong welfare state). It is Swedish population decline. That has little to do with Sweedish economy, even a perfect capitalist state would have problems (albeit smaller ones) if the people in working age started to be outpaced by those that could not work.
Yes. What they need is immigrants.

"Collective ownership and democratic control of the material means of production by the workers and the people". That's socialism. And Sweeden is definitively NOT socialist. Why? Because a true Socialist State has never existed. I don't know if it will work... but I will be all my life socialist (communist if you want) Why? Because I've chosen to be like that. And I belive that socialism can create a fair and egalitarian nation in which I would like to live in...
And... one last thing: Never discount the idealists, even though conservatives of every age have vilified them and sneered at them. Once upon a time slavery was assumed part of the natural order of things. Once upon a time every state in the world was despotic, while human rights and elected governments were at best fantasies. Once upon a time there were no such things as trials, and torture was the norm. Modern man breaks records for the size and scope of human cruelty, but modern man has succeeded in moving the norms very far toward the good. A society free of slavery, peonage, hereditary nobility, poorhouses and debtors prisons, with universal public education, socialized health care for everyone, a 40 hour work week, and a popularly elected republican government, would surely have seemed like a pie-in-the-sky utopia to someone alive in 1700.

The original poster is making a mistake: THe problem isn't swedish economical organization (which is a market economy, with a strong welfare state). It is Swedish population decline. That has little to do with Sweedish economy, even a perfect capitalist state would have problems (albeit smaller ones) if the people in working age started to be outpaced by those that could not work.


I'm glad you brought this up. Please see my new post on Sweden because I brought up this issue.

I think we should stop arguing about why my stone axe is better to knock a nail in than your club and start thinking about how to design a hammer

Erm, sigged.

I'm glad you brought this up. Please see my new post on Sweden because I brought up this issue.

Since you made no comment over the other parts of my post, I reckon you admit your initial post is wrong.

I was going to point out that Sweden isn't really all that socialist, but it seems everyone else has beat me to that point.

Since you made no comment over the other parts of my post, I reckon you admit your initial post is wrong.

Absolutely not. My 2nd post coincides with my first.

Branches of Socialism:

African Socialism
Libertarian Socialism
Christian Socialism
Islamic Socialism
Communism / Marxism
Democratic Socialism
International Socialism
Syndicalism
Utopian Socialism
Guild Socialism

You can further divide the socio-political or intellectual movements basing themselves in the Marxist-Socialist tradition.

The largest political party in Sweden is the Swedish Social Democratic Party. The party is also a full member of Socialist International. Goran Persson is the current Prime Minister who is a Social Democrat.

Branches of Socialism:

African Socialism
Libertarian Socialism
Christian Socialism
Islamic Socialism
Communism / Marxism
Democratic Socialism
International Socialism
Syndicalism
Utopian Socialism
Guild Socialism

You can further divide the socio-political or intellectual movements basing themselves in the Marxist-Socialist tradition.

The largest political party in Sweden is the Swedish Social Democratic Party. The party is also a full member of Socialist International. The PM Goran Persson is the current Social Democrat Prime Minister.


And calling yourself "social" makes you a socialist?
Hard times for Social Sciences.... :rolleyes:

And calling yourself "social" makes you a socialist?
Hard times for Social Sciences.... :rolleyes:



so·cial·ism (s?'sh?-l?z'?m)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

so·cial·ism (s?'sh?-l?z'?m)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Which definitely does not apply to Sweden

The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Which doesn't apply to Sweden either.

"Social-democracy" is completly different, and even opposite, to "socialism". Many people who call themselves socialists are in facts social-democrats (like the "socialist international", or the french "socialist party") but that doesn't matter in this issue (the same way that many states who call themselves "republics" have nothing to do with real republics).

so·cial·ism (s?'sh?-l?z'?m)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
so·cial
adj.

Living together in communities.
Of or relating to communal living.
Of or relating to human society and its modes of organization: social classes; social problems; a social issue.
Living together in organized groups or similar close aggregates: Ants are social insects.
Involving allies or members of a confederacy.
Of or relating to the upper classes.

Inclined to seek out or enjoy the company of others; sociable.
Spent in or marked by friendly relations or companionship.
Intended for convivial activities.
Of, relating to, or occupied with matters affecting human welfare: social programs.

n.
An informal social gathering, as of the members of a church congregation.

EDIT: I seem to recall they are called "social democrats" not "socialism democrats"...

so·cial
adj.

Living together in communities.
Of or relating to communal living.
Of or relating to human society and its modes of organization: social classes; social problems; a social issue.
Living together in organized groups or similar close aggregates: Ants are social insects.
Involving allies or members of a confederacy.
Of or relating to the upper classes.

Inclined to seek out or enjoy the company of others; sociable.
Spent in or marked by friendly relations or companionship.
Intended for convivial activities.
Of, relating to, or occupied with matters affecting human welfare: social programs.

n.
An informal social gathering, as of the members of a church congregation.

EDIT: I seem to recall they are called "social democrats" not "socialism democrats"...

If you had bothered to look up Social democracy in an Encyclopedia you'd have found this:

Social democracy is a political ideology that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries from supporters of Marxism. Initially, social democratic parties included revolutionary socialists, such as Rosa Luxemburg and Vladimir Lenin alongside those who advocated a gradualist, evolutionary approach.

Modern social democracy emphasises a program of gradual legislative reform of the capitalist system in order to make it more equitable and humane, with the theoretical end goal of building a socialist society either de-emphasised or limited in scope.

Modern social democracy emphasises a program of gradual legislative reform of the capitalist system in order to make it more equitable and humane, with the theoretical end goal of building a socialist society either de-emphasised or limited in scope.
Which is rather different from socialism isn't it!

If you had bothered to look up Social democracy in an Encyclopedia you'd have found this:

Social democracy is a political ideology that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries from supporters of Marxism. Initially, social democratic parties included revolutionary socialists, such as Rosa Luxemburg and Vladimir Lenin alongside those who advocated a gradualist, evolutionary approach.

Modern social democracy emphasises a program of gradual legislative reform of the capitalist system in order to make it more equitable and humane, with the theoretical end goal of building a socialist society either de-emphasised or limited in scope.That's good. Thanks. It proves the point that social democrats are nice people. The definition at Dictionary.com wasn't as positive.

I'm glad you brought this up. Please see my new post on Sweden because I brought up this issue.

You've lost this thread so you run away to start a new one?

Which definitely does not apply to Sweden



Which doesn't apply to Sweden either.

"Social-democracy" is completly different, and even opposite, to "socialism". Many people who call themselves socialists are in facts social-democrats (like the "socialist international", or the french "socialist party") but that doesn't matter in this issue (the same way that many states who call themselves "republics" have nothing to do with real republics).


Are you kidding me? It's a socialist paradise-cum-economic- wunderkind. Unfortunately, as I've shown, the socialist system is breaking down.

Are you kidding me? It's a socialist paradise-cum-economic- wunderkind. Unfortunately, as I've shown, the socialist system is breaking down.It's been "breaking down" for the past 50 years or so, and it doesn't look like its finished yet...

Whatever it is, it dose not work.
Seems to work just fine in Finland.

Sweden will be fine. It might have to make some changes at some point.
However its current system is not failing and will remain a social capitalist economy for the foreseeable future

Are you kidding me? It's a socialist paradise-cum-economic- wunderkind. .
Thank you for that argument of substance!

Why have you changed your argument, earlier you were saying Sweden is in economic chaos, now you say we are an economic "wunderkind"...

socialism will work and does work. As far as i can see the only two forms of government that can work permanently are Socialism and Liberalism.
While Liberalism is more able to sustain Economy and civil freedoms, it lacks as much welfare as Socialism. Socialism is NOT a totalitarian form of government as some idiotic people would have you believe, it is the ideal of the Welfare State, and differs almost entirely from State-Capitalism. (Communism to simple-minds.) As such, when compared with styles such as Conservativism or Republicanism, which sincerly annoys the masses and makes the WealthGap bigger and is as such doomed to fail and Totalitarianism, which can only work in extreme cases (1984) or when the country really loves its ruler, which is quite hard to Achieve.

socialism will work and does work. As far as i can see the only two forms of government that can work permanently are Socialism and Liberalism.
While Liberalism is more able to sustain Economy and civil freedoms, it lacks as much welfare as Socialism. Socialism is NOT a totalitarian form of government as some idiotic people would have you believe, it is the ideal of the Welfare State, and differs almost entirely from State-Capitalism. (Communism to simple-minds.) As such, when compared with styles such as Conservativism or Republicanism, which sincerly annoys the masses and makes the WealthGap bigger and is as such doomed to fail and Totalitarianism, which can only work in extreme cases (1984) or when the country really loves its ruler, which is quite hard to Achieve.

Scotland is, apparently. ;)

Whoops. I appear to have gone either blind or daft.

Are you kidding me? It's a socialist paradise-cum-economic- wunderkind.

But still you were only able to give definitions of socialism which don't match at all what Sweden is ;)

Unfortunately, as I've shown, the socialist system is breaking down.

The US system is far closer to collapse than the Sweden system. They only survive because they control world trade with the dollar.

And well, even if it were true, you can hardly blame the social system for demographic issues. In fact, having a higher number of elderly people just show one thing... that people live longer, partly their health care system is more efficient !

That doesn't mean that Americans spend more on health spending.

Actually it does, those are the amounts per capita that the state spends.

Sweden, like other socialist, social-democratic and democratic socialist countries are far more welfaring than the US. The US is as welfaring as a developing country, especially during the present day's dictatorship of GW Bush.

The figures show that the US somehow manages to spend more per head on health care, and yet does not manage to have a universal health care system which is free at the point of delivery... unlike Sweden, which somehow manages to provide one while spending less per head.

Thank you for that argument of substance!

Why have you changed your argument, earlier you were saying Sweden is in economic chaos, now you say we are an economic "wunderkind"...

Only in recent years has their economy started to thrive - to a point - due to a more capitalistic approach. They still need to make drastic changes to their welfare socialist state in order to survive.

Only in recent years has their economy started to thrive - to a point - due to a more capitalistic approach. They still need to make drastic changes to their welfare socialist state in order to survive.
So, you have changed your mind?

Incidentally, as you can see from my location, I am in Sweden. I have to say, our economy has hardly been falling to bits prior to "recent years." If anything, our economy was stronger in previous years, when the government was slightly more left-wing.
However, I do think you have a poor comprehension of socialism. Sweden is not socialist, as is patently obvious, we have a fully functioning market economy for a start. It amazes me how some people, particularly in the United States where any terms starting with 'social-' seem to have been demonised, think that social democrat = socialist.
Should I assume that because the USA's Republican party has the word 'Republican' in it, it is evil and practices mass-murder like the 'Republican' Guard of the Hussein regime in Iraq?... Hmm, on second thoughts, don't answer that...

Only in recent years has their economy started to thrive - to a point - due to a more capitalistic approach. They still need to make drastic changes to their welfare socialist state in order to survive.
That refutes the claim that their economy is going down the drain, though...

So, you have changed your mind?

Incidentally, as you can see from my location, I am in Sweden. I have to say, our economy has hardly been falling to bits prior to "recent years." If anything, our economy was stronger in previous years, when the government was slightly more left-wing.
However, I do think you have a poor comprehension of socialism. Sweden is not socialist, as is patently obvious, we have a fully functioning market economy for a start. It amazes me how some people, particularly in the United States where any terms starting with 'social-' seem to have been demonised, think that social democrat = socialist.
Should I assume that because the USA's Republican party has the word 'Republican' in it, it is evil and practices mass-murder like the 'Republican' Guard of the Hussein regime in Iraq?... Hmm, on second thoughts, don't answer that...

I think that some people fail to recognize that there are varying degrees of "socialism" - and that even some policies of the US could be considered "socialist" in intention or design.

One can hardly say that some degree of socialism is a bad thing - I believe that most governments realize that in any society you need some socialist policies in order to prevent gross inequities that would cause major sections of the population to become unhappy with the government.

I don't usually use economics as a means of gauging the success of a form of government. I look at how long it's been in operation, and over that time, how happy people have been with the system, and how flexible it is without being overthrown.

On that basis, I think Sweden is doing just fine - it's working for them - yes, there will always be future risks, and current problems - but their system seems to be quite adaptable and the people of Sweden like it.

[QUOTE=Deep Kimchi]I think that some people fail to recognize that there are varying degrees of "socialism" - and that even some policies of the US could be considered "socialist" in intention or design.

One can hardly say that some degree of socialism is a bad thing - I believe that most governments realize that in any society you need some socialist policies in order to prevent gross inequities that would cause major sections of the population to become unhappy with the government.

... Hm. This sounds a bit like a populist arguement. I HATE people who get into power and spend the time being popular. It infuriates me. DO SOMETHING RIGHT not what people want. People are stupid.

... Hm. This sounds a bit like a populist arguement. I HATE people who get into power and spend the time being popular. It infuriates me. DO SOMETHING RIGHT not what people want. People are stupid.Wouldn'T we also be having people "doing what's right" for the rest of the stupid people? :D

What I don't like is the tone of this thread's OP, and a similar thread by the same poster.

It goes like this:

Country A's system of government sucks, because it's not like ours. And we all know that our way of living is the only way to live, so Country A's system sucks.

Never mind that the people of Country A chose their current form of government, and are quite happy with it. Of course, that only makes the people of Country A either "stupid beyond all reckoning" or "evil supporters of an evil idea" or "evil supporters of some evil guy".

i think just about everyone whos posted on this topic needs to do some studying on economic theoy (preferably austrian).
lets just clarify, the terms socialist and capitalist are poor, and ambiguous terms to use, sweden does have a market economy, however they DO NOT have a free market economy. in a free market economy the government does not demand through threat of force that almost 90% (yes almost 90%) of your productivity were handed over. i dont care whether the means of production are nationalised or not, it doesnt matter when the government expropriates your property.
and for that matter, lets not use the USA as an example of 'capitalism' either, as their government spends more on public health care than canada's (over 6% of gdp public spending only, while their total spending private and public is something like 11% (this ones innacurate but between 10-12), unfortunatly i dont have the numbers for sweden, point is USA has markets, but not free markets either

and for that matter, lets not use the USA as an example of 'capitalism' either, as their government spends more on public health care than canada's (over 6% of gdp public spending only, while their total spending private and public is something like 11% (this ones innacurate but between 10-12), unfortunatly i dont have the numbers for sweden, point is USA has markets, but not free markets either

Stats > Health > Total expenditure as % of GDP:
United States 13.9 % of GDP
Sweden 8.8 % of GDP

See also post here:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=462347

Health spending per capita in US dollars (1998):

USA - $4,178
Sweden - $1,746


Discuss.

IIf you would like more information I can tell you about ...unemployment rates... which will make you wonder how the fuck they get anything done over there.

Erm, at 4.4%, Sweden has lower unemployment than the US and most of Europe. Plus a real growth rate of 1.9%, above most of Europe too.

Erm, at 4.4%, Sweden has lower unemployment than the US and most of Europe. Plus a real growth rate of 1.9%, above most of Europe too.

This is somewhat misleading, however. Sweden's population is only a little more than 9 million, making it smaller in population than the state of Ohio in the US. As a result, that unemployment statistic is not comparable to the United States' rate for around 300 million people.

However, Sweden's economy focuses on industries and sectors that require a well-educated, modern workforce and high productivity which have combined to give it better growth prospects than any other Western European countries.

Because it irrefutably requires an exceptionally strong econmy to inherit from a right wing administration, since the extent of taxation required by the left to orchestrate and fund the fallacy they allude to as social welfare necessitates a right wing economy, and a degree of prosperity wherin a reasonable proportion of the populace will be reticent to support a socialist regime. Furthermore, it inevitably leads to economic collapse, and a regression in international trade.

Furthermore, it inevitably leads to economic collapse, and a regression in international trade.

Yes, because socialist countries would either outright restrict trade as a move towards autarky and economic nationalism, or would enact protectionist barriers to keep their inefficent economies from being rapidly superceded by the more productive and efficent free-market economies.

Yes, because socialist countries would either outright restrict trade as a move towards autarky and economic nationalism, or would enact protectionist barriers to keep their inefficent economies from being rapidly superceded by the more productive and efficent free-market economies.

Precisely.:)

This is somewhat misleading, however. Sweden's population is only a little more than 9 million, making it smaller in population than the state of Ohio in the US. As a result, that unemployment statistic is not comparable to the United States' rate for around 300 million people.


Explain this to me: why cannot we compare percentages? (never mind that Ohio has a higher unemployment rate than Sweden...)

Explain this to me: why cannot we compare percentages? (never mind that Ohio has a higher unemployment rate than Sweden...)

Because there are fewer people employed, which means that attaining that low rate of unemployment is easier than it would be in a larger country like the United States. Plus, they lack the population and labor force growth of larger countries, which means unemployment is simply going to trend lower even if employment growth is slow due to demographics.

Ohio's rate is something like 5.9%, about a whole percent above the national average.

Explain this to me: why cannot we compare percentages? (never mind that Ohio has a higher unemployment rate than Sweden...)
The problem with any comparison is that the counting methods are differing.
It is also not possible to really compare the official numbers between European countries.

Because there are fewer people employed, which means that attaining that low rate of unemployment is easier than it would be in a larger country like the United States.

Maybe I'm beign dense here, but I'm still not following you here. Are you claiming that it is easier to have a low unemployment rate in smaller countries than in large ones?

The problem with any comparison is that the counting methods are differing.
It is also not possible to really compare the official numbers between European countries. Britain claims to have an umemployment rate close to 1%. Is that a realistic number?

No it isn't a realistic number: it actually claims 4.9%* as of December. Where are you getting your 1% figure from?


* http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4527492.stm

The problem with any comparison is that the counting methods are differing.
It is also not possible to really compare the official numbers between European countries. Britain claims to have an umemployment rate close to 1%. Is that a realistic number?
According to the British National Statistics website, they are claiming 4,9%
www.nationalstatistics.gov.uk

The problem with any comparison is that the counting methods are differing.
It is also not possible to really compare the official numbers between European countries. Britain claims to have an umemployment rate close to 1%. Is that a realistic number?
It's true that counting methods will vary from country to country, but I don't see why that means you can't compare numbers between European countries, or any other countries for that matter. (What's so bad about European statistics compared to others'?). You just have to view comparisons with caution.

It's true that counting methods will vary from country to country, but I don't see why that means you can't compare numbers between European countries, or any other countries for that matter. (What's so bad about European statistics compared to others'?). You just have to view comparisons with caution.
You shouldn´t believe any statistic that you did not manipulate yourself.

After all: who is counting the unemployment rate?? Governments do that - according to questionable - and from country to country - different criteria.
Some countries sent unemployed people to training programs: and that time they are not counted as unemployed. And after those "programs" they remain unemployed. Or older people are not counted as unemployed.
Or, or, or.
Given that fact the unemployment rate in European countries is mostly higher than the national statistics say.

The problem with any comparison is that the counting methods are differing.
It is also not possible to really compare the official numbers between European countries.

Last edited by Niddaland : Today at 9:22 PM.

So have you sneakily attempted to withdraw your 1% claim after realising that it was bullshit?

Given that fact the unemployment rate in European countries is mostly higher than the national statistics say.

...whilst the unemployment rate given in the US is unaffected by similar massaging?

You shouldn´t believe any statistic that you did not manipulate yourself.


A logic that it is clear you follow, as demonstrated by your 1% unemployment in Britain comment.

So have you sneakily attempted to withdraw your 1% claim after realising that it was bullshit?
I go this information in summer 2005 and was rather doubtful about it.

Anyway: I don´t have a problem in correcting a mistake.

The problem with socialism is that it is excluding the free market.
And the market is the only mechanism that is creating economic efficency and development.
Socialists economies exclude competition - and that inevitably leads to a decline of inovation and growht and to the preservation of old outdated structures.
As a result of that the economic gap between socialist economies and market economies is widening. That was the development we have seen in East bloc (East Europe, Soviet Union) which led in the end to the collapse of this experiment.

I go this information in summer 2005 and was rather doubtful about it.

Anyway: I don´t have a problem in correcting a mistake.

Just in admitting it until you are called directly on it, apparently - better to do it all hugger-mugger and hope that nobody notices.

The problem with socialism is that it is excluding the free market.

No it isn't.

A logic that it is clear you follow, as demonstrated by your 1% unemployment in Britain comment.
I reject this accusation: Manipulation requires intention. I did not intentional gave a wrong number - I believed that number because I was told by a British citizen about this in summer 2005 and was rather doubtful whether this number is really true. Obviously my doubts were justified.

I go this information in summer 2005 and was rather doubtful about it.

Anyway: I don´t have a problem in correcting a mistake.

The problem with socialism is that it is excluding the free market.
And the market is the only mechanism that is creating economic efficency and development.
Socialists economies exclude competition - and that inevitably leads to a decline of inovation and growht and to the preservation of old outdated structures.
As a result of that the economic gap between socialist economies and market economies is widening. That was the development we have seen in East bloc (East Europe, Soviet Union) which led in the end to the collapse of this experiment.
Not to worry, we all make mistakes. I remember I made one, once ;)

I actually largely agree with your statement above. It also shows that Sweden isn't socialist.

The only part I don't agree with is:
As a result of that the economic gap between socialist economies and market economies is widening.
simply because I don't see that there are really any truly meaningful socialist economies left these days. There's probably just North Korea. So, I think your statement of this using the present-tense is hard to justify.

No it isn't.
Yes, it is.
Thats why the Socialist soviet economy (and of the other east european countries) declined and wasn´t able to competet.
That is why many nations reform there economies.
Today China and India are transforming into market economies.
Socialism is on the way out: You have to go to North Korea, Cuba to see real socialist economies. And they are in decline.

Countries like Venezuela or Bolivia seem to follow that wrong path.
Venezuela only benefits from its oil and the high oil prices.
Otherwise the mad dictator Chavez would have already been replaced.

It's also important to note that any society should work when everyone is commited to making it work, but that socialism is a "higher-energy state" than capitalism, which does not need nearly as many people commited to capitalism.


Ahem. Nobody has to be "committed" to capitalism for it to work. It's about the closest to economic anarchy as you can get. I make something, I set a price, and if you don't like it you don't buy it. If you do, you do. Nobody has to be committed to some great ideal for that to work, as it has been working, for millennia.


Final note - There's some other stuff that goes on when those not commited to the system are instead commited to a different system (See: Revolutions), but, in general, the simple effect is that it takes less of them to make an effect than people who aren't commited to anything (Read: Opiate of the masses).

Socialism <i>can</i> work, but it <i>has not</i> yet worked <i>on a large scale</i>, esp. past the lifetime of strong leaders. Neither has communism, nor monarchy, nor dictatorship, nor democracy. Only the mercantile and capitalistic Republic has been shown to work on a large scale.


Mostly because most people don't want to see all their hard work and effort disappear into some government's coffers. They're especially resentful when Mr and Mrs Slob decide to have sixteen children because they know the state will pay for them and provide a whacking great house for them all to live in.

I'm not completely against all forms of market regulation. Otherwise there's nothing stopping some guy putting a fence up around the only lake around, defending it with automatic weaponry and charging £50 a glass. Beyond such obvious examples though, I'd much rather people and markets be unregulated. It's the way it's always worked, and the way it always will work regardless of how much government force is used trying to make it not so.

What I don't like is the tone of this thread's OP, and a similar thread by the same poster.

It goes like this:

Country A's system of government sucks, because it's not like ours. And we all know that our way of living is the only way to live, so Country A's system sucks.

Never mind that the people of Country A chose their current form of government, and are quite happy with it. Of course, that only makes the people of Country A either "stupid beyond all reckoning" or "evil supporters of an evil idea" or "evil supporters of some evil guy".

*claps*

I actually largely agree with your statement above. It also shows that Sweden isn't socialist.
The only part I don't agree with is:
simply because I don't see that there are really any truly meaningful socialist economies left these days. There's probably just North Korea. So, I think your statement of this using the present-tense is hard to justify.

No: from a european point of view Sweden doesn´t have a socialist economcy. Though the West European countries have a very high state quota. Therefore calling them semi-socialist economies is - in my view - not a wrong statement.
In the Soviet Union the state quota almost was 90% or more.
In countries like Germany it is almost 50%. Simular in other countries of West Europe.
And - as a matter of fact - the economic gap between Europe and America is widening.
The growth rate of the US is much higher than the growth rate of Europe (also of Sweden, but even more compared to other countries like France, Italy or Germany).
Obviously the US economy is more competetive than the European economies.
The rising cost of the European welfare states (also due to the demographic development) - which are mainly linked to working costs - is weakening European economies and making them less competetive.

In the meantime the Asian-Pacific region is growing fast (with market reforms): China, India, South-east Asia, Japan, US.
This region is the growth center of the world economy for the 21rst century.

Meanwhile Europe is stagnating - and - as a matter of fact - the gap is widening.

The problem with socialism is that it is excluding the free market.

No it isn't.

Yes it is. It's how socialism works; control and regulate the market (the means of production, workers, equipment, etc) for the "benefit of society", which to me is a very nebulous concept.

You can't have a truly socialist country with a free market, for the same reason you can't use a sieve to hold water.

Yes it is. It's how socialism works; control and regulate the market (the means of production, workers, equipment, etc) for the "benefit of society", which to me is a very nebulous concept.

You can't have a truly socialist country with a free market, for the same reason you can't use a sieve to hold water.

Okay. What if the workers ran businesses democratically and had cooperative ownership, but operated within a market system? What would you call that?

(Not that I necessarily support such a system)

Okay. What if the workers ran businesses democratically and had cooperative ownership, but operated within a market system? What would you call that?

(Not that I necessarily support such a system)

i think that would be a collectively owned business, or just a weird type of corporation where the oweners are the workers.

Mostly because most people don't want to see all their hard work and effort disappear into some government's coffers. They're especially resentful when Mr and Mrs Slob decide to have sixteen children because they know the state will pay for them and provide a whacking great house for them all to live in.

Because life with sixteen children is a walk in the park, isn't it.

so is not having kids because you can't afford it.

so is not having kids because you can't afford it.

Indeed. But I can guarantee you that there is no financial profit in having a kid, or even a brood of kids.

sure it is. ever read a modest proposal?

no, but that's not really what i was getting at. i was trying to say that people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford it.

so is not having kids because you can't afford it.
disclaimer:the following will not ALWAYS be true, so please avoid anecdotal evidence, as im making generalisations.
im a firm believer that hardworking people with ingenuity from a poor background WILL be successful, and im also a firm believer that lazy, unintelligable people will almost always fail.
you could say well what if their parents were rich? well then they will squander the money and soon have none left.
the fact is parents who raise their children effectivly will more likely have successful children regardless of their income.
meanwhile in a socialist state, lazy unintelligable people would have children, because it probably pays well, they dont have to worry about the costs anyway, etc. etc., and competent hardworking people wont, because they wont want to propegate the needs of the state, will be working to undermine, or will probably not live there at all. that was kinda ranting, and probably not that intelligable and for that im sorry im a little bit tired

no, but that's not really what i was getting at. i was trying to say that people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford it.

Accidents happen.

Accidents happen.
and i shouldnt have to pay for others 'accidents' (eg: poor decision making)

when people get state subsidised health care they are more likely to undertake risky behavior.

(well thats also true of 'health insurance', 'health insurance' is a creation of state regulations, and it would not be true of real insurance eg catastrophic health insurance)

The growth rate of the US is much higher than the growth rate of Europe (also of Sweden, but even more compared to other countries like France, Italy or Germany).
I'd just like to mention that the German government has been very involved in the economy almost from Zero Hour after WWII, and that growth rates have repeatedly outclassed everything on the planet during that time.

Obviously the US economy is more competetive than the European economies.
Except of course that Germany exports a huge amount of goods more than the US.

The rising cost of the European welfare states (also due to the demographic development) - which are mainly linked to working costs - is weakening European economies and making them less competetive.
That is true. Therefore, all of them are working on reforms to change the cost structure of those schemes.
Sweden's done it, and for the time being goes swimmingly.

In the meantime the Asian-Pacific region is growing fast (with market reforms): China, India, South-east Asia, Japan, US.
This region is the growth center of the world economy for the 21rst century.
I like how you group them all together. Japan's had ridiculous amounts of troubles that they are only now working their way out of.
Calling Sweden socialist, but using China as a poster child for Capitalist success is certainly interesting. The same goes for Vietnam.
And the US has its own problems - the savings rates is low, the housing market is sorta all over the place and both deficits will have to be made up from somewhere. It's not all black and white.

Accidents happen.

not when you don't have sex

not when you don't have sex
That's right, because sex is a privilege reserved for rich people. :rolleyes:

not when you don't have sex

Well, they were Mrs. Slob and Mr. Slob.

I'd just like to mention that the German government has been very involved in the economy almost from Zero Hour after WWII, and that growth rates have repeatedly outclassed everything on the planet during that time.
.
if you could plz id love a source, its just i dont quite believe it considering USA's gdp p capita is still about 140% that of germany (not that the USA is an appropriate benchmark for any sort of solid growth)
i understand you probably wont be able to find one unless you already have, ive looked through quickly through my bookshelves and the internet
edit : stats oecd or german stats might have it..couldnt find it on oecd and my german is pretty bad. stats sweden was pretty close too

That's right, because sex is a privilege reserved for rich people. :rolleyes:
this really hits the heart of the issue...accountability. poor people can have sex all they want, or do anything else they want, but they must be accountable for their decisions. without accountability.....well need i say more

"Germany is the world's third largest economy in USD exchange-rate terms and the fifth largest by purchasing power parity (PPP). It is the largest economy in Europe. Recent performance has not been dynamic, however, and the German economy is marked by vulnerability to external shocks, domestic structural problems, and continued difficulties in integrating the formerly communist East.

From the 1948 currency reform until the early 1970s, West Germany experienced almost continuous economic expansion, but real GDP growth slowed and even declined from the mid-1970s through the recession of the early 1980s. The economy then experienced eight consecutive years of growth that ended with a downturn beginning in late 1992. Since reunification in 1990, Germany has seen annual average real growth of only about 1.5% and stubbornly high unemployment. The best performance since reunification was registered in 2000, when real growth reached 3.0%. Most forecasters expected growth of about 1.5% in 2001 while unemployment remained above 9%. The real growth was about 0.6% in 2001 and 2002. In 2003, Germany experienced a negative GDP growth about -0.1%. The expected growth in 2004 is 1.6%, 2005 1.3% and 2006 2%."
-wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany/Economy)
ok its not the most reliable source, however im sure you all remember that recent thing where its withing a half percent of accuracy of britannica

if you could plz id love a source, its just i dont quite believe it considering USA's gdp p capita is still about 140% that of germany (not that the USA is an appropriate benchmark for any sort of solid growth)
i understand you probably wont be able to find one unless you already have, ive looked through quickly through my bookshelves and the internet
Note how I said "repeatedly", not "continuously" - but you would have heard of the "Wirtschaftswunder".

disclaimer:the following will not ALWAYS be true, so please avoid anecdotal evidence, as im making generalisations.
im a firm believer that hardworking people with ingenuity from a poor background WILL be successful, and im also a firm believer that lazy, unintelligable people will almost always fail.

So.. lots of lazy people in Africa then ? I mean, they only work 16/7... should evidently be much more.

you could say well what if their parents were rich? well then they will squander the money and soon have none left.

Lazy does not necessarily equate stupid. In a capitalist system a lot of money tends to make even more money if you just leave it alone.

Note how I said "repeatedly", not "continuously" - but you would have heard of the "Wirtschaftswunder".
the wirtschaftswunder was largely a product of the marshal plan, and post 1970 germanies growth was by no means phenomenal.
edit: also remember the 'amazing' recovery and growth of the japanese economy

So.. lots of lazy people in Africa then ? I mean, they only work 16/7... should evidently be much more.



Lazy does not necessarily equate stupid. In a capitalist system a lot of money tends to make even more money if you just leave it alone.
my point is that money is not hereditary(well it is, but being poor does not doom you to poverty), your not poor because you werent given a chance, your poor because your either dumb or lazy.
the africa comment is just a simple misunderstanding of my point (maybe my fault), im alittle tired so im not gonna respond to that one
ooops big edit needed in ()

Obviously the US economy is more competetive than the European economies.

Global Competitiveness
Ranking:
1. Finland
2. USA
3. Sweden
4. Denmark
5. Taiwan
6. Singapore
7. Iceland
8. Switzerland
9.Norway
10.Australia
11.Netherlands
12.Japan
13.United Kingdom
14.Canada
15.Germany
16. New Zealand

5 "socialist" nations in top ten, 3 in top 5. Yeah obviously USA is doing much better...
ok, sometimes USA is on the top position, anyway you should notice that the more capitalist European countries are doing worse than Scandinavian countries. Care to explain that?

the wirtschaftswunder was largely a product of the marshal plan...
Well, unless you believe in the rather Keynesian idea that a little bit of government investment in government projects (ie the Marshal Plan) can result in enormous economic growth, I'm not sure how you could argue that point.
I would've at least expected you to make the deregulation of prices responsible.

But no matter - fact is that, regardless of the reasons, the German economy grew very fast, and at the same time, the government was heavily involved with healthcare, education, labour laws and all the other welfary stuff.
It is therefore not simply an issue of government involvement and economic growth being contradictory. Which is all that I'm saying.

Have a look at the US Congress Library site - it's got good, concise info on many countries, including Germany.
http://countrystudies.us/germany/136.htm

...and post 1970 germanies growth was by no means phenomenal.
Well, the Seventies was not a good time for anyone, Socialist or not. Nonetheless, the economy then was reformed slightly, and got back on its way pretty well, in step with the other major economies.

edit: also remember the 'amazing' recovery and growth of the japanese economy
Again, it might be good to have a look at how much government involvement was there...corporations and the state were pretty much working together in that time, protectionism was used to bring domestic industries up and running, and so on.

Well, unless you believe in the rather Keynesian idea that a little bit of government investment in government projects (ie the Marshal Plan) can result in enormous economic growth, I'm not sure how you could argue that point.
I would've at least expected you to make the deregulation of prices responsible.

on.
im researching kind of on the fly here (i dont have a great deal of empirical or relevant knowledge t o this topic beyond the very basics) so bear with me.
investment in government projects CAN (not necesserily but usualy) result in economic growth, however NEVER as much growth as would have occured if this money was in the hands of the private sectore. the fact is this money was taken from american tax payers and injected into the german economy, so it cost the americans about 1.5 billion dollars (in 1950 dollars) to improve the german economy by somewhere <1.5B 1950 USD.
deregulation of prices will certainly do it as well, and german industry recieved a great deal of freedom which it had not have for some years.
anyways my point is to say that german economic growth from 1946-2006 was outstanding is at the very least a misleading statement, and at the most simply untrue (from 1970-present they have had average at best growth, and since 1990 they have had continually low growth with hgih unemployement).
anyways im going to sleep now, but id love to continue this some other time, 'night

the fact is this money was taken from american tax payers and injected into the german economy, so it cost the americans about 1.5 billion dollars (in 1950 dollars) to improve the german economy by somewhere <1.5B 1950 USD.
I don't have numbers right now, but I'd be pretty certain that
a) Not all 1.5b went to Germany
b) The Economic Miracle was worth a lot more than 1.5b 1950 dollars. Today the German economy is worth almost 2 trillion.

anyways im going to sleep now, but id love to continue this some other time, 'night
Night.

Branches of Socialism:

African Socialism
Libertarian Socialism
Christian Socialism
Islamic Socialism
Communism / Marxism
Democratic Socialism
International Socialism
Syndicalism
Utopian Socialism
Guild Socialism

You can further divide the socio-political or intellectual movements basing themselves in the Marxist-Socialist tradition.


I see that you have quoted this from Wikipedia's article about Socialism and forgot (or intentionally declined) to include:
Several forms of "socialism" are considered by those further to the left to be reformist or revisionist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Branches_of_socialism

The largest political party in Sweden is the Swedish Social Democratic Party. The party is also a full member of Socialist International. Goran Persson is the current Prime Minister who is a Social Democrat.

Yes, Social Democracy is the same thing as Democratic Socialism, but we could make the interesting observation of the things that happened everytime the Swedish right-wing parties have been in power during the last decades. Every time, when they are in power, the Swedish economy goes to hell. The largest of these right-wing parties (Sweden's second largest political party) are the Moderate Party which is a Libertarian Conservative party. (Big supporters of the US Republicans.)

Interestingly enough about the same seems to happen to the US economy whenever the Republicans are (or have been) in power the last decades. Compare the deficits of Reagan and Clinton, and the deficits of Clinton and W. Bush, for example.

Only in recent years has their economy started to thrive - to a point - due to a more capitalistic approach. They still need to make drastic changes to their welfare socialist state in order to survive.

The economy has been thriving before also. It started to hit a slump in the end of the seventies, interestingly enough after Sweden's left-wing government had been replaced with a right-wing government.

After the right-wing government a left-wing government had power during the 80s and the economy started to recover, until the beginning of the 90s when a right-wing government again got in power and Sweden's economy went into a huge economic crisis. After this right-wing government a left-wing government got back into power and the Swedish economy started to recover again.

I find it a bit fascinating that everytime Social Democratic economic policies are used in Sweden the economy starts to recover and thrive, while when the Libertarian economic policies are used in Sweden the economy goes into a recession and the deficit starts growing at an alarming rate.

They're especially resentful when Mr and Mrs Slob decide to have sixteen children because they know the state will pay for them and provide a whacking great house for them all to live in.
I'd like some proof of your statements here, and please go ahead and live on nothing but welfare money for a year, without dipping into your savings account, and then tell me how "easy" it was to live like a "slob".

After the right-wing government a left-wing government had power during the 80s and the economy started to recover, until the beginning of the 90s when a right-wing government again got in power and Sweden's economy went into a huge economic crisis. After this right-wing government a left-wing government got back into power and the Swedish economy started to recover again.

I find it a bit fascinating that everytime Social Democratic economic policies are used in Sweden the economy starts to recover and thrive, while when the Libertarian economic policies are used in Sweden the economy goes into a recession and the deficit starts growing at an alarming rate.
Not that simple. The decicions made by the left-wing government were still affecting the economy when the right-wing government was in power. Also every single nation in Europe had economy crisis at the time. There were huge mistakes made in the 80's. Just like in Finland. Sweden made really good decicions in the beginning of the 90's and suffered much less than e.g. Finland.

Have a look at the US Congress Library site - it's got good, concise info on many countries, including Germany.
http://countrystudies.us/germany/136.htm

It is from an American point of view though. Would be better if it were from an international info source. It's easier to be more unbiased then.

Not that simple.
No, of course not. Nothing is as simple as black and white, though some would like it seem so.

The decisions made by the left-wing government were still affecting the economy when the right-wing government was in power.
My criticism is about the decisions that were made to tackle the crisis. To blame away stuff at decisions of past governments is trying to chicken-out from your responsibility. It's a bit like a goalie in a soccer game blaming his inability to stop the soccer ball going into the goal in the current soccer game on the tactics used in previous soccer games, instead of on the tactics of the current game. If you are in power you should to your best at handling the situation on hand. To blame on previous governments is a bit of waste of time. If you're in power, you have the responsibility. That's what you're elected to do, to have the responsibility.

Also every single nation in Europe had economy crisis at the time.
Boohoo! Sob, sob! Everyone else is also having a crisis at the same time. Boohoo!

Like that would change anything. If you have the power in your own country, then attempt to handle the situation in your own country. The other countries are not your responsibility, as you're not elected to be in power of them. Handle your own economy, instead of standing, pointing and try to shun away from your own responsibility by saying; "They also have problems!"

There were huge mistakes made in the 80's. Just like in Finland. Sweden made really good decisions in the beginning of the 90's and suffered much less than e.g. Finland.
Okay, so the right-wing government in the beginning of the 90s wasn't a complete failure, but they sure weren't a great or even very good government. It took the following left-wing government eight years to clean up the mess and stabilize the economy again after the right-wing government more seemed to have used the situation to trash as much as possible instead of actually roll up their sleeves and get to work to fix the situation.

Having read this thread, I don't care if sweden is socialist or social democratic. Free life time health care and only pay upto 85% tax? Fuck yeah, sign me up.

I only ever pay attention to after tax income when selecting a job anyway. Besides after tax and decent private health care in Australia I'm not far off the 85% mark anyway. At least a free public health care won't attempt screw me over everytime I need to see a doctor let alone have to have an actual operation.

Okay. What if the workers ran businesses democratically and had cooperative ownership, but operated within a market system? What would you call that?

(Not that I necessarily support such a system)

I would call that a form of socialism. In fact, most socialists argue for a coexistence of two kinds: globally owned ("state" owned) for fundamental industries or network-based industries, and cooperatives ("corporations" owned by the workers) for some others. Even the USSR constitution allowed both. (Sure, USSR was far from real socialism, so it may not matter much).

But I agree it's a bit problematic.

Socialism is preferable to capitalism. Capitalism doesn't attempt to 'work' in the same sense that socialism does. Capitalism is about money and conflict, socialism is peace and unity. 'Socialist' nations still compete just as well as others, so please stop trying to impose free markets on the globe.

My criticism is about the decisions that were made to tackle the crisis. To blame away stuff at decisions of past governments is trying to chicken-out from your responsibility...If you are in power you should to your best at handling the situation on hand. To blame on previous governments is a bit of waste of time. If you're in power, you have the responsibility. That's what you're elected to do, to have the responsibility.
And as I said I think your government did pretty wise decicions as Sweden suffered a lot less from the crisis as many other countries. I don't know if they blamed previous governments or not and I'm not going to argue you with that. I'm more than willing to admit that you know better. They had to make harsh decicions and they had the guts to do it. We just let things slide even further.


Boohoo! Sob, sob! Everyone else is also having a crisis at the same time. Boohoo!
That's not my point. My point is that Sweden would have had economic crisis no matter who was in power. If all your biggest trade partners are having problems it will definitely affect you too.


Okay, so the right-wing government in the beginning of the 90s wasn't a complete failure, but they sure weren't a great or even very good government. It took the following left-wing government eight years to clean up the mess and stabilize the economy again after the right-wing government more seemed to have used the situation to trash as much as possible instead of actually roll up their sleeves and get to work to fix the situation.
To clear things a little bit, I far more on the left than social democrats are. I'm not a big fan of right-wing politics. But sometimes they so wise decicions too (e.g. in Finland they decided that it's very important to pay foreign loans as the interests were huge and damaging our economy, the lefties would have taken even more loan). In my country the left-wing (or so called left wing) is practising much more right wing politics than the Finnish right wing would. And what I've heard from other Swedish posters on NS, the situation in Sweden is quite similar.

Having read this thread, I don't care if sweden is socialist or social democratic. Free life time health care and only pay upto 85% tax? Fuck yeah, sign me up.

I only ever pay attention to after tax income when selecting a job anyway. Besides after tax and decent private health care in Australia I'm not far off the 85% mark anyway. At least a free public health care won't attempt screw me over everytime I need to see a doctor let alone have to have an actual operation.
Where the heck did you get 85% from?

To clear things a little bit, I far more on the left than social democrats are. I'm not a big fan of right-wing politics. But sometimes they so wise decicions too (e.g. in Finland they decided that it's very important to pay foreign loans as the interests were huge and damaging our economy, the lefties would have taken even more loan). In my country the left-wing (or so called left wing) is practising much more right wing politics than the Finnish right wing would. And what I've heard from other Swedish posters on NS, the situation in Sweden is quite similar.
Here the right-wing lower the taxes, and finance it by taking even more loans, thus increasing the deficit, while at the same time neither unemployment nor the inflation gets better. The left-wing instead struggle to repay the loans, while at the same time struggle to keep down unemployment and inflation. That I think the policies of the right-wing are irresponsible shouldn't be so difficult to guess.