NationStates Jolt Archive

Leftists often wonder why welfare causes so much social breakdown in America while in Scandinavia society remains stable despite a welfare system that is unamaginable even to the most extreme of liberals.

A recent study published shows a list of countries that were sampled for average IQ.

Finland (114)
Sweden (113)
Norway (113)
Denmark (112)
Germany (108)
Poland (107)
Netherlands (106)
Italy (102)
Austria (101)
Switzerland (101)
UK (100)
Belgium (99)
USA (98)

It's no suprise that you don't have a fraction as many problems when everybody is just too smart to succumb to the temptations caused by something-for-nothing welfare system. We should not try to copy a system while not taking into account that most of our people are stupid and easily let into idleness and bad morals.

Hey Look! A troll!

I read this as Scandinavian Warfare, Here I was thinking Norway had declared War on Sweden and Finland while Denmark hid.

IQ is a crappy measure of Intelligence*

And since when has Welfare been the cause for our *ahem* 'Social breakdown', if that's what you're calling it?

*This does not mean I don't brag about my IQ, just that if anyone were to point it out, I would have no response

That's nice.

*pets*

Average IQ, by definition, is 100.
Also, what American welfare?

Leftists often wonder why welfare causes so much social breakdown in America while in Scandinavia society remains stable despite a welfare system that is unamaginable even to the most extreme of liberals.

A recent study published shows a list of countries that were sampled for average IQ.

Finland (114)
Sweden (113)
Norway (113)
Denmark (112)
Germany (108)
Poland (107)
Netherlands (106)
Italy (102)
Austria (101)
Switzerland (101)
UK (100)
Belgium (99)
USA (98)

It's no suprise that you don't have a fraction as many problems when everybody is just too smart to succumb to the temptations caused by something-for-nothing welfare system. We should not try to copy a system while not taking into account that most of our people are stupid and easily let into idleness and bad morals.

SOmething tells me that if you moved to Sweden, USA would take the second spot from them. ;)

SOmething tells me that is you moved to Sweden, USA would take the second spot from them. ;)

That is correct.

That is correct.

So Genius where are your links to the study?

SOmething tells me that if you moved to Sweden, USA would take the second spot from them. ;)

That is correct.

Okay, so he's either kidding, or incredibly dense. I think he's another satirist, a la Hammurab, except not as noticeable.

Vikings patrol Scandinavia, killing everyone on welfare there. Perfect system.

Vikings patrol Scandinavia, killing everyone on welfare there. Perfect system.

Until they lose their jobs. :(

Until they lose their jobs. :(
Outsourced to Somali pirates?

Outsourced to Somali pirates?

Business is business. *nod*

go UK! av-er-age!

Perhaps the reason there is a strong reaction against welfare in the states may stem from the anti-communism and anti-socialism that prevails. Welfare is seen as a crutch in a rather right-wing society. Americans perhaps don't want that association.

high intelligence does not make anyone immune from bad behavior.

The OP's statement is the most ill thoght out, innacurate piece of circular logic I've read in quite sometime. I applaud him, and his unfirm grasp of reality.

high intelligence does not make anyone immune from bad behavior.

*pushes you into mud*

*pushes you into mud*

*scolds and returns to the remedial class*

*pushes you into mud*

Alright Lunatic, thats 10 minutes in the time out chair!

*scolds and returns to the remedial class*

Alright Lunatic, thats 10 minutes in the time out chair!

*drops a container of crazy purple knockout gas and scampers off*

*drops a container of crazy purple knockout gas and scampers off*

Hah! I have over a period of months subjected myself to small doses of crazy purple knock out gas until I built up a high tol.... this is new stuff isn't it? *passes ou*

Hah! I have over a period of months subjected myself to small doses of crazy purple knock out gas until I built up a high tol.... this is new stuff isn't it? *passes ou*

*from a safe distance*

Always stock several fomulations. :D

*pushes you into mud*
lol

*slings a useless mudball at your fleeing back*

exactly the point i was making. in some ways the smarter you are the sillier you can be.

Leftists often wonder why welfare causes so much social breakdown in America while in Scandinavia society remains stable despite a welfare system that is unamaginable even to the most extreme of liberals.

A recent study published shows a list of countries that were sampled for average IQ.

Finland (114)
Sweden (113)
Norway (113)
Denmark (112)
Germany (108)
Poland (107)
Netherlands (106)
Italy (102)
Austria (101)
Switzerland (101)
UK (100)
Belgium (99)
USA (98)

It's no suprise that you don't have a fraction as many problems when everybody is just too smart to succumb to the temptations caused by something-for-nothing welfare system. We should not try to copy a system while not taking into account that most of our people are stupid and easily let into idleness and bad morals.

Whats your source?

1 Hong Kong 107
2 South Korea 106
3 Japan 105
4 Taiwan 104
5 Singapore 103
6 Austria 102
6 Germany 102
6 Italy 102
6 Netherlands 102
10 Sweden 101
10 Switzerland 101
12 Belgium 100
12 China 100
12 New Zealand 100
12 United Kingdom 100
16 Hungary 99
16 Poland 99
18 Australia 98
18 Denmark 98
18 France 98
18 Norway 98
18 United States 98
23 Canada 97


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_wealth_of_nations

The reason the Scandinavian countries have a successful welfare system is due to their combination of a low population, an ethnically homogeneous population with a very low level of immigration and population growth, and a high educational level and high economic development and a very efficient tax system. Remember, the population of Scandinavia is barely over 20 million. That's less than 10% of the US and barely one quarter of Germany or the UK, so their welfare system is going to be far smaller and less strained to begin with. Combine that with a wealthy population, efficient taxation and revenues from natural resources and you can support one hell of a good system.

Yeah we tie with Denmark and Norway.

Fucking Swedes, but then who can really trust a group of people named after a vegetable?

Maybe there is some truth to this...I've been reading the thread title as "Scandinavian Warfare" for the last two hours...

Maybe there is some truth to this...I've been reading the thread title as "Scandinavian Warfare" for the last two hours...

You see, it all started in the year 790... :wink:

Nice, we beat Canada! Just ignore all the other smarter countries!

The darkest secret of the old Viking civilisation has never been discovered until now. How they would have selective breeding of strong tall intelligent and beautiful people while efficiently sterilizing the stupid and weak explains how their gene pool was fine tuned.

Leftists often wonder why welfare causes so much social breakdown in America while in Scandinavia society remains stable despite a welfare system that is unamaginable even to the most extreme of liberals.
I'm probabily more extreme of the most extreme of liberals. Btw, liberals are right-wingers as I see it.


A recent study published shows a list of countries that were sampled for average IQ.

Finland (114)
Sweden (113)
Norway (113)
Denmark (112)
Germany (108)
Poland (107)
Netherlands (106)
Italy (102)
Austria (101)
Switzerland (101)
UK (100)
Belgium (99)
USA (98)

It's no suprise that you don't have a fraction as many problems when everybody is just too smart to succumb to the temptations caused by something-for-nothing welfare system. We should not try to copy a system while not taking into account that most of our people are stupid and easily let into idleness and bad morals.

I think you should read these data the other way around. As intelligence, as measured by the IQ test, is ACQUIRED through education, better welfare system and wider access to better education lead to higher IQ figures. The "not succumbing to the temptation etc" is a matter of ethics, not of logical-mathematical intelligence.

This evidence should cast much doubt on the commonly held belief that the Vikings were a humane and scrupulous people.

So the belife is that a 2% drop from avarage intelegence, based on what is really a shit way to measure such, makes a socitey dense enough so that they more easily succumb to the temptations that a welfare system puts in front of them?

My my, what a very ummm strange bit of logic.

Jag antar att du är en anhängare av sverigedemokraterna red sweden?

*Feels ashamed when looking at what the loudest "swedes" are up to in this forum*

So the belife is that a 2% drop from avarage intelegence, based on what is really a shit way to measure such, makes a socitey dense enough so that they more easily succumb to the temptations that a welfare system puts in front of them?

...I'm trying very hard not to succumb to the temptation of playing the grammar fascist...:D

...I'm trying very hard not to succumb to the temptation of playing the grammar fascist...:D

Do it!:D

Nice, we beat Canada! Just ignore all the other smarter countries!

That's because the Conservatives, (aka: Conservative Party or CCRAP) drag down the average IQ of Canadians. Everytime they speak, the country gets stupider. Fortunately, it doesn't affect me since I'm impervious thanks to my little orange card. :D

I read this as Scandinavian Warfare, Here I was thinking Norway had declared War on Sweden and Finland while Denmark hid.

Why would the Norwegians declare war on us?

You see, it all started in the year 790... :wink:

When the Vikings started looting people, including some Finnish guys.

Why would the Norwegians declare war on us?

I don't know, either. You're not particularly known for rich, ripe-for-pillaging monasteries.

if life has taught me anything its the key to success is to think less not more :confused:

go UK! av-er-age!

*leaves school with A-levels getting a job where I find myself promoted to low-management in a year before moving in with my new wife and producing 2 children*

...actually I could of guessed this score and also that New Zealand would have the same :tongue:

*Feels ashamed when looking at what the loudest "swedes" are up to in this forum*

just have sympathy for the poor Americans who learn what the world sees of them *shudders*

Until they lose their jobs. :(
The welfare is enough for a decent viking funeral.
*drops a container of crazy purple knockout gas and scampers off*
I prefer blue knockout gas. Nobody expects it to be dangerous. Green, purpe, even white, people figure that's dangerous.
Why would the Norwegians declare war on us?

Orders from their Panserborne overlords.

I don't know, either. You're not particularly known for rich, ripe-for-pillaging monasteries.

Well, there's the Nokia headquarters.


Orders from their Panserborne overlords.

(Finnish incoming)
Saakutin norjalaiset ja heidän panssarivaunu-ylijohtajansa.

heh, why wasn't Jesus born in Malmö? because they couldn't find 3 wise men and a virgin :p

(adapted from Liverpool)

The darkest secret of the old Viking civilisation has never been discovered until now. How they would have selective breeding of strong tall intelligent and beautiful people while efficiently sterilizing the stupid and weak explains how their gene pool was fine tuned.

http://www.hagardunor.net/images2/hagar_epee.jpg

:D

I prefer blue knockout gas. Nobody expects it to be dangerous. Green, purpe, even white, people figure that's dangerous.

*writes this down*

IQ means nothing.

IQ means nothing.

Well, it denotes the processing capacity of a brain.
On social matters, however, it's pretty much a useless statistic.

Well, it denotes the processing capacity of a brain.
On social matters, however, it's pretty much a useless statistic.

I think what he's saying is that it's inaccurate as to the actual mental capacity of a person.

I think what he's saying is that it's inaccurate as to the actual mental capacity of a person.

This.

IQ means nothing.

Actually, it means you're good at taking an IQ test.

I think what he's saying is that it's inaccurate as to the actual mental capacity of a person.

Well, not really. It quite acurately describes their ability to prcess and use information.
However, it says nothing about their social skills or understandings.

A recent study published shows a list of countries that were sampled for average IQ.


Netherlands (106)
Belgium (99)

Ha! It seems that all the Dutch jokes about Belgians are true after all :D

--snip--

Sämsta. Trollet. Någonsin.

Jag antar att du är en anhängare av sverigedemokraterna red sweden?

Tror du verkligen trollet är svenskt?

*Feels ashamed when looking at what the loudest "swedes" are up to in this forum*

Vilken dålig självkänsla du har. Kanske borde läsa en självhjälpsbok?

Yep, that is exactly what I thought Fass would say. :)

Speaking as a well-educated American, I believe Belgians and the Dutch are the same people, the terms differing only because their country, Finland, has two main language groups, Scandinavian and Nordic. Finland is a commonwealth of Helsinki, the capital of which is Warsaw.

However, after the Swedish Civil War (a result of Soviet Withdrawal in the twenties), that part of the world has been Balkanized, and due to complete destabilization, you can now trade your blue jeans for a car on the streets of Stockholm.

Must be all those saunas. Nothing like a good sauna to give you that get up and go needed to get up and go to work.

Tror du verkligen trollet är svenskt?

Det var därför jag ställde den frågan, för att se om han förstod eller svarade.

Vilken dålig självkänsla du har. Kanske borde läsa en självhjälpsbok?

Det var mestadels sagt skämtsamt, men ja, jag har en dålig självkänsla.
Finner det bättre än att bli som dom otroligt egoistiska personer man stöter på.

Finner det bättre än att bli som dom otroligt egoistiska personer man stöter på.

Hey!

(And I'm not sure I understood that.)

No way are the Germans smarter than the British. Not possible.

I don't care about the rest of it.

Oh yeah, and obviously the US is going to have a low average because nobody here bothers to cheat on tests that don't mean anything. It's very lazy that way.

+ winning the civil war probably didn't help either.

Given the number of Fundamentalist Christians in the US and the fact we managed to elect George W. Bush not once, but TWICE, after having put up with his father (who was no genius either), I refuse to believe the average IQ in the US is as high as 98.

No way are the Germans smarter than the British. Not possible.

I don't care about the rest of it.
Hm. I can believe that they score higher on IQ tests, actually, but you have to bear in mind the statistical significance of the study. There's a little fuzziness involved.

Plus, I'm pretty sure education actually does affect IQ. And while the US may have some excellent schools, it has many failing school districts.

Plus, I'm pretty sure education actually does affect IQ. And while the US may have some excellent schools, it has many failing school districts.

The US also has a very large population of immigrants, especially from poor countries. Due to problems with nutrition and access educational opportunities, the IQ scores in developing nations are often far lower than those in developed states; the gap narrows quickly as the immigrants' descendants begin to reap more and more of the benefits of living in a developed nation, but early on it can be significant. On that IQ and the Wealth of Nations page, the average IQ of the US is 98 and the IQ of Mexico is 87, a pretty significant gap that also coincides with our country's biggest source of current immigrants. This probably explains a whole lot of the downward pressure on IQ. Furthermore, the three countries at the top of the list, especially Japan, are some of the most ethnically homogeneous on Earth and lack appreciable immigration, let alone immigration from the developing world.

In fact, it seems like having a lower average IQ, for what that statistic is worth, is a good idea if it is due to high immigration rates; immigration is a very important component of the US economy and plays a big role in reducing poverty worldwide.

IQ is "bollocks", as they say. And I agree that posting such numbers about general nations trying to make a point -- is trolling.

The truth is the USA is more open than other nations which are stuffy about letting people in, and it helps that they're physically small and far away from 3rd world nations. Put those Scandinavian countries near Africa or South America and see how they handle things.

Furthermore, the three countries at the top of the list, especially Japan, are some of the most ethnically homogeneous on Earth and lack appreciable immigration, let alone immigration from the developing world.

Exactly. Countries like Japan will hardly give you a visa if you're just some random foreigner, naturalization is virtually unheard of. Other countries are also tight with immigration, if not as much.

Leftists often wonder why welfare causes so much social breakdown in America while in Scandinavia society remains stable despite a welfare system that is unamaginable even to the most extreme of liberals.

A recent study published shows a list of countries that were sampled for average IQ.

Finland (114)
Sweden (113)
Norway (113)
Denmark (112)
Germany (108)
Poland (107)
Netherlands (106)
Italy (102)
Austria (101)
Switzerland (101)
UK (100)
Belgium (99)
USA (98)

It's no suprise that you don't have a fraction as many problems when everybody is just too smart to succumb to the temptations caused by something-for-nothing welfare system. We should not try to copy a system while not taking into account that most of our people are stupid and easily let into idleness and bad morals.

Or...

Finland - Population 5,326,646
Sweden - Population 9,234,209
Norway - Population 4,800,326
Denmark - Population 5,505,995
Germany - Population 82,217,800
Poland - Population 38,116,000
Netherlands - Population 16,440,113
Italy - Population 59,715,627
Austria - Population 8,316,487
Switzerland - Population 7,689,100
UK - Population 60,975,000
Belgium - Population 10,666,866
USA - Population 306,015,000

^ Actually, that works both ways. ^


As for the other stuff well.... Which "study," published where and who's IQs?

---


Also... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_reference_chart)

And (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_wealth_of_nations#National_IQ_estimates)


98 means stupid, 114 does not?!

"85-114 - Average Intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:National_IQ_Lynn_Vanhanen_2006_IQ_and_Global_Inequality.png)"

So yeah.....


trolls lol

Perse. Tommoset tutkimukset o yhtä tyhjän kanssa muutenkin...Itse luulisin, että älykkyys ennemminkin lisää itsekkyyttä kuin vähentää sitä.

Alas älykkäät ja ennen kaikkea muka-älykkäät!

The truth is the USA is more open than other nations which are stuffy about letting people in, and it helps that they're physically small and far away from 3rd world nations. Put those Scandinavian countries near Africa or South America and see how they handle things.
You don't happen to know immigration figures of eg. Sweden now do you?

According to wiki 17.3% of the population of Sweden had foreign origins.



trolls lol

IMO quoting Wikipedia for IQ stats equals trolling because everyone can quote any source they wish and post it as a fact in Wikipedia depending on their personal agenda.

That is, national comparison data in Wikipedia is bound to be biased.

Perse. Tommoset tutkimukset o yhtä tyhjän kanssa muutenkin...Itse luulisin, että älykkyys ennemminkin lisää itsekkyyttä kuin vähentää sitä.

Alas älykkäät ja ennen kaikkea muka-älykkäät!


You don't happen to know immigration figures of eg. Sweden now do you?

According to wiki 17.3% of the population of Sweden had foreign origins.

Not from the 3rd world, they won't let them in, not that they need to hold many of them back to begin with, they are kept at bay just by sheer distance.

Not from the 3rd world, they won't let them in, not that they need to hold many of them back to begin with, just by sheer distance.
Last year around 75,000 people emigrated to Sweden.

With 9,200 of those being from Iraq.

source (http://www.workpermit.com/news/2007-11-14/sweden/immigration-statistics-record-levels.htm).

Swedish immigration policy is among the most liberal in the world.

edit:
Another source (http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/02/16/114529.php) puts the 2006/07 figure at around 26,000+...Just for Iraqis.

Last year around 75,000 people emigrated to Sweden.

With 9,200 of those being from Iraq.

source (http://www.workpermit.com/news/2007-11-14/sweden/immigration-statistics-record-levels.htm).

Swedish immigration policy is among the most liberal in the world.

edit:
Another source (http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/02/16/114529.php) puts the 2006/07 figure at around 26,000+...Just for Iraqis.

You think 9200 people under a special circumstance is significant in the face of long standing and historic policy? And are you ignoring the distance variable? Why doesn't Sweden have much problem with African immigrants like France does? I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the argument that they would be allowed into Sweden and given free welfare if they made it there, but fact remains it's not the same trip in the slightest. Numbers significant enough to cause a problem are not going to mount up, hence they can afford to have such an open policy.

You think 9200 people under a special circumstance is significant in the face of long standing and historic policy? And are you ignoring the distance variable? Why doesn't Sweden have much problem with African immigrants like France does? I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the argument that they would be allowed into Sweden and given free welfare if they made it there, but fact remains it's not the same trip in the slightest. Numbers significant enough to cause a problem are not going to mount up, hence they can afford to have such an open policy.

So... since I know that this is going to result in a non-academic comparison of immigration policies I'll just like you to an actually paper I saved while searching through a data base, I haven't read it but maybe it'll give you guys an idea of who has what type of immigrations policy? http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/5/3/2/pages105327/p105327-1.php Might keep this more civil too, well it won't, but I tried.

You think 9200 people under a special circumstance is significant in the face of long standing and historic policy?
http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=406

That source puts accepted refugees - from primarily 3rd world countries - to ~600,000 or 6-7% of the population...in 2006. Add 20-25k for -07 & -08.
Why doesn't Sweden have much problem with African immigrants like France does?
You were saying? (http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1449346.php/Unrest_in_southern_Swedish_city_after_closure_of_Islamic_centre_) This (http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/muslim-rape-epidemic-in-sweden-and.html) isn't a problem either then, eh?

Numbers significant enough to cause a problem are not going to mount up.
Your point makes remote sense only in terms of absolute numbers, relatively speaking Sweden has a high number of immigrants and refugees.

So... since I know that this is going to result in a non-academic comparison of immigration policies I'll just like you to an actually paper I saved while searching through a data base, I haven't read it but maybe it'll give you guys an idea of who has what type of immigrations policy? http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/5/3/2/pages105327/p105327-1.php Might keep this more civil too, well it won't, but I tried.

I think I already have a basic understanding of different immigration policies, and I know the US policy well enough. No country has been historically more open than the US towards immigration policy, but circumstances change. If these welfare paradises had a sudden influx of immigrants below the average economic status, they would not maintain their policy. It's not just knowing their immigration policy, it's common sense. And also, asylum seekers are not the same as immigrants.

http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=406

That source puts accepted refugees - from primarily 3rd world countries - to ~600,000 or 6-7% of the population...in 2006. Add 20-25k for -07 & -08.

Still not comparatively significant.

You were saying? (http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1449346.php/Unrest_in_southern_Swedish_city_after_closure_of_Islamic_centre_)
This isn't a problem either then, eh?

I don't know, is it? Are you making my point for me, or trying to pass isolated incidents as a general proof? I honestly don't know.

Your point makes remote sense only in terms of absolute numbers, relatively speaking Sweden has a high number of immigrants and refugees.

Relatively speaking, it's still not relatively significant, at best, flawed metrics at worst. Common sense would say that. Money and resources don't magically come out of nowhere. The policy that Sweden has they can obviously afford, once they can't, they would [url=http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=95217]change it (http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/muslim-rape-epidemic-in-sweden-and.html). If you're trying to argue that Sweden is some promised land made of gold, you think I'm very stupid.

If these welfare paradises had a sudden influx of immigrants below the average economic status, they would not maintain their policy.
Sweden with its 6-7% refugee population hasn't had an "influx"?

Sweden with its 6-7% refugee population hasn't had an "influx"?

Not compared to other countries.

Still not comparatively significant.
The comparitive number in case of eg. USA would be 30-40 million 3rd worlders.
I don't know, is it? Are you making my point for me, or trying to pass isolated incidents as a general proof? I honestly don't know.
Aren't all riots isolated incidents?

Furthermore, did you even read the latter link?
If you're trying to argue that Sweden is some promised land made of gold, you think I'm very stupid.
No, I'm arguing that your grasp of Swedish and European immigration policy in general is flawed.

The comparitive number in case of eg. USA would be 30-40 million 3rd worlders.

Maybe, but not necessarily. How many illegal immigrants does Sweden have? We have tens of millions here, and their children have birthright citizenship. Does Sweden have that?

Aren't all riots isolated incidents?

Riots maybe, but ethnic/socio-economic tensions aren't when it's a trend. You're posting up webpages about a single story as if the situation in that country is common knowledge. Your argument could all be smoke and mirrors, in fact, I would bet it is. For all we know, it could be about as common as 4 leaved clovers. Compared to such things being a common occurrence in other countries.

I still don't see what you're getting at here, though. What does this have to do with giving out free welfare to poor people?

Furthermore, did you even read the latter link?

I looked at it, it proves nothing.

No, I'm arguing that your grasp of Swedish and European immigration policy in general is flawed.

And your general grasp of this discussion seems to be flawed. I never for a second tried to argue I was an expert at Swedish or European immigration policy. If you say your numbers mean that they allow anyone from anywhere to receive free welfare, so be it, good for them (though even this I doubt, you tell me if it's true). I am arguing what common sense dictates. If they let whoever people in and give them welfare, it's because they can afford it.

And you won't touch what I said about distance, if there was easy access to Sweden by the 3rd world, which there isn't compared to other countries, would you think they would allow anyone to come on freely and get free welfare? I already know the answer to that. That is my point.

Well, as I said, I have no reason to disbelieve the US being where it is. The run of the mill schools here are remarkably crappy and ignorance is encouraged at all levels from pre-school thru post-doc. But this is necessary for geo-political reasons, so nobody should make fun.

(American education is really more about having the right attitudes and politics in any case. Though I suspect that is about to change in the coming lolpocalypse).

I was disputing the German's being higher than the Brits. And I still say no way. World class rodneys those people. It's not possible.

The Finns I can believe, based upon the extremely limited sample of Finns I have met (anecdotal evidence: the best kind!). But, I would have guessed Hungarians myself. Perhaps the Hungarians are too smart for regular tests.

An academic pissing contests of nations? The US doesn't take education seriously as an integral part of it's society, it's historically fat and happy and religious about the naturalism of competition, and how it works everything out without regulation. Also, scum like teachers unions keep things as they are. I don't know what whiny ass, punk faced foreigners have to whine about the US, though. All this means is they have easy access to the real schools here, which remain strong.

Why would the Norwegians declare war on us?

So they could loot your alcohol!

So they could loot your alcohol!

Obviously they want our Koskenkorva, beer and other stuff. And the world's supply of Finlandia Vodka.

The truth is the USA is more open than other nations which are stuffy about letting people in, and it helps that they're physically small and far away from 3rd world nations.
All of that is very debatable. You have yet to back up the claim that the US is "more open" to immigrants from 3rd world countries though.

Rather, according to UNHCR (http://www.unhcr.org), the US accepted 49 200 refugees in 2007. While this was the highest number among industrialized countries, it still places the US at 26th place among the 43 industrialized countries in the statistic since that translates into about one refugee per 1000 inhabitants.

Not from the 3rd world, they won't let them in, not that they need to hold many of them back to begin with, they are kept at bay just by sheer distance.
This just isn't true. Half of the Iraqi asylum seekers in Europe go to Sweden to seek asylum. As of December 2007 Swden had accepted more Iraqi refugees than the rest of Europe and the US combined (no surprise since the US had only settled 466 Iraqi refugees since 2003 at that pont. But the US did answer critisism in 2007, and by March of 2008 had promised to accept 12000 Iraqi refugees per year and had already accepted and settled 4235)

And that's just from Iraq.
Last year around 75,000 people emigrated to Sweden.
83536 (http://www.migrationsverket.se/infomaterial/om_verket/statistik/kort_om_migration.pdf), if you exclude Swedes returning home.

(And it's "immigrated to Sweden", while they emigrate from their home countries. /nitpick)

With 9,200 of those being from Iraq.
15200 (http://www.migrationsverket.se/infomaterial/om_verket/statistik/kort_om_migration.pdf)

(10713 (http://www.migrationsverket.se/pdffiler/statistik/statistik_5_2007.pdf) were granted asylum.)

You think 9200 people under a special circumstance is significant in the face of long standing and historic policy?
What policy? Can you describe it in more detail?

Your point makes remote sense only in terms of absolute numbers, relatively speaking Sweden has a high number of immigrants and refugees.
This is true.


Furthermore, did you even read the latter link?
I hope he didn't, because the Fjordman blog is a notorious piece of garbage. Untrustworthy, xenophobic, biased and hateful, yes. But worse, it contains a lot of misleading and false information.

'Migrated to' not 'Immigrated to'

'Migrated to' not 'Immigrated to'

Usage Note: Migrate, which is used of people and animals, sometimes implies a lack of permanent settlement, especially as a result of seasonal or periodic movement. Emigrate and immigrate are used only of people and imply a permanent move, generally across a political boundary. Emigrate describes the move relative to the point of departure: After the Nazis came to power in Germany, many scientists emigrated (that is, left Germany). By contrast, immigrate describes the move relative to the destination: The promise of prosperity in the United States encouraged many people to immigrate (that is, move to the United States).
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=migrate&db=luna

I think you can use both in this context...

83536 (http://www.migrationsverket.se/infomaterial/om_verket/statistik/kort_om_migration.pdf), if you exclude Swedes returning home.
'ey, I only did a quick google search and blindly trusted the first source!

(And it's "immigrated to Sweden", while they emigrate from their home countries. /nitpick)
I actually thought that as refugees emigrating from 3rd world nations.

Your right though that "Immigrate" is the correct verb when talking about moving in, so my mistake.
I hope he didn't, because the Fjordman blog is a notorious piece of garbage. Untrustworthy, xenophobic, biased and hateful, yes. But worse, it contains a lot of misleading and false information.
The statistic itself probably isn't false.

However, the way it's represented and the conclusions that are drawn are most likely deliberately misleading and inflammatory.

'ey, I only did a quick google search and blindly trusted the first source!
Fair enough - I'm just nitpicking today really. It doesn't detract from any of your points :p

I actually thought that as refugees emigrating from 3rd world nations.

Your right though that "Immigrate" is the correct verb when talking about moving in, so my mistake.
No worries ;)

The statistic itself probably isn't false.

However, the way it's represented and the conclusions that are drawn are most likely deliberately misleading and inflammatory.
I won't even trust the statistics he presents, because it's been shown in the past that statistics he's used doesn't exist.

Of course, any sources linked to by him can be taken for what they're worth.

All of that is very debatable. You have yet to back up the claim that the US is "more open" to immigrants from 3rd world countries though.

You have yet to back up the claim that it isn't. And both you and the other guy stayed very far away from these points:

-The US official policy is irrelevant when it tolerates illegal immigration as much as it does.

-How does Sweden (and other European nations) feel about illegal immigration, people coming in unchecked into their borders? Do they give them welfare anyways, and is it even a huge phenomenon?

Answer these questions and we might get somewhere, because this is my main point. You can get "debatable" about a load of policies all you want, but it was never my point. Seriously, if you're going to cherry pick quotes, pick the more interesting ones. I honestly don't care that much about how many digits are in some Swedish immigration document, I'm talking about the bigger picture. What you're basically doing is like me saying there is a red fire hydrant, and you saying, oh you are so wrong because rouge can be red.

This just isn't true. Half of the Iraqi asylum seekers in Europe go to Sweden to seek asylum.

Iraqi, Iraqi, Iraqi. Do hundreds come in daily without permission? Of course they don't, because that wouldn't make any sense, considering geography.

Squabble numbers all you want, but stick with this point which I've repeated several times: If Sweden allows asylum seekers from Iraq, it's because they can afford it, because the demand isn't high enough to be a problem. You aren't even arguing this, just some vague statistics I don't care about.

And that's just from Iraq.

Well finally, we're getting somewhere.

if you exclude Swedes returning home.

Ah, never mind, just some more meaningless stats that say nothing towards my point. Your whole argument against the resource limit is irrelevant statistics.

What policy? Can you describe it in more detail?

I was talking about US policy, and, yes, I can. Can you answer, or at least ponder the above questions? And throw this one in: does Sweden have birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants?

You have yet to back up the claim that it isn't.
That's not how debate works. You made the claim, so the burden of evidence is on you.


-The US official policy is irrelevant when it tolerates illegal immigration as much as it does.
So you have no wish to speak about immigration policy after all? Hmm...

And does the US "tolerate" them, or are they simply overwhelming the system?

-How does Sweden (and other European nations) feel about illegal immigration, people coming in unchecked into their borders?
They don't like it, and they have extensive programmes in place to combat the influx of illegal immigrants. Throughout the Scehngen area, European countries are working together on border control (Frontex), identification (EURODAC) and the sharing of relevant information. (Schengen Information Systems - SIS).

Sweden have strict regulations in place, and those found to be illegally run a high risk of being expelled and barred from re-entry - not just from Sweden, but the entire Schengen area.

Being in the country illegally is also punishable by fines or prison time.

Do they give them welfare anyways,

In a way, but with many limitations.

Rights for children without proper documentation (http://www.utanpapper.nu/en/startpage/)

and is it even a huge phenomenon?
Difficult to estimate, but there's between 10,000 and 35,000 (http://www.lakareivarlden.org/sv/fakta-om-pappersl%25C3%25B6sa-i-sverige) undocumented people in Sweden. There's an estimated 9,2 million people in Sweden, so would you call that "huge"?

Answer these questions and we might get somewhere, because this is my main point. You can get "debatable" about a load of policies all you want, but it was never my point. Seriously, if you're going to cherry pick quotes, pick the more interesting ones.

I did.


Iraqi, Iraqi, Iraqi. Do hundreds come in daily without permission? Of course they don't, because that wouldn't make any sense, considering geography.

As I said before, 15200 came during 2007. That would be an average of 42 per day. Even considering the geography. And that's the registered ones.

Squabble numbers all you want, but stick with this point which I've repeated several times: If Sweden allows asylum seekers from Iraq, it's because they can afford it, because the demand isn't high enough to be a problem. You aren't even arguing this, just some vague statistics I don't care about.

Actually, I can. Sweden is obliged to accept refugees through the 1951 Refugee Convention, and Sweden is a country that takes its international responsibilities seriously. No refugee has ever been turned away because of the cost, and I seriously doubt that any ever will.

And maybe your problem is that you choose to ignore the statistics, because they don't support your claims?



Well finally, we're getting somewhere.

Ah, never mind, just some more meaningless stats that say nothing towards my point. Your whole argument against the

How is it meaningless?

You claimed:
Not from the 3rd world, they won't let them in, not that they need to hold many of them back to begin with, they are kept at bay just by sheer distance.

And I showed you that you're wrong by showing you the numbers that Sweden accepts from Iraq alone - or maybe you don't think Iraq counts as a 3rd world country?

I was talking about US policy, and, yes, I can.
I'm still waiting...

Can you answer, or at least ponder the above questions? And throw this one in: does Sweden have birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants?
http://www.migrationsverket.se/english.jsp

Becoming a Swedish citizen by birth

Citizenship legislation around the world is based on one or other of the following two basic principles:
The origin principle - the child is given the same nationality as the parents.
The territorial principle - the child is given the nationality of its country of birth.

Swedish citizenship legislation is based on the origin principle. This means it is the parents' nationality that determines the child’s nationality.

A child born to a Swedish mother automatically receives Swedish citizenship at birth (as of 1 July 1979). The child of a Swedish father also receives Swedish citizenship if the birth takes place in Sweden. If the father is married to the child's foreign mother, the child receives Swedish citizenship regardless of where the birth took place.

A child to a foreign mother, who is legally registered for partnership or is cohabiting with a Swedish woman, acquires Swedish citizenship at birth if the Swedish woman has agreed to the insemination and the child was born in Sweden.

A child who acquires the mother's or father's Swedish citizenship at birth is entitled to dual nationality

if the child is born in a country that applies the territorial principle

or

if the child receives the foreign mother's or father's nationality at birth.

i feel this is an important list to post in regard to this thread:

# Country Tax in % of GDP (2005)
1 Sweden 51.3[1][3]
2 Denmark 50.3[1]
3 Belgium 45.5[1]
4 Norway 44.3[1]
5 France 44.0[1]
6 Finland 43.9[1]
7 Iceland 42.4[1]
8 Austria 42.0[1]
9 Italy 40.6[1]
10 Slovenia 40.5[1]
11 Germany 38.8[1]
12 Hungary 38.5[1]
13 Luxembourg 38.2[1]
13 Netherlands 38.2[1]
14 United Kingdom 37.0[1]
15 New Zealand 36.6[1]
16 Czech Republic 36.3[1]
17 Bulgaria 35.9[1]
18 Cyprus 35.6[1]
18 Spain 35.6[1]
19 Brazil 35.3[4]
19 Malta 35.3[1]
19 Portugal 35.3[1]
20 Poland 34.2[1]
21 Canada 33.4[2]
22 Turkey 32.3[1]
23 Estonia 30.9[1]
23 Australia 30.9[2]
24 Ireland 30.8[1]
25 Switzerland 29.7[2]
26 Latvia 29.4[1]
27 Slovakia 29.3[1]
28 Lithuania 28.9[1]
29 Japan 27.4[2]
30 Romania 27.3[1]
30 United States 27.3[2][3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation#By_country_or_region


sweden taxes more, spends more on welfare and socialised programs, and will almost undoubtedly have a greater 'success' with its welfare systems than the US. intelligence and/or levels of education may play a factor, as will a great number of other issues, but follow the money FFS. that's why it works in sweden... it doesn't work in america (apparently - i don't know) because you're not doing it right

it doesn't work in america (apparently - i don't know) because you're not doing it right

It's already very evident in the discussion of this very thread why it "doesn't work" (even though it can be said that it does work in some cases).

It almost went without saying that Sweden was comfortable paying for more taxes, but what that jumble of words up there denies is the real reason as to why their welfare "works": because the supply meets the demand, and because a larger supply is more socially acceptable.

It's been established, Sweden has no tolerance for illegal immigration. Which of course means immigration is strictly regulated and implies it is not indiscriminate. Because of that, statistics of the countries of origin of immigrants is irrelevant. It does not have the history of the US, with slave labor building the infrastructure, and it is not geographically easy access by illegal immigrants.

Yet if some goofball wants to believe all's peachy because Sweden has a higher IQ, that's their problem. And that's assuming everything is indeed peachy for everyone involved. We take that claim with a grain of salt.

It's already very evident in the discussion of this very thread why it "doesn't work" (even though it can be said that it does work in some cases).

It almost went without saying that Sweden was comfortable paying for more taxes, but what that jumble of words up there denies is the real reason as to why their welfare "works": because the supply meets the demand, and because a larger supply is more socially acceptable.

It's been established, Sweden has no tolerance for illegal immigration. Which of course means immigration is strictly regulated and implies it is not indiscriminate. Because of that, statistics of the countries of origin of immigrants is irrelevant. It does not have the history of the US, with slave labor building the infrastructure, and it is not geographically easy access by illegal immigrants.

Yet if some goofball wants to believe all's peachy because Sweden has a higher IQ, that's their problem. And that's assuming everything is indeed peachy for everyone involved. We take that claim with a grain of salt.

So to sum up, you believe that the US is more open to immigrants from "3rd world countries" without defining which countries those are, not that that matters since you're unwilling to back up the claim anyway. You're unwilling or unable to specify what part of "long standing and historic policy" you're talking about, be it Swedish or American. You keep going on about how Sweden is not geographically easily accessible by illegal immigrants, while ignoring the fact that half of Iraqi refugees in Europe end up in Sweden and how it illustrates that your point is flawed. You ignore the difference between asylum seekers and other types of migrants, and the difference in legal rights these groups have.

And you seem to imply that the US is more tolerant of illegal immigrants, though how you've arrived at that conclusion, disregarding among other things the 278,000 people deported in 2007, is left unexplained.

Ah, the joys of debate...