I’ve noticed since long ago that Scandinavians are exceptionally jingoist.
OK, may be its nationalism may be its not- it doesnt really matter anyway. I would have argued against a statement saying that sweden or (especially) denmark are the least successful also. This is because i agree with your statement: They are so similar that it is hard to argue that one is better than the other- to a large extent its a question of individual preference and I believe this goes for most wealthy countries in the world.
On the immigration point: Look at the election results, Sverigedemokraterna and the reactions towards the party. They are seen as a highly racist party, yet they got over 5% nationally and over 10% in Skåne, and the other party leaders dont even want to be in the same room as them.
I dont think anyone yet knows whether the thousands of young swedes will stay in norway, and i have not seen any statistics on their intentions for the future. From the small sample i have talked to, they dont seem that determined to go back. Of course you can argue that they only stay there temporarily etc etc, but fact is still that there are tens of thousands of young swedes working in oslo (a city of 600 000) and they people dont just take wage into account when they choose where to live do they? I think Friedman was right in saying that people vote with their feet.
Living in malmö and working in copenhagen is not the same thing, you just have to drive across a bridge, not move country.
Regarding your comment about denmark and sweden dominating norway in history- I know the black plague hit norway extremely hard and it took centuries before the population was back up to pre 1349 levels, this made the country weak and easy to dominate. The swedish union was (like the danish union for the first 180 years) to a much larger extent based on equality between the nations (even though they were the bigger brother). I have no problem with this history even though im sure some norwegians do- i would have to have a very collectivist/nationalist outlook to be bothered by something that happened to other people hundreds of years ago. Anyway, it is not that relevant for this thread is it? A sign of danish nationalism?
You realize that 30% of Norway state revenue is oil, right? Norway is also the largest exporter of natural gas. The province of Alberta in Canada has the same things. Norway has $52k gdp per capita. Sounds good? Alberta has $80k. You don’t see this with national statistics because it is aggregated with leach provinces like Quebec.
I dont really see how the “jingoist-comment” in any way is revelant here, but it is kind of interesting.
Wikipedia says that jingoist is “extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy”.
It is kind of a peculiar thing to say given that none of these countries voluntarily seem to have participated in a war for the past 200 years (except some NATO and UN operations far away).
Can you point to some important historical events in which this has been the case for the Nordic countries?
Yes, i realize that norway gets a lot of income from natural resources- my point was just that this will not automatically be of a great benefit for a country (dutch disease etc), and an explanation for ALL the wonderful things that may happen to it. I think its a bit like a child can get spoild and wasteful by getting things too easily.
Obviously there are regional differences, also in norway. It is an interesting point though as one may question where the lines of comparison are drawn.
I come from Norway myself, although I don’t live there anymore.
If Norway didn’t have oil, Norway would probably be the poorest country in Scandinavia. Back in the 1970s Norway had the same GDP per capita as Italia and was way behind Sweden and Denmark. Also, Norway had much lower growth rates and had a huge trade deficit. Things were going wrong. If Norway didn’t find oil, then they would keep struggeling to fuel their deficit. Then we would get the crisis in the 90s and living standards would plummet.
Mainland GDP of Norway is around 34K. The oil has given Norway huge trade surplus that have been used to get foreign workers, to buy cheap goods abroad and therefore increase it’s living standard. In Norway, electronics is very cheap, but if you want a hair cut, then you have to pay 80-100 dollars. This has happened with charp increases in nominal wages, but no drop in currency like in Sweden.
In the 1980s the Norwegian wage was 24K USD dollar while in the 1970s the Swedish wage was 32.6K dollars. Today the Norwegian wage is 44K dollars while in Sweden it is 27K dollars, Think what the Norwegian wae would have been if Norway didn’t find oil.
I meant italy and the cost of 60-80 dollars. I was using a different dollars. Also the reason I didn’t use 1970 data for Norway was because I didn’t have them.
That is why I said earlier in the thread to look at <1970 GDP per capita stats for Norway, which you can find here.
Caley,
Thank you for this. I’m compiling a comparison between Sweden and Switzerland to show what might happen if the US take the same road as Sweden did between 1968-1993, the functional socialist years. I will compare taxes, public spending, private sector job decline and public sector expansion as well as the factual attempt to socialize i.e. nationalize all Swedish business by adding a tax on profits that would have given the trade unions a majority in all Swedish listed companies.
According to your statistic Switzerland 1973 was no 1 and the US no 2, Sweden no 4 (Norway 17). 1993 Sweden was no 17, the US and Switzerland still was on the top. It shows the price you pay for egalitarianism and welfarism. Everybody gets more equal but all get poorer as well as solidifying wealth income equality. Sweden has the worlds lowest income equality, GINI, but has the developed worlds highest wealth inequality, GINI. higher than the US.
I will also show how the neoliberal, Friedmanite policies of the early 90s saved Sweden and reduced public spending from some 60 % of GDP to almost 45 %.
-
Income tax rates where drastically cut.
-
Wealth and inheritance tax abolished.
-
Caps on property tax.
-
Capital gains cut to a flat tax.
-
Corporate taxation cut from 54 % to an effective tax rate of 21 %.
-
Privatization of public utilities such as railroads, light rail etc.
-
Massive deregulation.
*Semi privatization and fully funding of Social Security and as a consequence the only developed country that has no problems with retirement provisions.
*Full school choice ala Friedman with school vouchers.
Spending caps and restriction on budget deficits and budget surpluses also taken out of the political realm. Politicians has no say on when to stimulate or when to retract, its done by automatic balancing mechanism as advocated by Friedman.
I live in Scandinavia.
My countries governmen spending as GDP is 41%… And we get at least better return on it than USA.
in US it is over 44%, most of it is going towards some type of ultimate stupidity plan… (This BTW Is taking account all government).
I would say this busts the myth pretty well.
How many mexicans are there in scandinavia :I
How many asylum seekers are there in America?
First of there is no scandinavian country. It’s three different countries. But you are wrong. Here’s the countries spending after Heritage index.
Sweden: 52.5%
Denmark: 51%
Finland: 47.3%
Norway: 40.8% (due to oil)
US: 37.4%
Also, just to mention that other countries in US has just as much federal spending, like France, Austria. Belgium and Italy. And I never heard people holding them up as a model for the US. Also to the post above, US doesn’t have many asylum seekers, but neither do Scandinavia yet. Muslims as a part of population in Sweden, which has taken the most is around 5%. In the US around 15% are latinoes. However, Scandinavian countries has much bigger problems with their minorites and they will significantly increase in some years.
Walmart spends 95% of its “GDP” (sales*volume) on centrally planning its “economy”. I guess walmart is socialist.
No.
US spending is 44% it is 6.4 trillion divided by the GDP. In fact I jus counted that the estimate is only 43% but somwhere there. (remember in the future it has to be bigger due to the debt though).
My country (finland) has spending of 41%… Though there is also mandatory military half a year and a mandatory TV “tax” if you own TV. I did not specify the country in my last post…
What we get is free education, free healthcare, free social security… Sure it maybe worse than private sector.
But in US the public sector is a disaster. If I was in US I would not want to have anything to do with it. What do US citizens get for tax money? Wars, inflated housing, education, and healthcare costs and… bunch of regulations and… bubble economies that can’t fix themselves due to government subsidy. I do say it would be better if that money was spent digging diches and filling them back up again, so perhaps Krugman has a point…
Us just doesn’t seem to get even the reduced benefits of government spending. In fact many dollars would be better not spent…
You are still talking bullshit. You are taking GDP of 2009 or 2008 and dividing it by spending of 2010. Which is wrong. My numbers are coming from the heritage index, and who should we trust. You, or the hertage index. However, their numbers are pre-crisis, but I really doubt that Finland reduced spending after the crisis. especially since spending increased while GDP dropped from 273 billion to 239 billion dollars.
There is nothing wrong with Finland and it’s a good country, but don’t go around and spread lies. I have no interest in defending US, because I’m not from the US. But I can mention the higher wages and lower taxes, which would be beneficial. US do have free education up to high school. Many people do recieve free health care and social security exist in the US as well. Also, education is a disaster in Sweden, Denmark and especially Norway. It’s only Finland that has a good education system.
And your point doesn’t make any sense. You first argue that Finland spend less than US, then you argue that US doesn’t get any benefits for less governmental spending and argue for more governmental spending, and also that US should waste money on giving pointless jobs to unemployed people. The reason US spend nearly as much, but recieve substancially less is because of all the waste. Scandinavian countries are the most successful social democratic countries and people in Scandinavia was much more honest, hard working than other people. Other countries have tried the same as Scandinavia with less success. For instance the services in France and especially Italy is nothing to celebrate for. If US increased spending to 50% of GDP. US would still not be able to afford scandinavian welfare. Italy and France spends 50% of their GDP and their social services are much weaker than for instance Finland or Iceland before the crisis. However, the Scandinavian work ethics is falling apart and the huge asylum immigration is not helping either.
Sratwman after strawman.
I do not argue that US should spend any more to government, the opposite is what I am saying. How did you conclude that US should spend more? I am pretty much against all government spending, but I said that US is spending the money much LESS efficiently still.
And I checked these numbers from official US government site. The spending is 6.4 trillion and nominal GDP (which obviously should be used here - or if not the government spending has to be converted to the index of real GDP) is around 14.5 trillion.
For finland the GDP is 172 billion euro.
Finland spending is 70.4 billiion (50.4 state, 20 local) = bit less than 41%.
Now I am not including the TV tax (which you have to pay if you own a TV), around 500 million, or the mandatory army service here. Also I had to count the local taxes as how much taxes they recieved(I did add some though). So there you go.
The heritage foundation was created during the cold war to be pro US propaganda. Its got a picture of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh trying to sell you a box set on the homepage. PASS.
Yeah why is that
Source. I have trouble picturing thousands of starving african immigrants getting citizenship.
There is no nominal GDP of 2010 out yet, so don’t use numbers you do not have. Although after crisis, your US numbers are pretty good but your Finnish numbers are way off. Don’t tell me that Finland is providing the same services as Denmark or Sweden. But has 10% less governmental spending. Iceland did before the crisis, but Iceland also had a much higher GDP. Finland doesn’t. Also, the numbers from heritage provide a different story. I’m sure something is not included.
I found some numbers here, and in 2008 the governmental spending in Finland was 91 billion Euro. After that it has just increased. In 2008, that means around 49% before crisis. And about 56% governmental spending in 2009. You completely forgot to add the social security fund. US however had 37% in 2008 and 42% in 2009.
Sieben: 1. And the UN development index is part of left wing propaganda. They are still not going to use wrong numbers to get countries like Norway higher up. Actually US is dropping. it’s not like right wing people don’t criticize US. While left wing people in Scandinavia do not criticize their own country, but it’s not because it’s perfect, but because their pride is in their country. If Finland fails, then Finnish people think they have failed.
There is no way they have used wrong numbers to get US higher up and you know that very well.
Yeah why is that
Due to their culture they come from. If they worked against each other, they wouldn’t have survived the harsh winter. That culture developed when the welfare state didn’t exist.
Source. I have trouble picturing thousands of starving african immigrants getting citizenship.
There are something you can look at. For instance school results are dropping, sickness rates are much higher than when the system was created and other countres around the world. Same with disability benefits. People were much more hardworking before. You can even look at the photoes and they will tell the same story.
Also, there is a substancial immigration to Scandinavia. Sweden is 5% muslim, and pretty much none of them came because Sweden needed them. They were all asylum seekers. In Norway there was around 10000 muslims in 1980, around 40000 in 1990, around 100000 in 2000 and 180000 in 2010. It’s quite a new trend and it’s increasing fast.