How do socialist states do so well?

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: CLite

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

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

(% of GDP)

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

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

The Swedish Bikini Team's a big money maker.

I'd take on the job of being their trainer!

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs

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

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

Damn skippy! There's never been anyone in government who was corrupt!



What exactly are you trying to say? Are you stating the claim that you can make the poor rich by making the rich poor?

 

[Atreus21]

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

NK?

 

[ElFenix]

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

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

norway also has $336 billion in the bank due to oil sales. they produce nearly 3 million barrels a day. it wouldn't surprise me if most of the government's day to day operations can be paid for just on oil royalties.

Originally posted by: nCred

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

why wouldn't it matter? it has bearing on why the country is doing well economically today. if they use the money to grow faster than they have to pay it back at, then that's good for them.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Here's a repost of a post I put up in an earlier thread about Sweden which might help answer the OP's question.



One of the factors that determines a nation's standard of living and quality of life is the rationality factor:

How do people in the society treat one another? Do people act rationally or self-destructively? Is there a large amount of crime? Do women pump out crack babies like rabbits having litters? What is the average IQ? Do people irresponsibly have more children than they can afford? Is there a large amount of unplanned pregnancy without abortions? Is the government corrupt, inept, and dysfunctional? Does the nation import impoverished people, displacing its own people from jobs and driving down wages? Does the nation import people from cultures that do not have the "rationality factor"? Does the government fall all over itself to waste huge amounts of money criminalizing consensual behavior (like prostitution, assisted suicide, and smoking marijuana)?

I'm not an expert on Sweden and I may be wrong, but I'm under the impression that part of the Swedes' success is that they have the rationality factor whereas the U.S. does not. Even with welfare statism, the rationality factor can take you a long way.

Coincidentally, even with moderated capitalism, a large irrationality factor can sink you.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

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

You don't necessarily need to have a small or homogeneous population, rather you need to have a population of people with a rational philosophy--the rationality factor. I suspect that part of the reason why people in those homogeneous societies might not mind helping others as much is that they regard it as a good investment--they have confidence that the people they are helping won't squander their help.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Economic socialism is tied to social socialism.
It mostly works in European countries because they do not have 10% or more of the total population unaccounted for in the official statistics used to run the economic engine.
If they had the HUGE amount of illegal workers in their economy it would throw a big old monkey wrench into their social economic engineering plans.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Here's a repost of a post I put up in an earlier thread about Sweden which might help answer the OP's question.



One of the factors that determines a nation's standard of living and quality of life is the rationality factor:

How do people in the society treat one another? Do people act rationally or self-destructively? Is there a large amount of crime? Do women pump out crack babies like rabbits having litters? What is the average IQ? Do people irresponsibly have more children than they can afford? Is there a large amount of unplanned pregnancy without abortions? Is the government corrupt, inept, and dysfunctional? Does the nation import impoverished people, displacing its own people from jobs and driving down wages? Does the nation import people from cultures that do not have the "rationality factor"? Does the government fall all over itself to waste huge amounts of money criminalizing consensual behavior (like prostitution, assisted suicide, and smoking marijuana)?

I'm not an expert on Sweden and I may be wrong, but I'm under the impression that part of the Swedes' success is that they have the rationality factor whereas the U.S. does not. Even with welfare statism, the rationality factor can take you a long way.

Coincidentally, even with moderated capitalism, a large irrationality factor can sink you.

In other words, "are the people white?"

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

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

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

norway also has $336 billion in the bank due to oil sales. they produce nearly 3 million barrels a day. it wouldn't surprise me if most of the government's day to day operations can be paid for just on oil royalties.

Originally posted by: nCred

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

why wouldn't it matter? it has bearing on why the country is doing well economically today. if they use the money to grow faster than they have to pay it back at, then that's good for them.

IIRC ALL the money has been put away to pay for the retirement years of their baby boomers, a la Al Gore's locked box, and none is used for day to day government expenses.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

EDIT: here it is:
Finally the government controls licensing of exploration and production of fields. The fund invests in developed financial markets outside Norway. The budgetary rule ("Handlingsregelen") is to spend no more than 4% of the fund each year (assumed to be the normal yield from the fund ).

By January 2006, the Government Pension Fund of Norway fund had reached a value of USD 200 billion. During the first half of 2007, the pension fund became the largest fund in Europe, with assets of about USD 300 billion (equivalent to over USD 62,000 per capita). The savings equal the Norwegian GDP and are the largest capital reserve per capita of any nation as of April 2007. Projections indicate that the Norwegian pension fund may become the largest capital fund in the world. Currently it is the second-largest state-owned sovereign wealth fund, second only to the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority; Conservative estimates tell that the fund may reach USD 800-900 billion by 2017.

Other natural resource-based economies, such as Russia, are trying to learn from Norway by establishing similar funds. The investment choices of the Norwegian fund are directed by ethical guidelines; for example, the fund is not allowed to invest in companies that produce parts for nuclear weapons. The highly transparent investment scheme is lauded by the international community.


Kewl

 

[WhipperSnapper]

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

You have to ask yourself what that implies about the direction we should try to head in.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

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

As of 2008:

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

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

Thank you very much for the links. That's all very interesting and this is the first I've heard of it. Perhaps they aren't so rational after all.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: techs

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

Well:
France builds nuclear reactors for other countries.

Funny you mention that because it's conservative Republicans who want to build nuclear power plants, the progressive Democrats oppose them.

Anyways, let's see how well the great French Socialist State handles Kim Jong-il :roll:

Oh wait, they can't, they have no will to do anything about it.

France, Sweden, Norway have been able to live the glorious Socialist life-style because America polices the world for them. If it wasn't for Capitalistic America, Europe would have been consumed by the Soviet Union.

 

[nCred]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: nCred

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

why wouldn't it matter? it has bearing on why the country is doing well economically today. if they use the money to grow faster than they have to pay it back at, then that's good for them.

What I meant was that those numbers don't show that these countries are in trouble. The EU economies are quite integrated, if a german investor invests in a Swedish company, it´s not much different from a Texan company receiving investment from New york.

 

[nCred]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

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

As of 2008:

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

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

Thank you very much for the links. That's all very interesting and this is the first I've heard of it. Perhaps they aren't so rational after all.

As I said, gross external debt means little. If it showed net external debt it would be very different, the norweigans invests a lot abroad.

 

[charrison]

You might want to read up swedens economic history. At one point socialism killed their economy because all the money left the country. IT took them quite a while to recover.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: techs

IIRC ALL the money has been put away to pay for the retirement years of their baby boomers, a la Al Gore's locked box, and none is used for day to day government expenses.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

Kewl

so they use it for social security rather than roads and bridges. just frees up other funds for roads and bridges. money is fungible.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: techs

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

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

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

Ikea is Swedish, isn't it?

The debt isn't necessarily bad, as long as they have something to show for it. Such as long-term infrastructure or a better quality of life (though if it's unsustainable, that's bad).

 

[WildHorse]

yy

 

[Screech]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

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

You have to ask yourself what that implies about the direction we should try to head in.

Oh absolutely, although "what direction should we head in?" is needless to say an incredibly complex and difficult question to answer. I suppose that, looking at that list, you would have to look at/ fix/enforce

1) immigration policy/law (ie, the southern border)
2) Expanding our use and cultivation of natural resources, including offshore oil especially; as noted above, oil can pay for quite a bit of stuff through taxes, etc.
3) Changing this from the top down is at best difficult and more likely impossible. Anti-statism is a somewhat American quality (until a bigger state starts to benefit you, of course).

 

[Beattie]

Originally posted by: techs

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

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

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

All things invented in America

 

[ProfJohn]

If Socialism works so good then why is the government of France slowly selling everything off??

And notice that all three of these countries have one thing in common:
They bring in a LOT of outside money via trade or tourism.

France gets 81 million tourists per year, that is more than their population. 6% of the countries income comes from tourism.

And check out this about their labor market

The French GDP per capita is similar the GDP per capita of other comparable European countries such as Germany and the United Kingdom,[29] and is 30% below the US level. GDP per capita is determined by (i) productivity per hour worked, which in France is the highest of the G8 countries in 2005, according to the OECD,[30] (ii) the number of hours worked, which is one the lowest of developed countries,[31] and (iii) the employment rate. France has one of the lowest 15?64 years employment rates of the OECD countries: in 2004, only 68.8% of the French population aged 15?64 years were in employment, compared to 80.0% in Japan, 78.9% in the UK, 77.2% in the US, and 71.0% in Germany

Norway

Export revenues from oil and gas have risen to 45% of total exports and constitute more than 20% of the GDP.

Sweden is not a socialist state, at least economically and should not be in this list. Its major industries are overwhelmingly in private control.


BTW Sweden and Norway combined have a smaller population than NYC.

 

[WildHorse]

ee

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: scottIn another socialist state, N. Korea, the general population reportedly doesn't have enough food or other basic necessities like sanitation.

That is a horrible analogy. North Korea is a brutal communist dictatorship. In contrast, Sweden, as I understand it, albeit socialist, allows people freedom in the privacy of their own lives and doesn't dictate people's lives to them. The difference is night and day.

 

[StageLeft]

Yeah, France is a fvcking riot (literally). High unemployment, tiny places to live, where do I sign up?

Hardly meaningful to say Norway is doing well when its gov is making money hand over fist with oil, is it?

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

Before P&N I thought it was a given that socialism was bad, like wanking in public is bad or touching a hot stove. P&N teaches me things I wish I didn't have to learn sometimes.

why wouldn't it matter? it has bearing on why the country is doing well economically today. if they use the money to grow faster than they have to pay it back at, then that's good for them.

I read yesterday Ireland's unemployment is predicted to hit 15% in the near future and after iceland it's the biggest catastrophe in the wings for Europe, they levaraged themselves to a comical level and are now going to pay the price, and it will be severe.

I believe a contemporary example we should use is Chavez who's giving government control to industrities previously private and from what I understand these are doing a pretty bang up job of screwing things up.

 

[WildHorse]

ss