We are merely saying that Williamson fails to prove there is anything intrinsically racist or nationalist about the Nordic experience. Nor did twentieth-century Nordic welfare states make ethnic exclusion a key principle of functioning; on the contrary, they were based on universal principles of entitlement-through-citizenship, and not on internally exclusionary principles based on race or culture.
The first step is realizing that many aspects of the development of the Scandinavian welfare state are not that exceptional — they are a variant of the general Western European experience. The modern Nordic states have been in the fortunate position of developing in the immediate geographical proximity of the core countries of the capitalist world system, while also maintaining political independence. This serendipitous historical circumstance meant that the Nordic countries profited, directly or indirectly, first from the trade flows of early mercantile capitalism and later from industrialism and colonialism.
At first they developed through lucrative trade in primary commodities — processed agricultural goods in Denmark, timber and metal ore in Sweden — but from the late nineteenth century onward they managed to industrialize. As a result, the Nordic countries, like the rest of Northwest Europe, turned out comparatively rich and well-organized.
Scandinavia was also not alone in developing comprehensive social welfare systems in the twentieth century. Across Western Europe, the kernel of a social compromise around the building of universal welfare institutions emerged in the early twentieth century in step with the rise of organized labor movements. In the aftermath of World War II, European elites, wary of a radicalized workforce and the rise of Soviet Communism, found it necessary to compromise with labor in order to retain the capitalist system.
This resulted in rapidly rising real wages and the building of social welfare institutions in all of US-controlled Western Europe, helped along by Marshall Aid and generous access to the American market.
Here again, Scandinavia conformed to the general West European trend. But this new model of social capitalism took a more radical form here than elsewhere. Under the hegemony of strong social-democratic parties, redistribution and welfare provisions in areas such as health care, education, transport, and housing reached an extent not seen anywhere else in Europe. This was to a large degree the product of uniquely strong labor movements, politically empowered by robust alliances with social-democratic parties.
In addition, Denmark and Sweden saw widespread union support for programs of economic democracy, which through wage-earner funds would gradually take over the ownership of the means of productions. The social-democratic project never managed to successfully challenge the power of privately owned capital. As previously stated there had never been a terrorist attack in Norway so this obviously caused panic, with the police struggling to secure the area while trying to figure out who was behind the attack.
Meanwhile the shooter drove for an hour to where these kids were attending a summer camp on a small, isolated island. The first emergency calls from the kids were drowned out by the ruckus caused by the explosion in the capital city. Once they finally got through the police responded as quickly as they possibly could have considering they were going in blind not knowing how many terrorists were on the island and whether the shooting was linked to the explosions or not.
I still had to write this. I think you should watch the statements shortly after the end of the movie July The point of the article was to correct the idea that the nordic model is socialist. It also suggests that simply adopting their economic policies would not necessarily produce the same result elsewhere. Shameful bringing up the Nordic children who were murdered as if somehow gun control was to blame. Here in the United States we have had 6 yr olds slaughtered in their classrooms.
Teenagers running for their lives in the halls of their school. Worshippers killed in their churches and synagogues. And we have as many or more guns than any country.
Shingleton, saying this as respectfully as I can; you contradict yourself in your own paragraph. If the citizens were able to defend themselves, the number of senseless deaths would be dramatically reduced, if not entirely eliminated. But, if you have a percentage of people in that crowd that are armed, the criminal will most likely be stopped immediately, or may not even commit the crime in the first place, knowing that the citizens will be armed.
The exact opposite of what you said is true. Put yourself in the shoes of the mass murderer. What is his goal? Where is the best place to accomplish that goal? A gun free zone, where nobody can legally defend themself with a gun. Let me quote one of our brilliant founding fathers who contributed to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I hope this inspires you and many others to study it, and to base your opinions from facts, not emotion, for that can make you look very foolish when confronted with facts. The Crime Prevention Research Center also concluded that in any city or even entire country in the world that has banned guns, crime actually increased, not decreased, for the same reasons. Coincidentally, areas in the US with the highest amounts of legal gun ownership have the lowest amounts of murders, and vice versa; areas with the most gun control have the most murders.
With all respect, ignorant people that think like you do and vote are the most dangerous to our liberty. Soon, with the help of your votes, we will be living under the same conditions that our founders had to fight and die for.
How else would you explain the low percentage of murders in Scandinavia? As far as I understand, in the U. The nordic model is about maximizing freedrom for everyone. You have freedom from powerty, freedom to chose an education according to your wishes and abilities. You have freedom from crime. You have freedom from unnecessary worries like having ill children needing expensive treatment. If you start your own business and go broke or do badly, your family still get the same medical treatment as your very well off neighbour, you still get high quality education for your kids.
This creates an enviroment for devoloping new ideas, often the state give you some money to help explore an business idea, as long as you put in your own resources. This arrangment make the economy adaptable, because in times of crisis , people take the risk off creating new kind of businesses.
The high education level also help making Scandinavian countries competetive. Trust saves a lot of money for businesses, government and inhabitants. Less guards, security systems, paperwork etc.
Criminals get treatment and education in prison, most never return to prison after first sentencing. They start work and pay taxes instead. When other people get easier life with more choices, I as well get a better life with more choices. Less stressful people make them capable of participating in a large variety of organizations, thus creating even more positive activities and bonds between people from different economic parts of society.
It seems like a great model for 6 million people. But the US has over million people, including about 30 million illegal immigrants, thousands of gangs, a government that will not even deport or lock up criminals. We cannot afford to switch to the Nordic model, until we can get immigration and crime under control first. Our leftists do everything backwards, like what they did in Afghanistan.
When I sit back and look at what countries I would like to live in they are all western countries. Africa, East Asia and South America are mostly undeveloped, poor and dangerous places to live.
I believe that Caucasian people work together better and fight less among themselves. I do not believe it is due to race but due to culture. Without these caucasian people in the western countries there would be no cars, airplanes, electricity, cell phones, internet and many more of the inventions that we have come to rely upon. My prediction for the future is people like AOC will get into a place of power and open up the gates and slowly over time make the US weak and that will lead to the death of Europe.
White peoples on average have kids and other races Due to this and an inevitable war that we will lose if we head win this socialistic road in America, I believe we will go extinct and the world will descend into chaos. Possibly sending us into the dark age and the end of modern civilization as we know it. Give me a break. Asian cultures have a rich history.
Simply because they have not sought material wealth throughout their history is not cause for your demonizing them. We can learn from each other in the modern era. Arab cultures had many advances in the past from which Europeans learned.
Possibly if Asian and African and native Americas cultures had fought off Western colonialism as the Japanese had success in doing, their countries would have been in a much better state than they are today. Upon visiting Norway, my perspective on government and society has totally changed in terms of what I think is possible.
No homelessness, everyone is beautiful and healthy, the airports are clean, the arts are funded. Drug addicts are given treatment…and even drugs until they are rehabilitated!
The oceans are clean, the streets are clean, the air is sparkling, and there are flowers blooming in the streets. Citizens say they are heavily taxed, but the cost of not having to pay for childcare, medical, dental, and education are offset. Please only comment if you have traveled to Scandanavia! Let us tell you the truth of how it really is and let these countries inspire the world! Everyone is beautiful and healthy? You got all that from one visit?
It might be working now, but all civilizations throughout all of history live through a cycle called the Tytler Cycle, from freedom to oppression. Paying a body of people to do something everyone is capable of doing themselves is very inefficient. Josh do you reside in the U. Probably you do just from your theory that no taxes allows you to buy what you because you retain more money.
I can agree with some of ideals that are mentioned in this article. The one key thing not discussed is Scandinavian military and its place in the world stage. If they did, I could see that taking away lots of those benefits given to its citizens. The US has a standing military to both positive and negative reasons for lack of a better phrase.
How will Norway, Iceland, etc feel in a world order defined by a communist country like China? They do seem extremely happy and believe in strongly the trust amongst each other and their government. I would enjoy that same level of trust here in the US.
Not sure how anyone defines democratic socialism or what the difference is. It has become a generalized term. The problem is most people in the U.
People talk frequently about socialized health care or single payer system. That could work if everyone was responsible enough to maintain their health. If they go out and drink smoke and eat like imbeciles they put an unfair burden on the rest of society.
Same thing with irresponsible reproductive behavior. Not sure how well it would go over in the U. Sure wish that the people that want fairer pay for workers would go out and start some buisnesses and put the concept into practice not just complain about how unfair the system is now. They should also start a movement to integrate into poorer communities that way they could raise the tax base which would help the underfunded schools and municipal services.
As good neighbors they could also lend their support and experience to single parent families. If you really believe that the underprivileged matter this should seem like an obvious thing to do.
Going on a protest march then returning to your suburban cul-de-sac is an empty gesture. Show your support in a more concrete way. Be there so you can have a meaningful impact and help people improve their situation. You can only fix an issue if you truly understand and what better way to understand than living it.
It seems to be an argument between 2 different types of economies. The good news is that the high levels of welfare for which Nordic countries are famous do not require high levels of consumption.
Happiness in Costa Rica rivals Scandinavia with 60 percent less resource use. Italians live longer lives with half the resource use. Germany has higher education levels with 30 percent less resource use.
Of course, wintry climates require slightly more materials, but there is still much room for improvement. A recent study by a team of environmental scientists lays out a detailed plan for how Nordic countries could cut their material footprint by nearly 70 percent: scaling down fossil fuels, shifting to plant-based diets, retrofitting old buildings instead of constructing new ones, requiring consumer products to be longer-lasting and repairable, and improving public transportation.
The good news is that all of this can be accomplished while improving human welfare and advancing the cause of social democracy. But it ultimately requires shifting to a different kind of economy — one that is not organised around endless GDP growth. According to new research findings , which I reviewed with a colleague in the journal New Political Economy , it is not feasible for high-income nations to reduce their resource use and emissions fast enough to get down to sustainable levels while at the same time pursuing economic growth.
More growth means more resource use and more energy use, which makes ecological objectives ever-more difficult to achieve. The evidence is clear: the only way to build a truly ecological economy is to stop chasing GDP growth. The first step is to abandon GDP as a measure of progress — as New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern recently pledged to do — and focus instead on human well-being and ecology.
There is a strong scientific consensus forming around this approach. A new paper signed by more than 11, scientists argues that high-income nations must shift to post-growth economic models if we are going to have any chance of preventing climate breakdown. In terms of an aging population, a large base of young taxpayers and a smaller population of older residents receiving services is the ideal scenario.
As the population balance shifts the other way, benefit reductions are a likely outcome. Fortunately for their citizens, the Nordic nations have willingly chosen a path of greater equality for all citizens and have demonstrated an ability to work through their political differences for the greater good of all.
In terms of immigration, Scandinavia attracts a notable influx of newcomers seeking to enjoy generous public benefits. These new arrivals often come from nations that do not have a long, shared history of making decisions on behalf of the common good.
While native Scandinavians tend to have a high degree of participation in the workforce as part of their collective decision to support the amenities their society offers, immigrants do not always share this vision. These new arrivals present a significant burden to the system and could, ultimately, result in its demise. Two other concerns include native citizens taking advantage of the generous benefits system and the impact of poor global economic conditions. The Nordic model has attracted a significant amount of attention from other nations.
Many people wonder if it provides a template for smaller countries where citizens are more homogeneous in terms of their opinions and experiences yet live in poverty or repression as a result of Marxist government policies. Others believe that this provides a template for reforming the unchecked capitalism that has created notable income inequality and dramatic differences in the quality of life between the rich and the poor in prosperous nations.
The Nordic model has created quite a bit of controversy outside of Scandinavia. These critics of the American model point out that public services, such as education and government-run programs in America, are of poor quality, and that the rich have access to far better resources than the poor and that implementation of the Nordic model could solve these issues. Opponents of the Nordic model criticize the high taxes, high degree of government intervention, and relatively low gross domestic product and productivity, noting that these all limit economic growth.
They point out that the Nordic Model redistributes assets, limits the amount of money available for personal spending and consumption, and encourages reliance on government-subsidized programs. The unwillingness of Marxist governments to make changes is likely to mean that philosophical discussions about the implementation of the Nordic model will remain just that: discussions. The inability of developed nations to move beyond vitriolic political rhetoric coupled with their lack of shared culture due to geographically and ethnically diverse populations that lack shared experiences will similarly serve as barriers to implementation of the Nordic model in those countries.
In any event, while outsiders argue vigorously in favor of social democracy or against so-called welfare states , the Scandinavians themselves make no effort at all to induce or coerce other nations into adopting the Nordic model. Rather, they seem content to work through their problems together in a collective manner that consistently results in placing them at the pinnacle of global surveys of the happiest people in the world.
The Economist. The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy. Accessed April 5, Hertie School of Governance. Harvard Political Review. Cato Institute. Wealth Management. Income Tax.
0コメント