Learn what Socialism Is.

[Toro]

Read Socialism by Lugwig Von Mises.

 

[regent]

Well at least we now know what socialism is.

 

[bedowin62]

the whole population of Scandinavia is a mere 20 million. the few minorities there, especially the muslim minority, assimilate even less than our muslim minorities. they have huge problems with that. and we have huge problems they don't have; mainly an enormous border with a 2nd world country that one of our political parties wants to pander to for votes and allow literally tens of millions in illegally

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[bedowin62]

Scandinavia is doing just fine. Thank you very much.

You realize everyone is white in Scandinavia. Right?

Of course liberals are deeply racist at heart (clue Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood), so I get where you are coming from. Sad, sad racist that hates America's diversity.

No, everyone in Scandinavia is not white, and Margaret Sanger is long dead.
Demographics of Sweden - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Demographics of Denmark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
More information at Google.

why don't you actually read your own source there fella? of the top 10 foreign-born groups in Sweden at least 5 are considered "white" countries

 

[WelfareQueen]

Scandinavia is doing just fine. Thank you very much.

You realize everyone is white in Scandinavia. Right?

Of course liberals are deeply racist at heart (clue Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood), so I get where you are coming from. Sad, sad racist that hates America's diversity.

No, everyone in Scandinavia is not white, and Margaret Sanger is long dead.
Demographics of Sweden - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Demographics of Denmark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
More information at Google.

Hey bud....by the data source you provided Sweden is 97% white. You did look at the data...right?

But hey...I guess deep down all liberals want a lily-white socialist paradise.

So....so racist.

 

[CowboyTed]

Libs Debunked
Popular liberal talking points debunked

The Scandinavian Socialism Argument Debunked
145 Replies

A popular argument in support of high taxes is to bring up the success of the Scandinavian socialist system. Liberals like to point out that Scandinavia (Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and Iceland) enjoys a strong economy and high standard of living despite high taxes and a cradle-to-grave welfare system.

If you talk to a liberal about Scandinavia, you’ll often see them make some variation of the following points:

• Scandinavian countries rank high in the UN Human Development Index
• Scandinavian countries rank among the top in various quality of life indexes
• Everyone gets free healthcare and education
• Scandinavia has low crime rates
• Scandinavia is a shining example of how successful socialism can be if implemented correctly
• Scandinavian countries rank well on happiness indexes

If only those stupid, gun-clinging, bible-thumping, mouth-breathing, inbred, bucktoothed, ignorant, racist, backwards redneck hick republicans would just get out of the way, the left could make life fair and equal for everyone. The large-government welfare state works in Scandinavia and it would work here too!

The problem is that the success of Scandinavian socialism is a myth. It’s false. It doesn’t work for them and it wouldn’t work for us.

Conservative Arguments
These are basic arguments against the “Scandinavian socialism success” talking point that liberals love to espouse. Use these arguments to quickly rebuke liberals in the course of conversation.

1. Scandinavia isn’t really all that socialist
Scandinavian countries have certain socialist characteristics such as high taxes and extensive welfare systems. However, these countries have relatively capitalistic markets. Scandinavian businesses are mostly free from regulation, nationalization and protectionism.

Let’s look at a few key indicators of free enterprise in Scandinavia.

Denmark:

Ranks higher than the US in business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption.

Source

Finland:

Ranks higher than the US in business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, fiscal freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption.

Source

Iceland:

Iceland ranks a little lower than the US in most of these key indicators. It’s close, though. Remember also that Iceland has a smaller total population (320,000) than Wichita, KS.

Source

Norway:

Ranks higher than the US in trade freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption.

Source

Sweden:

Ranks higher than the US in business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption.

Source

The overall point here is that Scandinavian countries have fairly capitalistic business environments. It is foolish to point to any Scandinavian country and call it an example of socialism working.

We can also look at government spending as a percentage of GDP. In the “capitalist” United States, government spending is equal to roughly 40% of the national GDP. In the “socialist” Norway, government spending is equal to roughly 46% of the national GDP. (Source.)

It is dishonest to compare Norway to the US and call one an example of successful socialism and the other an example of failed capitalism when both governments spend similar amounts of money on a percentage basis.

2. Scandinavia isn’t actually as prosperous as liberals like to claim
A study by Swedish group Timbro compared the GDP of various European Union nations to those of individual states in the United States. As stated by the study:

“If the EU were a part of the United States of America, would it belong to the richest or the poorest group of states?”

Denmark:

If Denmark were one of the US states, it would rank tenth among the poorest states for per capita GDP.

Finland:

Finland would come in fifth among the poorest if it were a US state.

Sweden:

Sweden would be the seventh-poorest as a state of the US.

Additionally, the study found that the United States as a whole ranks higher in economic output per person than every European Union nation except for the tax haven economy of Switzerland. Denmark, Sweden and Finland all ranked significantly lower than the United States. Norway was not included in the study as it is not a member of the EU.

Next, the study compared individual US states to various countries in the EU. Once again, individual states ranked higher in economic output per person than each EU country. Only Luxemburg ranked near the top. Most EU nations ranked alongside the poorest states in the US.

So, that does it for economic output. Next, the study took a look at private consumption. Once again, we find that the US as a whole outranks the entire EU, including those Scandinavian countries that are EU member nations.

The study also found several other interesting facts: those classified as “low income” in the US live better than those classified as low income in the EU – including Denmark, Sweden and Finland. The US also ranked higher in average dwelling space and domestic appliance ownership (clothes washers, dishwashers, radios, etc.).

3. Scandinavians have lower gross and disposable incomes
People in Scandinavia make less money before taxes and after taxes.

United States:

Average disposable income: 31,410 US Dollars

Average gross income: 42,028 US Dollars

Source

Norway:

Average disposable income: 25,224 US Dollars

Average gross income: 37,094 US Dollars

Source

Finland:

Average yearly income: 24,958 US Dollars

Source

Sweden:

Average yearly income: 22,387 US Dollars

Source

Denmark:

Average yearly income: 23,213 US Dollars

Source

Iceland:

Average yearly income: 22,387 US Dollars

Source

This completely destroys the point that liberals like to make about individuals living better in Scandinavia than they do in the United States. On top of that, Scandinavian countries have some of the highest costs of living in Europe.

4. But money isn’t everything! What about the poor?
It’s clear that the United States outranks Scandinavia in most economic indicators. Americans make more money. But, the ever-empathetic liberal may say that money isn’t everything. More important than how much money people make is how well a country takes care of its poor.

Your liberal friends may claim that the low poverty rates in Scandinavian countries show that its massive welfare systems are working as intended. What’s so bad about everyone making a little less money if we can make a dent in poverty? You know, it’s the old “the rich can afford to pay a little more” argument…

It’s almost impossible to compare poverty levels between the US and various Scandinavian countries due to differences in the definition of “poverty.” There are serious problems with how poverty is determined. For example, some countries only take current income into account and therefore count students and retired wealthy people among the poor.

But having said that, we can generally agree that Scandinavian countries have fairly low poverty levels. Does this mean that the high-tax, big-welfare system is better?

Nope.

First of all, it is quite a leap to point to tax rates or welfare programs as the single determinant of poverty or prosperity. For example, the extremely capitalistic country of Switzerland has a lower poverty rate than most Scandinavian countries. Switzerland is a unique example (international tax haven), but the point is that you cannot point to any one factor as the single determinant of poverty rates.

There is zero evidence anywhere in the world that high taxes reduce poverty. Just because a few countries with high taxes have low poverty rates does not mean high taxes are good. There are plenty of counter examples of countries with high taxes and high poverty rates and vice versa.

Look at the United States. The War on Poverty was declared nearly 50 years ago and has pumped roughly 7 trillion tax dollars into combating poverty. At current spending levels, we could just straight up give $27,000 a year to every poor person in the US and they’d be better off.

Look at what all that public spending has accomplished:

Source

High taxes do not help the poor; economic growth does.

We also have to take into account the massive immigrant population in the United States. In a country of 310 million people, 14.5% of the US population is foreign-born. Most other countries with high levels of immigration also have high levels of poverty. There are numerous studies that show high immigration rates actually do affect a country’s poverty rates.

Sweden is the only Scandinavian country with a foreign-born population comparable to the United States. However, poverty among immigrants in Sweden has been growing rapidly over the past few years. According to this study, immigrant children accounted for 65% of all poor children in Sweden in 2008. By comparison, only 5% of native Swedish children live in poverty.

According to that same study:

“The Swedish model appeared to produce amazing results as long as the country was completely homogeneous and full of Swedes. But the much admired welfare state was unable to deal with even moderate levels of ethnic diversity (still far below the levels of the United States) without a collapse in social outcomes.”

The conclusion we can draw from all this is that the Swedish system is not responsible for low poverty rates. Other factors, such as homogenous population and the industrious spirit of the Swedes, is responsible. If immigration and government spending continue unchecked in Sweden, the model will eventually become unsustainable.

Note: I got some help from this article in making this point.

5. Norway is backed by big oil
When liberals point to the per-capita GDP of Norway, they forget to mention that much of this is a result of big oil interests. Norway is the largest oil producer and exporter in all of Western Europe. Norway produces roughly 200 barrels of oil per person per year. That puts it at number 5 in the world for per capita oil production. (Source.)

The conclusion we can draw from this is that a significant portion of Norway’s per capita GDP is based on oil revenues. In other words, Norway is successful despite its government, not because of its government.

Incidentally, I find it funny that those same liberals who vehemently vilify big oil are happy to ignore that little fact when pointing to the success of Norway.

6. Scandinavians aren’t as happy as Americans
Liberals (and Scandinavians) love to claim that Scandinavian countries top various “happiness indexes.” They say that Scandinavians are so much happier and more content than Americans for a variety of reasons.

Let’s just ignore all the problems that come with trying to assign a number to “happiness.” Let’s ignore that there is no single definition for happiness. Let’s also ignore how easy it is for left-leaning organizations to manipulate these studies to show what they want to show. Let’s just forget all of that.

Instead, let’s look at suicide rates. Suicide rates are cold, hard numbers not subject to interpretation. You’re either dead by your own hand or not.

Every single Scandinavian country ranks higher than the United States in suicide rates. Every single country. Finland ranks 5th in the world for suicides per 100,000 people. By comparison, the United States ranks 18th.

Suicide rankings compared:

• Finland: 5th in the world
• Denmark: 11th in the world
• Sweden: 12th in the world
• Norway: 13th in the world
• Iceland: 15th in the world
• United States: 18th in the world

Source

Conclusion
In a conclusion based on facts and hard numbers, we can see that Scandinavia is not an example of successful socialism by any measure. It’s not a terrible place to live, but it’s clearly not the utopia that liberals love to make it out to be.

The above facts and figures prove that socialism did not make these countries great. These countries have small, homogenous populations, oil money and free markets. These countries do well despite high taxes, not because of high taxes.

Plus, if you look around the world at true socialisms, you’ll see massive failures. Historically, socialism (and other forms of collectivism) has always resulted in poverty, starvation and widespread death. Scandinavians are fortunate that they don’t yet live in an all-out socialism.

The Scandinavian Socialism Argument Debunked - The great liberal myth

Lived in the country for about 9 months.... Sweden is a very well run country... This post just paints it's picture of Sweden as first not a social democracy (which is crap) and then tries to paint as less successful as it is by cherry picking data points.

The whole thing is crap... Sweden like US has a Police force, Fire service, Army, Education, Roads,.... these are all socialist institutions...
US is a Social Democracy just less than Sweden (Sweden is 45% and US is 26%). Other examples is UK 39%, Ireland 31%.

So anyone that comes out and says socialism is not in US or that socialism needs to be totally got rid of is talking nonsense and be treated as a fool. And same should said about someone who wants

Life is balance and finding that balance is where the discussion should begin. The Hard Right are fooling themselves if they wanted to half government spending as it would cause massive damage to the US economy in both the short and long term. As would a massive increase in government spending would do the same.
Example is Education. Education is like investing in your country which gives a general yield of 9 to 1 over the working life of the worker in US. (increase in wages due to education).

 

[CowboyTed]

Other than IKEA and Volvo, what has Sweden contributed to the world?

Great ideas need freedom to become great accomplishment.

Erricsson, Electrolux, H & M, Skype, Spoify....

Thats just off the top of my head.

Just for you knowledge I have lived in US and Sweden. Sweden is a more developed country, very different working environment, there is very few arguments and well organised compared to US.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Let me ask hitter.... I'm sure he has some ideas.

 

[Political Junky]

Scandinavia is doing just fine. Thank you very much.

Move on over there.

why not, they have lower corporate taxes and tax the top 1% less than the USA!

Really? Link?

 

[dblack]

I should mention that many social democrats believe that worker ownership of production can be achieved through a long reformist process, they may be "socialist" in this way.

Workers are free to own the "means of production" now, and many do. What needs to change?

 

[boilermaker55]

Take a look in the mirror 'mr right winger" your group is the loudest and most continual whining group ever to grace the face of the earth.
Like 1000 fold more.

i'm tired of whiny socialists crying that they aren't understood

nobody cares

 

[Skylar]

I'm tired of people on this board failing to understand what socialism is.. Educate yourselves.

You are wasting your time. The folks that you're complaining about don't give a fiddler's fuck what socialism actually is. Its just a pejorative to them.

I'll have a discussion with you though. How does your flavor of socialism handle collective ownership of the means of production?

 

[2aguy]

I'm tired of people on this board failing to understand what socialism is.. Educate yourselves.

The "Black Book of Communism" is a good place to start. Also look up democide....that way you can see how many innocent people the socialists around the world have murdered....

 

[2aguy]

I'm tired of people on this board failing to understand what socialism is.. Educate yourselves.

You are wasting your time. The folks that you're complaining about don't give a fiddler's fuck what socialism actually is. Its just a pejorative to them.

I'll have a discussion with you though. How does your flavor of socialism handle collective ownership of the means of production?

By force.......any one who speaks up gets shipped off to a work camp or a death camp........

 

[Skylar]

I'm tired of people on this board failing to understand what socialism is.. Educate yourselves.

You are wasting your time. The folks that you're complaining about don't give a fiddler's fuck what socialism actually is. Its just a pejorative to them.

I'll have a discussion with you though. How does your flavor of socialism handle collective ownership of the means of production?

By force.......any one who speaks up gets shipped off to a work camp or a death camp........

Speaking of those who neither know nor have the slightest interest in learning the meaning of socialism.

 

[2aguy]

Moron...Socialism is the last step before true communism...according to Marx. since that evil man's beliefs hit the world the "socialists" have adapted to the reality of each country where they push their collectivism......in too many places,that means mass graves and gulags......

 

[dblack]

Moron...Socialism is the last step before true communism...according to Marx. since that evil man's beliefs hit the world the "socialists" have adapted to the reality of each country where they push their collectivism......in too many places,that means mass graves and gulags......

There seem to be a lot of different ideas about what Socialism means. Same with Capitalism. It's more fun to discuss specific ideas than to fight over definitions.

 

[dblack]

I'll second Skylar's interest in how collective ownership should be handled. Not necessarily the transition to it, but in an ideal situation. Let's say we were starting fresh. How would we decide how to use resources efficiently if they are owned in common?

 

[Skylar]

Moron...Socialism is the last step before true communism...according to Marx. since that evil man's beliefs hit the world the "socialists" have adapted to the reality of each country where they push their collectivism......in too many places,that means mass graves and gulags......

Socialism allows for private proprety. Communism absolishes it. They're obviously not the same thing.

Communism is largely defined by the Communist Manifesto. Socialism comes in more flavors than Baskin Robbins. I'm interested in learning more the OPs specific flavor rather than listening to you make spectacularly inaccurate overgeneralizations about at topic you don't understand.

 

[Skylar]

I'll second Skylar's interest in how collective ownership should be handled. Not necessarily the transition to it, but in an ideal situation. Let's say we were starting fresh. How would we decide how to use resources efficiently if they are owned in common?

Would collective ownership mandate the elimination of the market? I mean, hypothetically speaking couldn't a company be communally owned and still be subject to the market? It may be akin to stock in a company that everyone owned.

Resource distribution seems much more a matter of business than a matter of ownership. Only when collective ownership impacted business directly would it become an issue. Otherwise it may be more akin to revenue sharing. Like Alaska and its oil revenue being disbursed to citizens annually.