Socialistic Nations = Happiest People

[Harry Dresden]

Do you have a response that results from actually reading the article in question, or are meaningless platitudes all we can expect from you?

We hear, repeatedly, how socialism = bad. It's practically modern American dogma. But, it appears to me that those countries simultaneously have some of the HIGHEST productivity levels AND the highest happiness levels. So, the standard response that socialism kills personal motivation appears to be false.

Maybe, people can be MORE productive when they aren't walking around with a toothache or in chronic pain because they can't afford health or dental care? It's a thought I am having more often these days, spending most of my time working with poor people.

i think its a little bit more than that Cat....the pressure to live in countries who have tremendous economies compared to the Scandinavian countries who have much smaller economies and population,and basically concentrate on taking care of themselves compared to the US,Japan and others....i am sure there is a big difference.....there is also a monster difference in the size of the operation....California has a bigger economy than any one of the Scandinavian Countries,and more people.....yea its much easier taking care of 4-6 million people compared to 300 million in a country 20x their size....

So if you lived in a country of ten million people, you would gladly and happily abandon your rightwing republican unfettered free market ideology, and vote for liberal social democratic governments?

whom are you refering too here?...Cat or me?

 

[JBeukema]

America is socialist. She has been supporting Mexico's sorry ass for a long time now. mexico is still a 3rd world shithole. Socialism DEBUNKED

 

[MaggieMae]

I sure wouldn't call myself a socialist, but my interpretation of the clause in the preamble "promote the general welfare" is for government to attempt to do the most good for the most people. If it caters only to the self interests of a select social class, it fails in this regard, and if the perception exists within a society that the odds are stacked in favor of the elites, then many people will run around with a chip on their shoulder even if they are relatively well off compared to the most impoverished people of the world. It isn't wealth per se, but the distribution of such that is at the heart of why Americans are not up there with the Danes and Swedes and whatnot.

I'm a firm believer in a strong and vibrant middle class, and the economic trends in this country have been away from such ever since Reagan's voodoo economics. I think if we could ever get back to the ethos where we sought to build a more vibrant middle class and gave people more of a stake in their lives, I think we would see happiness levels increase. A good start might be to support small business. In 1960, people shopped at their local grocer, pharmacy or hardware store and the people running these businesses had, not only a stake in their lives, but a stake in their community. Today, people shop at walmart or Home depot, and the grunts working at these places have neither. If government could assume the role of helping to level the playing field insted of being inthe hip pocket of big business, I think the general level of happiness would increase.

Promote the general welfare does not go towards promoting or entitling more of the individual wants and needs of the most people.. it promotes the general welfare of a populous as a whole.. we were set up to have the personal freedoms to succeed or fail by our own merits, and securing those personal freedoms as a country... you ensure everyone has the liberty to operate to provide for themselves, not ensuring that you squelch the freedoms of some to take care of the personal needs of others by an all controlling government

Such a happy interpretation! If only it were true. Unfortunately, there are large segments of society which will SQUELCH the opportunities of others as they attempt to secure their own personal needs.

I always find it amusing when the clause in the Preamble of the Constitution "promote the general welfare of the people" is parsed as practically just an afterthought, whereas the "provide for common defense" is taken so literally as to mean carte blanche permission to make war whenever and wherever we want.

I don't think there are any absolutes in the Constitution. It was intentionally written in ambiguous or all-encompassing language because the framers knew that time did not stand still, and the constitutional guidelines should remain only as the blueprint for building modern societies.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Happy, shmappy.

I have never been happier. I am married to a great girl. We have realized a dream of owning our own business. We have a house and property that we love. We are saving to buy 30-40 acres out west to retire on.

Life is good.

and btw working a lot is not a bad thing. you just have to be working for something.

 

[MaggieMae]

apparently there is some magical "size" when liberalism is demonstrated to be the world's best system of society and government. And even rightwingers evidently freely admit that liberalism is the absolute far and away best system "below" a certain population number.

Canada is number 6 in happiness, with 20 million people, so I wish rightwingers would tell me what this magical number threshold is.

It is not sustainable. So whether it is a better system or not is a moot point. Actually, it's not a moot point. What is the point of having such a wonderful system if future generations will not have the same benefit? In fact, is it right to borrow and force future generations to pay for our indulgences? How does that make it a great system? It doesn't.

We are facing this right now by borrowing so much against the future. Those countries have been and are doing it in a much worse way.

The demise of "socialist" states like France and Great Britain has been predicted for eons. It hasn't happened yet, generation after generation.

 

[Toro]

In these surveys, Africans are often happy people even though they are poor.

Sociologists have found that the level of unhappiness rises when inequality rises. This is because people anchor their expectations to their expectations and comparisons to others.

 

[Agnapostate]

Scandinavia isn't socialist in nature--it practices social democratic capitalism, and as with liberal democratic capitalism, is ultimately a foe of socialism because of its ability to utilize the welfare state to maintain the physical efficiency of the workforce and thus consequently appease worker militancy.

However, I'm quite certain that social democracy (and related forms of Rhine capitalism), is indeed an improvement over the more rightist forms of liberal democratic and Anglo-Saxon capitalism. For instance, an appropriate empirical source to consult would be Headey et al.'s Is There a Trade-Off Between Economic Efficiency and a Generous Welfare State? A Comparison of Best Cases of `The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism’. Consider the abstract:

A crucial debate in policy-making as well as academic circles is whether there is a trade-off between economic efficiency and the size/generosity of the welfare state. One way to contribute to this debate is to compare the performance of best cases of different types of state. Arguably, in the decade198594, the US, West Germany and the Netherlands were best cases best economic performers in what Esping-Andersen (1990) calls the three worlds of welfare capitalism. The US is a liberal welfare-capitalist state, West Germany a corporatist state, and the Netherlands is social democratic in its tax-transfer system, although not its labor market policies. These three countries had rates of economic growth per capita as high or higher than other rich countries of their `type, and the lowest rates of unemployment. At a normative or ideological level the three types of state have the same goals but prioritise them differently. The liberal state prioritises economic growth and efficiency, avoids work disincentives, and targets welfare benefits only to those in greatest need. The corporatist state aims to give priority to social stability, especially household income stability, and social integration. The social democratic welfare state claims high priority for minimising poverty, inequality and unemployment. Using ten years of panel data for each country, we assess indicators of their short (one year), medium(five year) and longer term (ten year) performance in achieving economic and welfare goals. Overall, in this time period, the Netherlands achieved the best performance on the welfare goals to which it gave priority, and equalled the other two states on most ofthe goals to which they gave priority. This result supports the view that there is no necessary trade-off between economic efficiency and a generous welfare state.

That being said, it's my opinion that there are certainly elements of capitalist inefficiency that cannot be eliminated by mere social democracy. No less than a radical re-organization of property rights and extension of democracy into the economic realm (i.e. true socialism),

 

[JBeukema]

In these surveys, Africans are often happy people even though they are poor.

Sociologists have found that the level of unhappiness rises when inequality rises. This is because people anchor their expectations to their expectations and comparisons to others.

They think they're happy because they're not currently being raped or pillaged- or eaten by a vulture. Standards are low in Africa

 

[Xenophon]

All of those countries rely heavily on immigration to do the menial work they are unwilling to do, they have infact set up a happy life for themselves, and an underclass of workers who make it work for them.

Such a foundation is a house of cards and it will colapse in on teh Europeans.

 

[Toro]

In these surveys, Africans are often happy people even though they are poor.

Sociologists have found that the level of unhappiness rises when inequality rises. This is because people anchor their expectations to their expectations and comparisons to others.

They think they're happy because they;re not currently being rapes or pillaged- or eaten by a vulture. Standards are low in Africa

Of all the continents, America is most popular in Africa. Maybe for the same reasons.

 

[Red Dawn]

All of those countries rely heavily on immigration to do the menial work they are unwilling to do, they have infact set up a happy life for themselves, and an underclass of workers who make it work for them.

Such a foundation is a house of cards and it will colapse in on teh Europeans.

Its awesome when Cons who've never been overseas, and have probably never left the confines of their home state, give us lectures about europe.

 

[Zoomie1980]

World's Happiest Places

I find this study very interesting. I've always been a free market capitalist, but find myself wondering if America's emphasis on work, above all else, is really working for us, or healthy.

Is work more important than life? Or do these northern European countries know something we don't? Have they learned to balance work and life in a way that we haven't?

I think the question we have to ask ourselves, as a country is: "Is the American way of life working for the vast majority of Americans?" I'm not sure, and I don't have any answers, but thought I'd share.

1) Scandinavian countries are almost 100% ethnic and culturally homogeneous with very tiny low-income ethnic minority populations.

2) Even in Scandanavia, health care and social services are highly rationed.

Most of the wealthy hide large portions of their income out of country and most wealthy, especially elderly Scandinavian get their serious health care taken care of abroad, mostly in America.

Much of the rest of Socialist Western Europe has been, until recently, homogenic societies. One simply cannot translate the ability of small, relatively wealthy, homogeneous to make socialism work into large, ethnically, culturally and educationally diverse populations as the US, India, and China. In countries like Germany and France where they are being flooded with indigent immigrants, the social welfare system is rapidly collapsing.

Socialism does not scale, and does not overlay diverse countries such as Russia, at all.

For socialism to work you have to have about 20-1 or better ratio of contributors to claimants. Wealthy, small countries like Norway can achieve that. In the US we could only achieve that if we had only about 15,000,000 social welfare recipients with all the rest getting little to no social welfare input. Simply impossible in this country.

 

[Red Dawn]

World's Happiest Places

I find this study very interesting. I've always been a free market capitalist, but find myself wondering if America's emphasis on work, above all else, is really working for us, or healthy.

Is work more important than life? Or do these northern European countries know something we don't? Have they learned to balance work and life in a way that we haven't?

I think the question we have to ask ourselves, as a country is: "Is the American way of life working for the vast majority of Americans?" I'm not sure, and I don't have any answers, but thought I'd share.

1) Scandinavian countries are almost 100% ethnic and culturally homogeneous with very tiny low-income ethnic minority populations.

2) Even in Scandanavia, health care and social services are highly rationed.

Most of the wealthy hide large portions of their income out of country and most wealthy, especially elderly Scandinavian get their serious health care taken care of abroad, mostly in America.

Much of the rest of Socialist Western Europe has been, until recently, homogenic societies. One simply cannot translate the ability of small, relatively wealthy, homogeneous to make socialism work into large, ethnically, culturally and educationally diverse populations as the US, India, and China. In countries like Germany and France where they are being flooded with indigent immigrants, the social welfare system is rapidly collapsing.

Socialism does not scale, and does not overlay diverse countries such as Russia, at all.

For socialism to work you have to have about 20-1 or better ratio of contributors to claimants. Wealthy, small countries like Norway can achieve that. In the US we could only achieve that if we had only about 15,000,000 social welfare recipients with all the rest getting little to no social welfare input. Simply impossible in this country.

canada is not homogenous, and they rank number 6 in happiness.

You tare obviously admitineg the liberals of northern europe have a pretty good deal going; that liberalism works fantastically well for them.....is you're argument really that its too hard to emulate the liberal social democracies of europe?




Are you really going to defend your rightwing ideology by saying the northern europeans have it great, but it would be too hard to emulate them?


way to defend your ideology bro!

Why don't you take a shot and give us a few examples of successful, prosperous, stable, and happy nations that follow the rightwing U.S. republican ideology on markets and economics?

 

[Zoomie1980]

World's Happiest Places

I find this study very interesting. I've always been a free market capitalist, but find myself wondering if America's emphasis on work, above all else, is really working for us, or healthy.

Is work more important than life? Or do these northern European countries know something we don't? Have they learned to balance work and life in a way that we haven't?

I think the question we have to ask ourselves, as a country is: "Is the American way of life working for the vast majority of Americans?" I'm not sure, and I don't have any answers, but thought I'd share.

1) Scandinavian countries are almost 100% ethnic and culturally homogeneous with very tiny low-income ethnic minority populations.

2) Even in Scandanavia, health care and social services are highly rationed.

Most of the wealthy hide large portions of their income out of country and most wealthy, especially elderly Scandinavian get their serious health care taken care of abroad, mostly in America.

Much of the rest of Socialist Western Europe has been, until recently, homogenic societies. One simply cannot translate the ability of small, relatively wealthy, homogeneous to make socialism work into large, ethnically, culturally and educationally diverse populations as the US, India, and China. In countries like Germany and France where they are being flooded with indigent immigrants, the social welfare system is rapidly collapsing.

Socialism does not scale, and does not overlay diverse countries such as Russia, at all.

For socialism to work you have to have about 20-1 or better ratio of contributors to claimants. Wealthy, small countries like Norway can achieve that. In the US we could only achieve that if we had only about 15,000,000 social welfare recipients with all the rest getting little to no social welfare input. Simply impossible in this country.

canada is not homogenous, and they rank number 6 in happiness.

You tare obviously admitineg the liberals of northern europe have a pretty good deal going; that liberalism works fantastically well for them.....is you're argument really that its too hard to emulate the liberal social democracies of europe?




Are you really going to defend your rightwing ideology by saying the northern europeans have it great, but it would be too hard to emulate them?


way to defend your ideology bro!

Why don't you take a shot and give us a few examples of successful, prosperous, stable, and happy nations that follow the rightwing U.S. republican ideology on markets and economics?

Health care is highly rationed in Scandanavia and most of the upper income earners shelter large portions of their wealth outside the country and seek major medical treatment abroad. Not sure how "happy" that makes them.

The social welfare of most of Western Europe is collapsing. Debt to GDP ratios in France and Germany are MUCH worse than ours. At some point the Chinese and Gulf Oil States will cease to be able or willing to finance the social welfare systems of the US and Europe. At that point it will ALL collapse, and we once again, be on our own as our governments will no longer be able to borrow to pay for safety nets. And that will be the start of GOOD times again....

 

[Nik]

All of those countries rely heavily on immigration to do the menial work they are unwilling to do, they have infact set up a happy life for themselves, and an underclass of workers who make it work for them.

Such a foundation is a house of cards and it will colapse in on teh Europeans.

Umm, ever hire a maid? Or see a janitor? Or watch construction workers? Or watch farm workers? Or watch day laborers?

America relies on immigration a lot more than European countries do.

 

[JBeukema]

America relies on immigration a lot more than European countries do.

largely of the illegal variety

 

[garyd]

You are aware of the old saying "ignorance is bliss? Of course Africans are happy they don't know any better. Of course Canadians and most Europeans are happy they think all there problems have been solved.

By the way such surveys are generally seriously flawed for any number of reasons.

 

[Red Dawn]

1) Scandinavian countries are almost 100% ethnic and culturally homogeneous with very tiny low-income ethnic minority populations.

2) Even in Scandanavia, health care and social services are highly rationed.

Most of the wealthy hide large portions of their income out of country and most wealthy, especially elderly Scandinavian get their serious health care taken care of abroad, mostly in America.

Much of the rest of Socialist Western Europe has been, until recently, homogenic societies. One simply cannot translate the ability of small, relatively wealthy, homogeneous to make socialism work into large, ethnically, culturally and educationally diverse populations as the US, India, and China. In countries like Germany and France where they are being flooded with indigent immigrants, the social welfare system is rapidly collapsing.

Socialism does not scale, and does not overlay diverse countries such as Russia, at all.

For socialism to work you have to have about 20-1 or better ratio of contributors to claimants. Wealthy, small countries like Norway can achieve that. In the US we could only achieve that if we had only about 15,000,000 social welfare recipients with all the rest getting little to no social welfare input. Simply impossible in this country.

canada is not homogenous, and they rank number 6 in happiness.

You tare obviously admitineg the liberals of northern europe have a pretty good deal going; that liberalism works fantastically well for them.....is you're argument really that its too hard to emulate the liberal social democracies of europe?




Are you really going to defend your rightwing ideology by saying the northern europeans have it great, but it would be too hard to emulate them?


way to defend your ideology bro!

Why don't you take a shot and give us a few examples of successful, prosperous, stable, and happy nations that follow the rightwing U.S. republican ideology on markets and economics?

Health care is highly rationed in Scandanavia and most of the upper income earners shelter large portions of their wealth outside the country and seek major medical treatment abroad. Not sure how "happy" that makes them.

Dude, you've never been to scandinavia, let alone been friends with scandinavians. I worked with a mulitnational company, and all of the norwegian employees I worked with and were friends with were happy with their health care.

Do you have something, besides a rightwing link, that demonstrates how horrible their healthcare is? And if its so horrible, why are they superior to us in every single health metric, from child mortality to average life age?

The social welfare of most of Western Europe is collapsing. Debt to GDP ratios in France and Germany are MUCH worse than ours.

Link?

I went to the CIA word fact website, and Sweden's public debt is 36% of GDP.

Ours is 60.8% of GDP. Ours is worse. MUCH worse.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Are in in the habit of just making up shit and pulling it out of your ass?

the Chinese and Gulf Oil States will cease to be able or willing to finance the social welfare systems of the US and Europe. At that point it will ALL collapse, and we once again, be on our own as our governments will no longer be able to borrow to pay for safety nets. And that will be the start of GOOD times again....

Is that what you read on some rightwing blog? Shouldn't this be in the conspiriacy forum?


I'm still waiting for you to name one single, solitary country on the planet, that is successful prosperous, and happy, and follows the tenets of U.S. rightwing republican ideology.

Don't bother trying to grasp onto Switzerland. If they were the 51st state, they would be considered the most liberal state in the country with their generous social welfare state.

 

[auditor0007]

apparently there is some magical "size" when liberalism is demonstrated to be the world's best system of society and government. And even rightwingers evidently freely admit that liberalism is the absolute far and away best system "below" a certain population number.

Canada is number 6 in happiness, with 20 million people, so I wish rightwingers would tell me what this magical number threshold is.

It is not sustainable. So whether it is a better system or not is a moot point. Actually, it's not a moot point. What is the point of having such a wonderful system if future generations will not have the same benefit? In fact, is it right to borrow and force future generations to pay for our indulgences? How does that make it a great system? It doesn't.

We are facing this right now by borrowing so much against the future. Those countries have been and are doing it in a much worse way.

The demise of "socialist" states like France and Great Britain has been predicted for eons. It hasn't happened yet, generation after generation.

Until recently, these countries were not experiencing an aging and declining population at the same time. This is a first and is the reason that their system is in no way sustainable.

 

[auditor0007]

1) Scandinavian countries are almost 100% ethnic and culturally homogeneous with very tiny low-income ethnic minority populations.

2) Even in Scandanavia, health care and social services are highly rationed.

Most of the wealthy hide large portions of their income out of country and most wealthy, especially elderly Scandinavian get their serious health care taken care of abroad, mostly in America.

Much of the rest of Socialist Western Europe has been, until recently, homogenic societies. One simply cannot translate the ability of small, relatively wealthy, homogeneous to make socialism work into large, ethnically, culturally and educationally diverse populations as the US, India, and China. In countries like Germany and France where they are being flooded with indigent immigrants, the social welfare system is rapidly collapsing.

Socialism does not scale, and does not overlay diverse countries such as Russia, at all.

For socialism to work you have to have about 20-1 or better ratio of contributors to claimants. Wealthy, small countries like Norway can achieve that. In the US we could only achieve that if we had only about 15,000,000 social welfare recipients with all the rest getting little to no social welfare input. Simply impossible in this country.

canada is not homogenous, and they rank number 6 in happiness.

You tare obviously admitineg the liberals of northern europe have a pretty good deal going; that liberalism works fantastically well for them.....is you're argument really that its too hard to emulate the liberal social democracies of europe?




Are you really going to defend your rightwing ideology by saying the northern europeans have it great, but it would be too hard to emulate them?


way to defend your ideology bro!

Why don't you take a shot and give us a few examples of successful, prosperous, stable, and happy nations that follow the rightwing U.S. republican ideology on markets and economics?

Health care is highly rationed in Scandanavia and most of the upper income earners shelter large portions of their wealth outside the country and seek major medical treatment abroad. Not sure how "happy" that makes them.

The social welfare of most of Western Europe is collapsing. Debt to GDP ratios in France and Germany are MUCH worse than ours. At some point the Chinese and Gulf Oil States will cease to be able or willing to finance the social welfare systems of the US and Europe. At that point it will ALL collapse, and we once again, be on our own as our governments will no longer be able to borrow to pay for safety nets. And that will be the start of GOOD times again....

I'm not so certain that having all of our safety nets collapse will be a great thing. Unfortunately, it is going to happen, especially in Europe. Certain safety nets are a good thing. Letting them become the driving force of a society however, is not.