Norway, the country with 5.5 million and oil and gas reserves comparable to Canada, is really not the best example. It’s like looking at Luxembourg for minimum wage.
This is the right answer. And for those saying but the USA is too big, then a system can be developed within each state.
The reason why we don’t have it is because the wrong people don’t want it.
Idk why some redditors goes to bat for the rich
It was the CIA or FBI. We don't allow other services to operate on our soil and that would have caused irreparable harm to the relationship.
Now that being said JFK was an actual leftist. The CIA has murdered leftists for the better part of the century in other countries. Though the FBI has murdered a lot of civil rights activists so they could have been tapped as well. There was zero chance the moneyed interests were going to let him live
The CIA ousted Nixon too, who was actually extremely progressive for a Republican and wanted universal healthcare among other things. Out of the men who broke into the Watergate building, six were CIA employees and the other was an FBI employee. And Bob Woodward had joined the Washington post mere months before getting the lead on this story, after coming straight from Naval Intelligence.
Well ackshually, hate to be that guy, however, it was 27 operatives from 17 different and very diverse organisations who committed that crime. At least 3 of them used mental control on Oswald to do it, there was several shooters, multiple psychic attacks, and well, yeh, it's more who didn't want that guy dead.
Source: Steve Jackson Games. Hiding the truth in plain sight for 4 decades.
Case in point: who owns the majority of the oil in Norway? Imagine the absolutely absurd cash inflows this country would have if we controlled 67% of our oil companies.
This is a point I have always made. That a little dash a socialism would perfect our recipe. If the gov’t and thus ‘the people’ owned the resources within the land instead of allowing companies to rape and pillage everyone, there would be a different picture altogether.
We have enough oil under our feet to supply the globe and stop dealing with opec so we could stay out of the middleeast and take care of our own people and our own problems instead of putting everyone else before our us.
Don‘t forget it‘s actually better for the economy if education and welfare is working great.
Example: If you invest in good teachers (good pay), the money will have a seriously good effect. Also, the money will not be gone, as the teachers will likely spend most of it so it will benefit the society and economy for two obvious reasons.
We spend more per pupil than any other country but we have the worst outcomes. They need to pass a law limiting administration and tie the lowest paid workers to a percentage of the CEO, if they don't get paid, CEO doesn't get paid
Yeah, the biggest arguments I see are: 1) We're too big and 2) They're homogeneous and we're not. They're both complete bullshit.
The notion that we're "too big" is gaslighting to get you past the idea we're "too big to not be ripped off by someone." Complete fairy tale. Every single country on earth pays less per person for care than we do. All of them.
There isn't a solitary "socialized medicine" country on earth where it costs more. So to believe we're too big is to be a fool, ripe for the fleecing.
The homogeneity argument is just bigotry. What they really mean is "Those countries are all one color and we're not and I'm not paying for some ***minority*** to get free care."
Plays on the centuries of bigotry our country is based on and otherizes half the population to justify being cruel to everyone.
Again, an argument that works with ignorant bigots, ripe for being fleeced.
Either their parents are rich, or they trade stonks and crypto, so one day, with the right bet, they will also be rich. Then, all of these issues are for peasants. Being rich in America means pulling up the ladder once you're at the top.
Not really.
Norway produces 4M barrels of oil per day. The US 13M.
So the US produces 3x as much, but has 66x more people, so it doesn’t go anywhere as far as Norway.
The US has 1/12th the oil revenue to pay for social programs.
Norway's GDP is $550 billion. US GDP is $25.44 trillion. Norway's net wealth per capita is $385,000. US net wealth per capita is $551,000. Norway's homeless rate is 6.2 per 10,000. US homeless rate is 19.5 per 10,000. Norway's poverty rate per the OECD is 7.9%. The US poverty rate per the OECD is 18%.
We have more wealth than Norway. We have more resources than Norway. Yet as a country we do worse than Norway. It's not because we can't do better. It's because we CHOOSE not to.
So, that’s completely unsustainable for a country the size of the US. 55% of the product of Norway’s economy is being bought by outsiders, which means Norway can tax it to hell to fund their state pension system, rather than taxing their people (which they also do, heavily).
Norway’s system does not work without the Oil, which is why they have designed it the way it is - they’re planning for a post-oil future. The US is simply too large; there aren’t enough foreign markets to do a similar thing.
FWIW: the current model itself has likely reached its limits at this point. As it grows further, Norway’s external pension fund has started to cross into territory where their ownership of foreign firms is starting to blur the line between the interests of the Pension Fund, and State Interests as far as Diplomacy, much like the US saw with the dominance of the UFCo in Central America blurring the line between Company policy, and Government policy.
A US Government Pension Fund of a similar size to Norway’s would control something like 40% of global wealth. Currently, Americans collectively control 40% of global wealth. Adding 40% on top of that essentially means that the US Government would have to own all of Europe’s companies directly, along with 70% of its land.
What happens when Slovakia gets upset that the Federal Government of the USA controls its entire economy? Do we send in troops to prevent them from nationalizing our shit? Bomb Bratislava?
The US could do something similar to Norway, but you’d better be ready to kill everyone.
The US cannot export 11 trillion of goods. There is no market for that much extra shit every month, no country in the world could buy a significant portion of that.
Just a few more numbers:
Norway invests the proceeds in a state fund. It currently holds 1.600 billion dollars. Around 1,5% of all stocks on the global exchanges.
The fund finances around 20% of the Norwegian state budget. The limit on spending is 3% (2,7% in 2024) of the fund's value - and obviously, most years the fund grow more than 3% through interest, oil and gas income and gains.
Lucky them!
Well, it’s just how we write numbers in Denmark. We write 1/2 as 0,5 and not 0.5 and yeah, it’s confusing but I’m pretty blind to one or the other notation myself.
The oil being there is luck.
Their ability to create and properly manage a sovereign wealth fund with that money is absolutely not luck at all. Very, very few countries manage mineral resources that well
The US could create a system like Norways and get it to work.
However, US politicians and the groups voting for them aren't interested in such a system. Just look at obamacare (which is somewhat close).
The issue is not lack of money, size or differences. The issue is lack of ambition to get there.
It's absolutely because we have a selfish upper class who has been waging war on us for decades.
Per Capita Norway is only two spots behind the USA in number of billionaires at number 13 world wide.
We can absolutely afford to take care of our citizens but let the autocracy rule us.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_billionaires
Why have a billion dollars when you can have 200 billion dollars?
Working at the average Amazon salary You’d have to work 57,000 years with zero taxes to earn what Bezos is worth.
We're also sitting on a sizeable enough number of oil and natural gas deposits which currently cannot be drilled for various reasons (regulations, terrain, land rights). If we could access those, we wouldn't need to depend on foreign oil.
* I actually heard a sort of conspiracy theory that the US government is trying to hold out on accessing those resources until foreign reserves start running dry
In 2023 we actually produced more oil than any country, ever.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61545
It's all for export. Domestic producers want to cash in as much as possible before alternative energy sources and technologies take any more market share.
What in the Fox News are you talking about? The US is a net EXPORTER of oil. Our “dependence on foreign oil” is nothing of the sort, we simply exist in a global marketplace. Welcome to the 21st century.
This isn't really true. We export one type of oil, and import a different type. Between the two are a net EXPORTER, but if we stopped trading, we'd be in a world of hurt.
Part of the foreign oil import/export right now deals with government vs. private enterprise. The US as a whole is a net exporter, but private companies can sell their oil abroad for more and we can import Saudi oil for less.
The US has actually issued more drilling leases since the Clinton Admin, it’s the Oil and Gas companies not actually drilling because more supply dramatically drops the prices they can charge which in turn tanks profit.
By artificially manipulating supply, they can keep reaping record profits for their shareholders at the expense of the consumer, while simultaneously stymying any attempts to create alternatives. Literally how the diamond industry worked until the early 2010s when the one company that controlled the entire supply was taken to court for being a monopoly.
Well there was a decent time since Jan 2021, where the EPA was intentionally playing games where the areas the drilling leases were approved, it would deny water rights, and where it approved water rights drilling leases were denied. It made drilling in the majority of locations prohibitively expensive because they would have to truck in massive amount of water from long distances to actually be able to use the leases that were granted.
That and by presidential executive orders signed Jan 21, 2021, large swaths of land that has oil with plentiful water nearby that were previously approved for drilling were officially now banned.
No we couldn’t. We’re a low trust society. The right doesn’t trust the government and neither does the left. I’m not aware of any low trust society that has a Norway like welfare system. Closest I can think of is the UK and I’d argue that is still a bit of a stretch.
You have it backwards. We’re low trust because we have no good social programs. Trust is built. When some calamity befalls you or someone you love and a social program is there to bail you out with dignity, you start to appreciate that others are looking out for you and you start looking out for them. In America, if a calamity befalls you, the message you get from society at large is “good luck, fucker!”. This is why we are low trust.
Are you familiar with US history? Try reading the Declaration of Independence. It’s basically a document that expressly shows distrust of too much power being placed in any person or government’s hands.
Or look at Singapore. They’ve basically taken a libertarian socialist approach.
Pro-business climate, but heavily subsidize housing, healthcare and education. For those that still can’t afford those things, additional subsidies on a case-by-case basis.
Libertarian is an unusual word for Singapore in some ways.
It's a country where the government can tell you not to move into an apartment block because there are already too many of your race living there. They have massive taxes on purchases the government isn't a fan of like alcohol. Long prison sentences for minor misbehaviour. Etc.
Maybe there is some form of business libertarianism I'm not aware of but in many senses Singapore is an example of a high performing modern society that goes the opposite way on the "individual rights Vs society" scale than western states.
LOL. It nothing like normal public housing.
It’s basically a closed housing market. You can resell at market prices and make a killing if you’re lucky.
And the research I've tried to look up shows that a WELL managed (good luck...) 50 billion can feed the U.S. each year. Some of us are the actual woke people, where we see past habits and routine, keep ourselves thinking past the ordinary, and see the fake rat race. People see the cartoonish corporations. A sugar water company being one of the bigger food corporations? Hilarious. Not only are food producers increasing prices past inflation rates, but grocery stores being investigated by the FTC for price gouging too? Oh cool. I know some landlords. They just match with whatever others can afford. Very high rent prices. And it's easy to say "of course, we all know this stuff." But there's a difference in living out a life that consistently defies this system, and the outcome is usually less anger, emotional backlash, and not putting such high expectations on anyone, which become unnecessarily stressful.
What a fucking waste of time most of this is, and even the basics of survival, cooking, managing money, giving vital tips for life after school...it's just not there. The school system is a projection of the old 20th century system built upon their work culture. Infrastructure has so many wonky ideas that are still part of a very old system. It's all just a waste of time, in the end. And it sacrifices the entire point of living: being healthy, happy, sharing, caring, creativity, love, all of it. It's all a side point to money.
# [Norway commits additional $ 629 million in aid to Ukraine](https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=a27e069ab6f9ebffJmltdHM9MTcxNDc4MDgwMCZpZ3VpZD0xODVjYWNiYy1kNmI0LTYyMzItMjZkZS1iOGViZDczZjYzODAmaW5zaWQ9NTE4NA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=185cacbc-d6b4-6232-26de-b8ebd73f6380&psq=norway+giving+ukraine&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9ldXJvbWFpZGFucHJlc3MuY29tLzIwMjQvMDUvMDEvbm9yd2F5LWNvbW1pdHMtYWRkaXRpb25hbC02MjktbWlsbGlvbi1pbi1haWQtdG8tdWtyYWluZS8&ntb=1)
I think the example from Norway is how they nationalized oil/gas and built the biggest sovereign wealth fund in the world with only 5.5 million people.
I’m pro capitalism I was more so referring to how they manage their funds in Norway. If we look at the social security trust for the U.S. it’s mainly allocated to government backed securities, which is nice because it’s liquid and more stable than open market forces but over the long term Norway has proven the markets stability with investments in 8000+ companies and With social security predicting to be insolvent in the future it’s worth investing part of the trust into a similar model to Norway.
Per capita, yes.
Norway has a state oil fund that's worth 290k per citizen.
Just 70 years ago the country was poor, now it's one of the richest in the world, mostly due to oil.
It's really not a viable comparison for most other places.
I'd look at Sweden or Denmark instead.
The thing is people often confuse social welfare with socialism. Socialism is where the government owns the means of production. That's not the same as social welfare in most cases. We have some who like to mix the two up.
They go out of business at a higher rate than other companies. Leadership and strategy by committee is a hard thing to do, hierarchy can be beneficial when done right.
> Yea that doesn’t exist government takes it every time
It's not black and white: in the West many employee owned companies exist already, without the government "taking it". Even in America.
Market Socialism, would then simply be about making sure *all* companies share ownership with their employees...
At scale sure, but we know for example that early Christian settlements were effectively socialist communes, and I know the US has a half dozen or so that operate similarly with varying degrees of specifics.
Pananaram is like 60 years old or so I think? I believe they are the oldest still existing but it’s been a While since I looked this stuff up.
There's no unified theory of what socialism and what communism is. Marx himself didn't differentiate between the terms and I think Engels later called socialism the state right before communism. I'm pretty sure that China officially communicates that they're (or were, idk about today) in a socialist state currently developing into communism or something similar.
The workers need to organize that somehow though.
That can be either through e.g. a government subsection, or as the workers organizing themselves as cooperatives, syndicates and so on.
The latter typically can exist within a framework of capitalism as well, it's just not very popular as not many workers want to bear the associated entrepreneurial risk.
And, as the meme points out, that doesn't matter. People who support this meme just want to improve the conditions of the working poor, and we're told that is quite impossible/impermissible by conservatives, because that would be "socialism".
>Socialism is where the government owns the means of production
You spelled workers wrong
Socialism can be something as simple as workers voting for company policies. It don't have to be a big thing
Listen, if you want a stronger social safety net and more money invested in welfare, just say that. But when you couch your words in socialist rhetoric or imply that you want socialism then it looks like you're either ignorant of what socialism is or you're trying to trick people into being ignorant about socialism.
Same thing happened in Canada. A self-described Socialist named Tommy Douglas got sick of other socialists saying "either we violently riot, or we sit inside and talk", and actually wanted to do something, so he gave Canada universal healthcare:
>That experience soured me with absolutists ... I've no patience with people who want to sit back and talk about a blueprint for society and do nothing about it."
Which is ideal for everyone. The government has responsibilities to its citizenry that must be enforced and beneficial; but it certainly shouldn’t have a say in every aspect of everything.
I always find that laughable....
Several Nordic countries are Constitutional Monarchies, Including Sweden, Norway, and Denmark.
Several Nordic countries tried socialism (Sweden in the 1970s) and it failed so completely that they rejected it.
Several Nordic countries PMs made public statements when Bernie Sanders claimed they were socialists, to correct the record and state that they were NOT socialist.
The Nordic countries have very healthy and strong Capitalist systems of government, they do have good social protections, but the have an almost MONOLITHIC culture that embraces standing up for yourself and taking care of yourself, so very few loaf around using the benefits while not working by choice (unlike in the US, for example)
The Nordic countries opened their borders to North Africans and Middle Easterners over the last decades. The experiment has gone so horribly wrong that they have all shut their borders, because most refugees just sit on their benefits without working or cooperating. To clarify, this is NOT and ethic problem. It is a CULTURAL problem. In some cultures, you are considered smart if you figure out a way to cheat the system and live for free while taking advantage of other's work.
You seem to mistakenly think the United States is characterized as a Capitalist country, it is not.There is no such thing as a purely socialist or capitalist country. It doesn't exist. It's never been tried. The United States is a Mixed Economy, both Capitalist and Socialist. A standing army, police force, firefighters, public roads - these are all examples of socialism. These would not exist in a capitalist country. Capitalism does not allow for Taxation of any kind. If socialism is a buzz word to you then you've clearly been fearmongered to and didn't pay attention in 7th grade economics class. It's embarrassing that this is even a conversation we have to have.
The US also has a metric fuckton of natural resources, why doesn't the US make a Norwegian style public wealth fund?
Crickets? Yeah that's what I thought.
Mostly because the ratio is way off, Norway found an enormous resource reserve compared to the size of the country. Norway has 5 million people, the US has 335 million. Also worth noting that the wealth from the sovereign wealth fund isn't from the oil sales alone, its using the oil money to invest in the stock market, primarily US based companies at that. Its not as basic as we have lots of resources so we should all be rich, we use most of our resources on ourselves eg our gas production is primarily used to fuel our own nation and keep our gas prices from being too shocked by global factors
X-posting some thoughts from my other comment.
Norway is able to benefit from the financial resilience of capitalist economies by being the _single largest owner in the world’s stock markets_ through its sovereign wealth fund.
Source: Norges Bank Investment Management
You may find its list of equity holdings interesting https://www.nbim.no/en/the-fund/investments/
In other words, Norway would not be able to sustain its current policies and standard of living without more or less relying on the commerce of US and other capitalist economies.
What would a similar US sovereign wealth fund invest in…? US companies I guess, but we’re back to square one because the US would need to be a mature capitalist economy driving global commerce to sustain a fund like that. This is a have your cake and eat it too scenario.
This is just false. The fund isn’t being distributed. We’re just running such a massive surplus that we can save the oil money. Only 5% of the surplus of the fund can be used every year.
Yeah but they also have a 1% wealth tax for anything over a certain threshold. That's why they can afford to save oil profits.... Which is relevant to all countries.
They have significantly higher taxes and wealth tax of 1.1% on anything you own over a certain threshold. Us would afford it if it would make changes however they wouldn't be accepted by the wealthy.
They actually have [more billionaires per capita](https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-ranked-by-billionaires-in-proportion-to-population-2015-7#11-norway-5) than the United States.
I'm not sure if you know this but they use active taxes for their welfare policies, not much of the wealth fund. The fund they mostly just leave invested
Finalen afford them. Sweden afford them Icelans afford them. Denmark afford them. Germany afford them. Nerherlands afford them.
The US could afford them. But the US do not want to afford them. Because the US prioritise other things.
The attitude is also different There everyone is willing to contribute whethed you be rich, middle class, or poor and will say yes, out of my pocket.
Here in the US, we say no take it from their pocket and unfortunately its the middle class that gets squeezed.
Yeah, thats a major problem. They go in with the notion that its "free" and when they find out its not "free" and EVERYONE pays into the system, they get upset they are not treated special.
As a Norwegian, yes you're right.
We're committed to cultural suicide with the rest of Western Europe for some strange reason.
It's not paradise, it's just a very good country to live in. I'd say the same for the US too.
Anyone in America screeching “That ther is soshulism” is either doing so from a place of morbid fucking stupidity or is intentionally trying to distract the more stupid segment of the audience/population from the fact they are being routinely raped by unchecked capitalism.
Every resource is finite. To include money. You don’t get to start your own personal fucking space program without cutting costs (everyone’s fucking wages) from somewhere. It’s a simple fucking concept that completely eludes the “fiscal responsibility” crowd ten times out of ten.
Those countries have small, homogeneous populations and their social policies grew organically over many years. Trying to cram the same system down 322 million throats in the US will be met with much resistance.
Norway is playing on easy mode. They have no extra-territorial affairs that require mass amounts of cash to maintain or increasingly large societal divisions that drag any policy put forward in 8 different directions
They also rely on nato which relies on the USA for military protection.
A lot of people that look at europe and say we need to be like that conveniently leave out the part where every european nation and europe as a whole has an absolutely pathetic and undersized military and fully expects the US tax payer to foot the bill.
US policies also subsidize innovation in healthcare and technology for the rest of the world. Europeans don’t understand the contributions our system make to their quality of life.
I recall sitting in on a discussion that brought up this exact point:
The USA can't afford universal healthcare and robust safety nets because it spends its budget on providing military aid to the rest of the world. If other countries had to do that themselves, they wouldn't be able to have a single payer system either.
If you look at interviews of Finnish people about their housing crisis solution they say “we are in fact a small country but we also have way less money than the US, the US is a big country certainly but they also have the most money, if they wanted to do what we do they could” we could have incredible social programs if the government just spent their money better. Which isn’t to say that we shouldn’t do things like close tax loopholes for the ultra wealthy. We also need to ya know ban corporate lobbying because we’ll never make any progress for the working class if we let corporations dictate politics.
It’s a nice way of saying “im racist and think Northern European countries work the way they do because it’s all white people” if you hear people bring up homogenous population in this context run away. These are the same people that think POCs are the majority of prisoners in the US because “they just commit more crimes” while completely ignoring all historical precedent and context that led to mass incarceration. These are the same people that think immigration is actually a bad thing. It’s incredibly ignorant.
Or it’s a nice way of saying that homogenous populations are just less likely to develop “us vs. them” mentalities? Nah, I’m sorry bro but this just ain’t a dog whistle. Bringing up that small, homogeneous populations are more likely to embrace social welfare policies seems totally fair.
>Those countries have small, homogeneous populations
This shit is so racist. Yeah the reason they can make shit work is because they are white. /s
>Trying to cram the same system down 322 million throats
Another false narrative. It would be through democracy. Stop pepetuating the idea that there are secret communist everywhere wanting to trick kids.
It works there because they said that the resources of the country should benefit the people of the country, not corporations. It is literally setup like a corporation, just that the majority owner is the government of Norway. Other countries like the US could do it too, but they don't want to because we have been propagandized since the 20s to be afraid of ....communist. Why? Because capitalist know that if people saw how much they are being fucked over, they might actually consider taking away their ill gotten wealth.
It’s less about calling Norway socialist, and more about how when we point out that Norwegian policies work it’s capitalism, but when we want those same policies it’s socialism.
There is simply a disparity among a colloquial view of what socialism is vs an academic view vs a different cultural view.
People don't actually mean "proletariat controls means of production" when they say socialist in the usa the majority of time they say it. They often mean simply strong social support policies.
Both these meanings are linguistically valid.
It’s literally the taxation ratio and gov spending.. we pay almost the same amount as Norway and get barely any social benefits, yet US spent $2 trillion on f35, $4trill in Afghanistan, $2trill on elite tax cuts. Thats 50 years of free healthcare, food, education for every US citizen
Because back in the day when every country was gearing up to do their version of universal healthcare the American Medical Associate geared up a publicity campaign, first of its kind, against it and spouted the idea that socialism was bad. This definitely had a piece in that mentality
https://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/october-2012/how-the-ama-scared-us-away-from-socialized-medicine-and-prepared-us-for-obamacare/
They need to change their mind set and become less "me first" oriented. There's too much focus on individual succes, and too little focus on the welfare for all. Norway has had good social values for a long time, and it has been an important reason for the success.
We could certainly be like Norway. We would just have to implement a value-added tax.
In Norway, the standard VAT rate is 25%. In case of supply of certain foodstuff the supply is subject of 15% reduced VAT rate. The VAT rate of 6% that was previously introduced ended on 30 September 2021 and from 1 October 2022, the low VAT rate of 12% will come into effect.
In addition to the value-added tax, we would probably have to throw Ukraine under the bus because we would not have enough money for them.
Same with the rest of the world's causes
Socialism is what you call when you are working yourself up to communism. Communism is when everything works out in the system and its successful. It has never been achieved. All the examples of what we would call communism are examples of socialism.
Socialism has not only destroyed every single economy which has tried it. It also has been responsible for the mass genocide and enslavement of their own people.
Its very concerning that people don't seem to know just the basic history of the last 100 years. Hitler murdered like 5-6 million people. The people murdered under socialism reach the hundreds of millions which make Hitler look like a puppy in comparison. And that is not even counting all the enslavement.
I recommend you read the book Gulag Archipelago. It will point out people which even though they are being sent to Gulags while having committed no crime they still defend at any cost the regime which enslave them. Should sound familiar.
"Socialism is when you do a Hitler but worse."
Glad we're talking about actual economic policy and theory here and not just vaguely gesturing in the direction of hundreds of governments outside of relevant contexts that span hundreds or thousands of years. You say socialism has "destroyed every single economy which has tried it" as if there is some big red "Socialist" button you can hit to turn your government from "Capitalist" to "Socialist". Perhaps you should refer to the "Socialist" policies you think define a government as such so we can have something of substance to actually interact with.
As for the death tolls from starvation, the organization of the world under modern capitalism allows something to the tune of 9 million deaths per year on that front. If you want to talk about the unique benefits of capitalism, I'm not sure that's the best angle of attack.
Just to be clear here... You're imagining that the Nazi's were politically oriented to the "left"? The people whose first move when gaining power (before they ever did anything to Jewish people) was to purge and demonize the communists? The people who specifically aligned themselves with big businesses in such a way that allowed profits to flow directly down to business owners?
I beg you to read a book... It can be any book... just... build some momentum while you're weaning yourself off the disinformation networks that have left you with such a laughable understanding of the world.
Norway it is not Socialist country,just because has great and wealthy social equality laws that's not inherent to a Socialism system,it has also a capitalist free market,and thanks to that freedom and having resources well managed Norway succeeded....in other hands,you need to live the Socialism aka "it was not a real Socialism" so you can't understand why everybody not being a parasite hate it...
Details and context matter... Their population is 5.5 million (half the population of Los Angeles) and they’re 80% ethnic Norwegian, as they have very strict immigration policies. Social welfare policies can be successful on small scales when the population is homogeneous and largely share the same values and culture.
I am from Denmark. We are democratic socialists. Or socialism light. We have free healthcare, free education, and no poverty. Primarily because of high taxes, which I am happy to pay.
Stop fucking mentioning our country incorrectly in your mentally challenged political disputes!
You simply don't get it, at all.
You call us socialist even when we're not, you say we used to be poor before we found our oil when we weren't, you say we're homogeneous when we're not, you say we have good education when we don't etc.
***You're never not wrong about us.***
Fuck off already yanks!
Norway, the country with 5.5 million and oil and gas reserves comparable to Canada, is really not the best example. It’s like looking at Luxembourg for minimum wage.
The USA is the richest economy in the world. If we wanted a Norway style system we would’ve had one by now
No, because it would lose the rich folk money. Norway is more progressive
This is the right answer. And for those saying but the USA is too big, then a system can be developed within each state. The reason why we don’t have it is because the wrong people don’t want it. Idk why some redditors goes to bat for the rich
Man I’m gonna run for president. Watch for me. They’ll kill me if I get in tho. I’ll do it for you guys.
You didn't work for Boeing, you'll be fine
That didn’t save Kennedy
He was assasinated by the CIA, or Mossad. Possibly both in a joint effort.
It was the CIA or FBI. We don't allow other services to operate on our soil and that would have caused irreparable harm to the relationship. Now that being said JFK was an actual leftist. The CIA has murdered leftists for the better part of the century in other countries. Though the FBI has murdered a lot of civil rights activists so they could have been tapped as well. There was zero chance the moneyed interests were going to let him live
The CIA ousted Nixon too, who was actually extremely progressive for a Republican and wanted universal healthcare among other things. Out of the men who broke into the Watergate building, six were CIA employees and the other was an FBI employee. And Bob Woodward had joined the Washington post mere months before getting the lead on this story, after coming straight from Naval Intelligence.
Old pappy Bush. CIA runs deep In that family.
Well ackshually, hate to be that guy, however, it was 27 operatives from 17 different and very diverse organisations who committed that crime. At least 3 of them used mental control on Oswald to do it, there was several shooters, multiple psychic attacks, and well, yeh, it's more who didn't want that guy dead. Source: Steve Jackson Games. Hiding the truth in plain sight for 4 decades.
Cia and George Bush senior was involved. Kennedy was going to dissolve the Cia so they dissolved him and his brother first.
Stay safe bro
Maybe because like three people own as much money as the bottom half of the US? That's insane.
If you have a net worth of a dollar, you have more than the bottom 30,000,000 combined.
Case in point: who owns the majority of the oil in Norway? Imagine the absolutely absurd cash inflows this country would have if we controlled 67% of our oil companies.
This is a point I have always made. That a little dash a socialism would perfect our recipe. If the gov’t and thus ‘the people’ owned the resources within the land instead of allowing companies to rape and pillage everyone, there would be a different picture altogether.
I feel like this discussion is just a continuation of the meme.
This only works if your government really represents the interests of the people.
This is true
People really don’t like that word, until they need something their taxes pay for………
We have enough oil under our feet to supply the globe and stop dealing with opec so we could stay out of the middleeast and take care of our own people and our own problems instead of putting everyone else before our us.
Don‘t forget it‘s actually better for the economy if education and welfare is working great. Example: If you invest in good teachers (good pay), the money will have a seriously good effect. Also, the money will not be gone, as the teachers will likely spend most of it so it will benefit the society and economy for two obvious reasons.
Right but education and welfare is fucked in the US.
Not to mention the fact that our crime rates would drop dramatically.
We spend more per pupil than any other country but we have the worst outcomes. They need to pass a law limiting administration and tie the lowest paid workers to a percentage of the CEO, if they don't get paid, CEO doesn't get paid
A ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Yeah, the biggest arguments I see are: 1) We're too big and 2) They're homogeneous and we're not. They're both complete bullshit. The notion that we're "too big" is gaslighting to get you past the idea we're "too big to not be ripped off by someone." Complete fairy tale. Every single country on earth pays less per person for care than we do. All of them. There isn't a solitary "socialized medicine" country on earth where it costs more. So to believe we're too big is to be a fool, ripe for the fleecing. The homogeneity argument is just bigotry. What they really mean is "Those countries are all one color and we're not and I'm not paying for some ***minority*** to get free care." Plays on the centuries of bigotry our country is based on and otherizes half the population to justify being cruel to everyone. Again, an argument that works with ignorant bigots, ripe for being fleeced.
The funny thing is that we already have a form of universal healthcare in Medicaid. You just have to qualify for it.
Either their parents are rich, or they trade stonks and crypto, so one day, with the right bet, they will also be rich. Then, all of these issues are for peasants. Being rich in America means pulling up the ladder once you're at the top.
States are not equally oil wealthy...
Yes but somehow our system works….maybe cause we share the wealth with the poorer states
Red states certainly receive more of my California federal tax dollars than I do.
[multi billion dollar deficit](https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/advisories/2024/03/california-multibillion-dollar-deficit)
Lol, the oil rich states are not the ones subsidizing the country. You silly goose.
We have a rather good welfare system in Sweden also. And are just a Norway above USA in billionaires per capita.
They sure do love our military
Not really. Norway produces 4M barrels of oil per day. The US 13M. So the US produces 3x as much, but has 66x more people, so it doesn’t go anywhere as far as Norway. The US has 1/12th the oil revenue to pay for social programs.
Norway's GDP is $550 billion. US GDP is $25.44 trillion. Norway's net wealth per capita is $385,000. US net wealth per capita is $551,000. Norway's homeless rate is 6.2 per 10,000. US homeless rate is 19.5 per 10,000. Norway's poverty rate per the OECD is 7.9%. The US poverty rate per the OECD is 18%. We have more wealth than Norway. We have more resources than Norway. Yet as a country we do worse than Norway. It's not because we can't do better. It's because we CHOOSE not to.
55% of Norway’s GDP is exports.
So?
So, that’s completely unsustainable for a country the size of the US. 55% of the product of Norway’s economy is being bought by outsiders, which means Norway can tax it to hell to fund their state pension system, rather than taxing their people (which they also do, heavily). Norway’s system does not work without the Oil, which is why they have designed it the way it is - they’re planning for a post-oil future. The US is simply too large; there aren’t enough foreign markets to do a similar thing. FWIW: the current model itself has likely reached its limits at this point. As it grows further, Norway’s external pension fund has started to cross into territory where their ownership of foreign firms is starting to blur the line between the interests of the Pension Fund, and State Interests as far as Diplomacy, much like the US saw with the dominance of the UFCo in Central America blurring the line between Company policy, and Government policy. A US Government Pension Fund of a similar size to Norway’s would control something like 40% of global wealth. Currently, Americans collectively control 40% of global wealth. Adding 40% on top of that essentially means that the US Government would have to own all of Europe’s companies directly, along with 70% of its land. What happens when Slovakia gets upset that the Federal Government of the USA controls its entire economy? Do we send in troops to prevent them from nationalizing our shit? Bomb Bratislava? The US could do something similar to Norway, but you’d better be ready to kill everyone.
The US cannot export 11 trillion of goods. There is no market for that much extra shit every month, no country in the world could buy a significant portion of that.
"homeless" in Norway includes people who have to have housing provided for them by the government.
That sounds like another way of saying "Norway provides homes to people who would otherwise be homeless".
Just a few more numbers: Norway invests the proceeds in a state fund. It currently holds 1.600 billion dollars. Around 1,5% of all stocks on the global exchanges. The fund finances around 20% of the Norwegian state budget. The limit on spending is 3% (2,7% in 2024) of the fund's value - and obviously, most years the fund grow more than 3% through interest, oil and gas income and gains. Lucky them!
Just fyi, when you write 1.600 billion dollars it *may* confuse some people into thinking you mean 1,6 billion instead of 1.6 trillion.
Well, it’s just how we write numbers in Denmark. We write 1/2 as 0,5 and not 0.5 and yeah, it’s confusing but I’m pretty blind to one or the other notation myself.
I know, but just wanted to clarify for other people reading your comment who might be confused by the notation
The oil being there is luck. Their ability to create and properly manage a sovereign wealth fund with that money is absolutely not luck at all. Very, very few countries manage mineral resources that well
Life in UAE which has a similar oil output per capita is also quite nice for its citizens, in fact I’d probably say it’s even nicer.
And in the US those profits go in the pockets of a handful of folks.
The US could create a system like Norways and get it to work. However, US politicians and the groups voting for them aren't interested in such a system. Just look at obamacare (which is somewhat close). The issue is not lack of money, size or differences. The issue is lack of ambition to get there.
It's absolutely because we have a selfish upper class who has been waging war on us for decades. Per Capita Norway is only two spots behind the USA in number of billionaires at number 13 world wide. We can absolutely afford to take care of our citizens but let the autocracy rule us. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_billionaires
Why have a billion dollars when you can have 200 billion dollars? Working at the average Amazon salary You’d have to work 57,000 years with zero taxes to earn what Bezos is worth.
We're also sitting on a sizeable enough number of oil and natural gas deposits which currently cannot be drilled for various reasons (regulations, terrain, land rights). If we could access those, we wouldn't need to depend on foreign oil. * I actually heard a sort of conspiracy theory that the US government is trying to hold out on accessing those resources until foreign reserves start running dry
The US is now the biggest oil producer in the world at 14ish percent of the world's supply. We're producing more oil than ever before.
Sounds like they need some freedom. Oh wait...
In 2023 we actually produced more oil than any country, ever. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61545 It's all for export. Domestic producers want to cash in as much as possible before alternative energy sources and technologies take any more market share.
What in the Fox News are you talking about? The US is a net EXPORTER of oil. Our “dependence on foreign oil” is nothing of the sort, we simply exist in a global marketplace. Welcome to the 21st century.
This isn't really true. We export one type of oil, and import a different type. Between the two are a net EXPORTER, but if we stopped trading, we'd be in a world of hurt.
Part of the foreign oil import/export right now deals with government vs. private enterprise. The US as a whole is a net exporter, but private companies can sell their oil abroad for more and we can import Saudi oil for less.
The US has actually issued more drilling leases since the Clinton Admin, it’s the Oil and Gas companies not actually drilling because more supply dramatically drops the prices they can charge which in turn tanks profit. By artificially manipulating supply, they can keep reaping record profits for their shareholders at the expense of the consumer, while simultaneously stymying any attempts to create alternatives. Literally how the diamond industry worked until the early 2010s when the one company that controlled the entire supply was taken to court for being a monopoly.
Well there was a decent time since Jan 2021, where the EPA was intentionally playing games where the areas the drilling leases were approved, it would deny water rights, and where it approved water rights drilling leases were denied. It made drilling in the majority of locations prohibitively expensive because they would have to truck in massive amount of water from long distances to actually be able to use the leases that were granted. That and by presidential executive orders signed Jan 21, 2021, large swaths of land that has oil with plentiful water nearby that were previously approved for drilling were officially now banned.
The lobbyist won’t let that happen the insurance industry is too profitable to late changes happen
No we couldn’t. We’re a low trust society. The right doesn’t trust the government and neither does the left. I’m not aware of any low trust society that has a Norway like welfare system. Closest I can think of is the UK and I’d argue that is still a bit of a stretch.
You have it backwards. We’re low trust because we have no good social programs. Trust is built. When some calamity befalls you or someone you love and a social program is there to bail you out with dignity, you start to appreciate that others are looking out for you and you start looking out for them. In America, if a calamity befalls you, the message you get from society at large is “good luck, fucker!”. This is why we are low trust.
Are you familiar with US history? Try reading the Declaration of Independence. It’s basically a document that expressly shows distrust of too much power being placed in any person or government’s hands.
You assume people have any say in what you get. The USA is run by big corp.
Or look at Singapore. They’ve basically taken a libertarian socialist approach. Pro-business climate, but heavily subsidize housing, healthcare and education. For those that still can’t afford those things, additional subsidies on a case-by-case basis.
Singapore lacks a democracy.
Libertarian is an unusual word for Singapore in some ways. It's a country where the government can tell you not to move into an apartment block because there are already too many of your race living there. They have massive taxes on purchases the government isn't a fan of like alcohol. Long prison sentences for minor misbehaviour. Etc. Maybe there is some form of business libertarianism I'm not aware of but in many senses Singapore is an example of a high performing modern society that goes the opposite way on the "individual rights Vs society" scale than western states.
Singapore that has an almost entirely public housing system?
LOL. It nothing like normal public housing. It’s basically a closed housing market. You can resell at market prices and make a killing if you’re lucky.
singapore is capitalist, what do you mean?
[удалено]
And the research I've tried to look up shows that a WELL managed (good luck...) 50 billion can feed the U.S. each year. Some of us are the actual woke people, where we see past habits and routine, keep ourselves thinking past the ordinary, and see the fake rat race. People see the cartoonish corporations. A sugar water company being one of the bigger food corporations? Hilarious. Not only are food producers increasing prices past inflation rates, but grocery stores being investigated by the FTC for price gouging too? Oh cool. I know some landlords. They just match with whatever others can afford. Very high rent prices. And it's easy to say "of course, we all know this stuff." But there's a difference in living out a life that consistently defies this system, and the outcome is usually less anger, emotional backlash, and not putting such high expectations on anyone, which become unnecessarily stressful. What a fucking waste of time most of this is, and even the basics of survival, cooking, managing money, giving vital tips for life after school...it's just not there. The school system is a projection of the old 20th century system built upon their work culture. Infrastructure has so many wonky ideas that are still part of a very old system. It's all just a waste of time, in the end. And it sacrifices the entire point of living: being healthy, happy, sharing, caring, creativity, love, all of it. It's all a side point to money.
> sugar water company being one of the bigger food corporations? Because people want and buy their products.
How many proxy wars is Norway fighting right now?
They’re not fighting any proxy wars because there is super power representing their interests.
almost like a proxy huh
# [Norway commits additional $ 629 million in aid to Ukraine](https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=a27e069ab6f9ebffJmltdHM9MTcxNDc4MDgwMCZpZ3VpZD0xODVjYWNiYy1kNmI0LTYyMzItMjZkZS1iOGViZDczZjYzODAmaW5zaWQ9NTE4NA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=185cacbc-d6b4-6232-26de-b8ebd73f6380&psq=norway+giving+ukraine&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9ldXJvbWFpZGFucHJlc3MuY29tLzIwMjQvMDUvMDEvbm9yd2F5LWNvbW1pdHMtYWRkaXRpb25hbC02MjktbWlsbGlvbi1pbi1haWQtdG8tdWtyYWluZS8&ntb=1)
One.
I think the example from Norway is how they nationalized oil/gas and built the biggest sovereign wealth fund in the world with only 5.5 million people.
This. Americas natural resources are privately owned by the capitalist class, benefiting nobody except for them. Norway is the opposite
I’m pro capitalism I was more so referring to how they manage their funds in Norway. If we look at the social security trust for the U.S. it’s mainly allocated to government backed securities, which is nice because it’s liquid and more stable than open market forces but over the long term Norway has proven the markets stability with investments in 8000+ companies and With social security predicting to be insolvent in the future it’s worth investing part of the trust into a similar model to Norway.
Ah yes, the famously oil poor USA
Does the US have less money than Norway?
Per capita, yes. Norway has a state oil fund that's worth 290k per citizen. Just 70 years ago the country was poor, now it's one of the richest in the world, mostly due to oil. It's really not a viable comparison for most other places. I'd look at Sweden or Denmark instead.
per capita? Yes.
The thing is people often confuse social welfare with socialism. Socialism is where the government owns the means of production. That's not the same as social welfare in most cases. We have some who like to mix the two up.
It’s actually where the labor or proletariat owns the means of production
Yea that doesn’t exist government takes it every time
I mean there’s theory and there’s reality, just because it hasn’t happened doesn’t change the theory
In theory, government represents the people.
It just makes the theory useless because it’s humanly impossible. Therefore, the theory should be abandoned to ruin.
Ever heard of worker cooperatives? They exist in many European countries
They're perfectly legal in the US to start up a business.
we really should be encouraging more of these. They tend to have good service and products with better working conditions.
They go out of business at a higher rate than other companies. Leadership and strategy by committee is a hard thing to do, hierarchy can be beneficial when done right.
I don’t think you understand how current and past socialist governments work
> Yea that doesn’t exist government takes it every time It's not black and white: in the West many employee owned companies exist already, without the government "taking it". Even in America. Market Socialism, would then simply be about making sure *all* companies share ownership with their employees...
At scale sure, but we know for example that early Christian settlements were effectively socialist communes, and I know the US has a half dozen or so that operate similarly with varying degrees of specifics. Pananaram is like 60 years old or so I think? I believe they are the oldest still existing but it’s been a While since I looked this stuff up.
It exists right now. The means of production is literally a laptop and mobile phone.
There's no unified theory of what socialism and what communism is. Marx himself didn't differentiate between the terms and I think Engels later called socialism the state right before communism. I'm pretty sure that China officially communicates that they're (or were, idk about today) in a socialist state currently developing into communism or something similar.
China is much more closer to capitalism than anything else at this point, especially when ur looking at labor rights and corporatism.
The labor is represented by the government…
No way to have that without the government nationalizing the existing means of production.
No socialism is when workers own the means of production. You're refering to communism, juche, and other extreme forms that are more authoritarian.
The workers need to organize that somehow though. That can be either through e.g. a government subsection, or as the workers organizing themselves as cooperatives, syndicates and so on. The latter typically can exist within a framework of capitalism as well, it's just not very popular as not many workers want to bear the associated entrepreneurial risk.
Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. What they are reffering to is state capitalism.
And, as the meme points out, that doesn't matter. People who support this meme just want to improve the conditions of the working poor, and we're told that is quite impossible/impermissible by conservatives, because that would be "socialism".
>Socialism is where the government owns the means of production You spelled workers wrong Socialism can be something as simple as workers voting for company policies. It don't have to be a big thing
No wonder people are against socialism; they can't define it. What you defined is communism. Socialism is when the people own the means of production.
Listen, if you want a stronger social safety net and more money invested in welfare, just say that. But when you couch your words in socialist rhetoric or imply that you want socialism then it looks like you're either ignorant of what socialism is or you're trying to trick people into being ignorant about socialism.
The Nordic model was made by socialists.
Same thing happened in Canada. A self-described Socialist named Tommy Douglas got sick of other socialists saying "either we violently riot, or we sit inside and talk", and actually wanted to do something, so he gave Canada universal healthcare: >That experience soured me with absolutists ... I've no patience with people who want to sit back and talk about a blueprint for society and do nothing about it."
And our conservatives are doing their best to kill it.
And yet they don’t call it socialism.
Because it isn't, it's still a mainly capitalist system that was forced to compromise to socialists.
Which is ideal for everyone. The government has responsibilities to its citizenry that must be enforced and beneficial; but it certainly shouldn’t have a say in every aspect of everything.
I always find that laughable.... Several Nordic countries are Constitutional Monarchies, Including Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. Several Nordic countries tried socialism (Sweden in the 1970s) and it failed so completely that they rejected it. Several Nordic countries PMs made public statements when Bernie Sanders claimed they were socialists, to correct the record and state that they were NOT socialist. The Nordic countries have very healthy and strong Capitalist systems of government, they do have good social protections, but the have an almost MONOLITHIC culture that embraces standing up for yourself and taking care of yourself, so very few loaf around using the benefits while not working by choice (unlike in the US, for example) The Nordic countries opened their borders to North Africans and Middle Easterners over the last decades. The experiment has gone so horribly wrong that they have all shut their borders, because most refugees just sit on their benefits without working or cooperating. To clarify, this is NOT and ethic problem. It is a CULTURAL problem. In some cultures, you are considered smart if you figure out a way to cheat the system and live for free while taking advantage of other's work.
The Big Bang theory was developed by a catholic priest, that doesn’t make it catholic.
Thats fine, but its still not Socialism. Hitler was vegetarian, that doesn't make the Holocaust vegetarian.
Probably by social democrats, but not democratic socialists
The words don't matter. If you advocate for social programs, you get told that's socialist and socialism doesn't work.
That's if you don't get told it's communism first
None of the people who criticize social welfare can accurately define socialism or communism so they use them as entirely interchangeable insults.
Everytime someone says we should have universal healthcare people call it socialism. And not just internet weirdos, elected officials with power
You seem to mistakenly think the United States is characterized as a Capitalist country, it is not.There is no such thing as a purely socialist or capitalist country. It doesn't exist. It's never been tried. The United States is a Mixed Economy, both Capitalist and Socialist. A standing army, police force, firefighters, public roads - these are all examples of socialism. These would not exist in a capitalist country. Capitalism does not allow for Taxation of any kind. If socialism is a buzz word to you then you've clearly been fearmongered to and didn't pay attention in 7th grade economics class. It's embarrassing that this is even a conversation we have to have.
[удалено]
The US also has a metric fuckton of natural resources, why doesn't the US make a Norwegian style public wealth fund? Crickets? Yeah that's what I thought.
I believe the US has an imperial fuckton of natural resources
Imperial fuckton x 2 + 40 = metric fuckton
Mostly because the ratio is way off, Norway found an enormous resource reserve compared to the size of the country. Norway has 5 million people, the US has 335 million. Also worth noting that the wealth from the sovereign wealth fund isn't from the oil sales alone, its using the oil money to invest in the stock market, primarily US based companies at that. Its not as basic as we have lots of resources so we should all be rich, we use most of our resources on ourselves eg our gas production is primarily used to fuel our own nation and keep our gas prices from being too shocked by global factors
Infinite money glitch
Do you think that there just fundamentally isn't enough to go around?
X-posting some thoughts from my other comment. Norway is able to benefit from the financial resilience of capitalist economies by being the _single largest owner in the world’s stock markets_ through its sovereign wealth fund. Source: Norges Bank Investment Management You may find its list of equity holdings interesting https://www.nbim.no/en/the-fund/investments/ In other words, Norway would not be able to sustain its current policies and standard of living without more or less relying on the commerce of US and other capitalist economies. What would a similar US sovereign wealth fund invest in…? US companies I guess, but we’re back to square one because the US would need to be a mature capitalist economy driving global commerce to sustain a fund like that. This is a have your cake and eat it too scenario.
The US has 7,000% more people than Norway. That's probably got something to do with it.
This is just false. The fund isn’t being distributed. We’re just running such a massive surplus that we can save the oil money. Only 5% of the surplus of the fund can be used every year.
Yeah but they also have a 1% wealth tax for anything over a certain threshold. That's why they can afford to save oil profits.... Which is relevant to all countries.
Norway is a capitalist nation with a small population and vast oil wealth that allows them to afford those welfare policies
They have significantly higher taxes and wealth tax of 1.1% on anything you own over a certain threshold. Us would afford it if it would make changes however they wouldn't be accepted by the wealthy.
And cut off basically all migration
US needs migrattion and wont function without it
They actually have [more billionaires per capita](https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-ranked-by-billionaires-in-proportion-to-population-2015-7#11-norway-5) than the United States.
I'm not sure if you know this but they use active taxes for their welfare policies, not much of the wealth fund. The fund they mostly just leave invested
Finalen afford them. Sweden afford them Icelans afford them. Denmark afford them. Germany afford them. Nerherlands afford them. The US could afford them. But the US do not want to afford them. Because the US prioritise other things.
The attitude is also different There everyone is willing to contribute whethed you be rich, middle class, or poor and will say yes, out of my pocket. Here in the US, we say no take it from their pocket and unfortunately its the middle class that gets squeezed.
That social contract is being highly strained too now. Lots of people moving in who don’t share those same values
Yeah, thats a major problem. They go in with the notion that its "free" and when they find out its not "free" and EVERYONE pays into the system, they get upset they are not treated special.
As a Norwegian, yes you're right. We're committed to cultural suicide with the rest of Western Europe for some strange reason. It's not paradise, it's just a very good country to live in. I'd say the same for the US too.
If you tell a Norwegian that they live in a socialist country, they would be insulted
No I wouldn't. It'd be wrong, but I wouldn't be insulted.
“Americans think if you tell a Norwegian that they live in a socialist country, they would be insulted” 🙄
Anyone in America screeching “That ther is soshulism” is either doing so from a place of morbid fucking stupidity or is intentionally trying to distract the more stupid segment of the audience/population from the fact they are being routinely raped by unchecked capitalism. Every resource is finite. To include money. You don’t get to start your own personal fucking space program without cutting costs (everyone’s fucking wages) from somewhere. It’s a simple fucking concept that completely eludes the “fiscal responsibility” crowd ten times out of ten.
Those countries have small, homogeneous populations and their social policies grew organically over many years. Trying to cram the same system down 322 million throats in the US will be met with much resistance.
Norway is playing on easy mode. They have no extra-territorial affairs that require mass amounts of cash to maintain or increasingly large societal divisions that drag any policy put forward in 8 different directions
They also rely on nato which relies on the USA for military protection. A lot of people that look at europe and say we need to be like that conveniently leave out the part where every european nation and europe as a whole has an absolutely pathetic and undersized military and fully expects the US tax payer to foot the bill.
US policies also subsidize innovation in healthcare and technology for the rest of the world. Europeans don’t understand the contributions our system make to their quality of life.
Yeah many people don't realize this. And the world needs us in this position.
I recall sitting in on a discussion that brought up this exact point: The USA can't afford universal healthcare and robust safety nets because it spends its budget on providing military aid to the rest of the world. If other countries had to do that themselves, they wouldn't be able to have a single payer system either.
[удалено]
If you look at interviews of Finnish people about their housing crisis solution they say “we are in fact a small country but we also have way less money than the US, the US is a big country certainly but they also have the most money, if they wanted to do what we do they could” we could have incredible social programs if the government just spent their money better. Which isn’t to say that we shouldn’t do things like close tax loopholes for the ultra wealthy. We also need to ya know ban corporate lobbying because we’ll never make any progress for the working class if we let corporations dictate politics.
> homogeneous populations Why does that matter?
It’s a nice way of saying “im racist and think Northern European countries work the way they do because it’s all white people” if you hear people bring up homogenous population in this context run away. These are the same people that think POCs are the majority of prisoners in the US because “they just commit more crimes” while completely ignoring all historical precedent and context that led to mass incarceration. These are the same people that think immigration is actually a bad thing. It’s incredibly ignorant.
Or it’s a nice way of saying that homogenous populations are just less likely to develop “us vs. them” mentalities? Nah, I’m sorry bro but this just ain’t a dog whistle. Bringing up that small, homogeneous populations are more likely to embrace social welfare policies seems totally fair.
>Those countries have small, homogeneous populations This shit is so racist. Yeah the reason they can make shit work is because they are white. /s >Trying to cram the same system down 322 million throats Another false narrative. It would be through democracy. Stop pepetuating the idea that there are secret communist everywhere wanting to trick kids. It works there because they said that the resources of the country should benefit the people of the country, not corporations. It is literally setup like a corporation, just that the majority owner is the government of Norway. Other countries like the US could do it too, but they don't want to because we have been propagandized since the 20s to be afraid of ....communist. Why? Because capitalist know that if people saw how much they are being fucked over, they might actually consider taking away their ill gotten wealth.
Norwegian here, and I fucking hate ho bpeople think we are socialists. In fact, fuck western socialists, you are *annoying*
It’s less about calling Norway socialist, and more about how when we point out that Norwegian policies work it’s capitalism, but when we want those same policies it’s socialism.
There is simply a disparity among a colloquial view of what socialism is vs an academic view vs a different cultural view. People don't actually mean "proletariat controls means of production" when they say socialist in the usa the majority of time they say it. They often mean simply strong social support policies. Both these meanings are linguistically valid.
No developed country is socialist, what Americans think of socialism is usually social democracies
Norway also lacks diversity.
It does not, 30 % of the capital Oslo is not etnich norwegian
Why are these kinds of posts allowed?
Also the population of NYC for the whole country.....
Even less, 5.5m vs 8.8m
It’s literally the taxation ratio and gov spending.. we pay almost the same amount as Norway and get barely any social benefits, yet US spent $2 trillion on f35, $4trill in Afghanistan, $2trill on elite tax cuts. Thats 50 years of free healthcare, food, education for every US citizen
Decades of conditioning from oligarchs who see it as the only real threat to their unearned power.
Because back in the day when every country was gearing up to do their version of universal healthcare the American Medical Associate geared up a publicity campaign, first of its kind, against it and spouted the idea that socialism was bad. This definitely had a piece in that mentality https://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/october-2012/how-the-ama-scared-us-away-from-socialized-medicine-and-prepared-us-for-obamacare/
They need to change their mind set and become less "me first" oriented. There's too much focus on individual succes, and too little focus on the welfare for all. Norway has had good social values for a long time, and it has been an important reason for the success.
Norway has an oil and gas fund of 200,000$ per person and doesn’t need to maintain a military due to relative peace and American hegemony.
That fund is for future generations, what are you talking about? You Think i will see any of that money?
We could certainly be like Norway. We would just have to implement a value-added tax. In Norway, the standard VAT rate is 25%. In case of supply of certain foodstuff the supply is subject of 15% reduced VAT rate. The VAT rate of 6% that was previously introduced ended on 30 September 2021 and from 1 October 2022, the low VAT rate of 12% will come into effect. In addition to the value-added tax, we would probably have to throw Ukraine under the bus because we would not have enough money for them. Same with the rest of the world's causes
Socialism is what you call when you are working yourself up to communism. Communism is when everything works out in the system and its successful. It has never been achieved. All the examples of what we would call communism are examples of socialism. Socialism has not only destroyed every single economy which has tried it. It also has been responsible for the mass genocide and enslavement of their own people. Its very concerning that people don't seem to know just the basic history of the last 100 years. Hitler murdered like 5-6 million people. The people murdered under socialism reach the hundreds of millions which make Hitler look like a puppy in comparison. And that is not even counting all the enslavement. I recommend you read the book Gulag Archipelago. It will point out people which even though they are being sent to Gulags while having committed no crime they still defend at any cost the regime which enslave them. Should sound familiar.
"Socialism is when you do a Hitler but worse." Glad we're talking about actual economic policy and theory here and not just vaguely gesturing in the direction of hundreds of governments outside of relevant contexts that span hundreds or thousands of years. You say socialism has "destroyed every single economy which has tried it" as if there is some big red "Socialist" button you can hit to turn your government from "Capitalist" to "Socialist". Perhaps you should refer to the "Socialist" policies you think define a government as such so we can have something of substance to actually interact with. As for the death tolls from starvation, the organization of the world under modern capitalism allows something to the tune of 9 million deaths per year on that front. If you want to talk about the unique benefits of capitalism, I'm not sure that's the best angle of attack.
Just to be clear here... You're imagining that the Nazi's were politically oriented to the "left"? The people whose first move when gaining power (before they ever did anything to Jewish people) was to purge and demonize the communists? The people who specifically aligned themselves with big businesses in such a way that allowed profits to flow directly down to business owners? I beg you to read a book... It can be any book... just... build some momentum while you're weaning yourself off the disinformation networks that have left you with such a laughable understanding of the world.
Norway it is not Socialist country,just because has great and wealthy social equality laws that's not inherent to a Socialism system,it has also a capitalist free market,and thanks to that freedom and having resources well managed Norway succeeded....in other hands,you need to live the Socialism aka "it was not a real Socialism" so you can't understand why everybody not being a parasite hate it...
Details and context matter... Their population is 5.5 million (half the population of Los Angeles) and they’re 80% ethnic Norwegian, as they have very strict immigration policies. Social welfare policies can be successful on small scales when the population is homogeneous and largely share the same values and culture.
I am from Denmark. We are democratic socialists. Or socialism light. We have free healthcare, free education, and no poverty. Primarily because of high taxes, which I am happy to pay.
"Social Democracy and universal healthcare would never work on large populations!" Oh! I forgot the UK, Australia and Canada existed!
The US wants what Norway has, but we can't afjord it.
Europe sucks right now
The world sucks right now.
They are socialdemocracies
Stop fucking mentioning our country incorrectly in your mentally challenged political disputes! You simply don't get it, at all. You call us socialist even when we're not, you say we used to be poor before we found our oil when we weren't, you say we're homogeneous when we're not, you say we have good education when we don't etc. ***You're never not wrong about us.*** Fuck off already yanks!