Is socialist policies a sign of prosperity?

Great Debates
21

One doesn’t even know where to start, other than criticize a completely unsupported proposition.

First, if we take “socialism” to mean the protection of the poor without respect to their competence at competing in an unregulated society, then it’s fair to say that socialism in some modern countries has succeeded quite well. Socialist policies in many European nations have produced a very good support system. One notes that its success in countries considered highly socialized such as Sweden, is more successful when the population is homegeneous. In recent years immigrant populations which are less competitive (academically, especially) still struggle to be other than heavily supported “poor.”

If we consider the notion that a country can–as a unit of commerce–be capitalist, then capitalism ALWAYS wins. Once you broaden out to include the world as the “poor” that need supporting, then only a capitalist nation will thrive on the world stage.

So the “socialist” notion that socialism is somehow superior because it supports the poor best (and I’ll leave aside the weakness of the statement that that is how one measures prosperity) extends only as far as a nation’s border.

Were Sweden–or any other nation–to decide that all humans worldwide need supporting to the extent that Sweden supports its own, then socialism collapses the nation which practces it immediately while Capitalist nations thrive.

At some point, for economic success, a nation needs to function as a single narcissistic unit above the altruistic idealism that the global poor should get supported beyond the way we support any beggar.

22

This seems to be a heavily propagated internet meme.

When observing the real world, countries which are heterogeneous, such as Switzerland, Canada, Sweden and Australia, do not seem to be at any disadvantage compared to more homogeneous ones like Norway, Iceland, Finland, Austria etc.

There seems to be no correlation observable.

23

Socialist policies may not be a sign of prosperity, but they are definitely a sign of future poverty (see: Venezuela). (-:

24

Why is Venezuela representative of the future of socialist countries?

25

#5 what?
Also, massively depending on handouts from the USSR and later Venezuela is hardly a success story.

26

Cuba is a communist country, not a social democracy.

27

Human development index. They were second a few years ago- the countries at the top are all pretty close to each other- now they’re fifth after the Southern Cone countries and Panama.

28

The tug of war between the American right and left has led to a weird situation where almost anything the government does is socialism now. Public works, postal service, welfare, public schools, public police and fire fighters, it’s all socialism.

Probably not a helpful term when everything from the Romans, the Song Dynasty, or Bismarck’s Germany can be described as socialist.

29

Americans are savagely ignorant and grievously misinformed about what exactly constitutes the difference between socialism and capitalism, and how they aren’t opposites.

Most every country contains capitalism and socialism blended together, unless the government provides no public services for the benefit of its civilian population.

Socialism is the idea that the public can cover the costs of things that individuals cannot or should not. It isn’t the idea that the profit motive should be eliminated from all sectors of the economy, nor does it seek to eliminate the wealthy class. If anything, the wealthy class prospers even more when there’s a vital and healthy middle class with lots of spending money. The entire economy does well if everyone isn’t dirt poor, because then more money changes hands and jobs are sustainable and the economy can weather storms better.

If you have a system where the rich own businesses whose only customers are the poor, and the poor have no money and struggle to get employment at all, then the wealth of the society becomes stagnant and the economy doesn’t grow.

See what’s happening right now with WalMart, and observe that other companies which pay their employees more than WalMart does are doing better, even though Wal*Mart is suggesting it’s the cost of labor doing them in. Observe that in other countries, businesses which pay their employees more and charge more for their products and services are extremely healthy, and so are the economies of those countries.

Only in the United States with its stagnant wages, dirt-poor working class, and obscenely wealthy rich class, is the economy so fragile and prone to economic depression.

30

For reference, socialist Norway has an unemployment rate of 4%, and universal healthcare, and high wages for its people. Full time is less than 40 hours a week and there’s no real pressure to work longer hours.

The United states has a higher unemployment rate, 30 million uninsured people, and stagnant wages which do not cover the basic medical costs, living costs, and other unavoidable costs of living at only 40 hours per week of employment. Many poverty level employed persons have to work 50-60 hours a week to make bills in even the cheapest places to live, in the most crime-infested ghettos.

The difference is vast. The only way you can’t see this is if you don’t personally live in the middle of it, don’t earn poverty level wages while working harder than the next several income brackets combined, and have never experienced how it works better in other countries with less advantages.

Do you think most of the world speaks Norwegian? How many Norwegian products do you recognize in the US?

How does McDonald’s afford to pay its workers twice the hourly wage, minimum, in a country where McDonald’s is a foreign chain with non-native food. You’d think they’d struggle here, since they somehow can’t afford higher wages in the States, even though they’re a corporation that makes more money than God himself and there’s a McDonald’s every five feet.

It’s just impossible. They cant do the math.

You keep buying that line. Socialism bad, capitalism good. See how much good it’s doing you.

Meanwhile in Norway, they do Capitalism better, and socialism better. And guess what? Both ideas benefit from the other.

*Astonishing. *

Money only has meaning to an economy when it’s changing hands. Otherwise it serves no purpose whatsoever. Having stagnant wages, low wages, and a handful of families controlling most of the wealth, who use that wealth to ensure their workers are as desperate as can be, is not an economy you want to be a part of unless you’re dumb. Which, to be fair, you probably are if you were educated in the United States and they taught you nothing except capitalism good, invisible hand good, socialism bad. Four legs good, two legs bad.

31

The idea that Sweden is homogenous is largely incorrect. About 20% of the population is made up of immigrants or children of immigrants (about as much or more than the US), and Sweden has always been heavily influenced by other nations.

It would also be good if you could clarify the part in italics, because the sentence structure does not make sense to me. I literally do not understand what you’re saying there.

32

[QUOTE=Askthepizzaguy]
For reference, socialist Norway has an unemployment rate of 4%, and universal healthcare, and high wages for its people. Full time is less than 40 hours a week and there’s no real pressure to work longer hours.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, if only every country could have low population densities, homogenous populations and large amounts of oil and gas resources, we could all be just like Norway! Great comparison there between Norway and the US. I mean, why can’t we be just like them??? The differences between us are so minor after all…

:stuck_out_tongue:

33

Pick Sweden or Denmark then. Or Germany. Or the Netherlands. They don’t have homogenous populations or great natural resources. Just because you don’t want it to be true from ideological reasons doesn’t mean it isn’t. That’s the problem with many Americans it seems, they think that the US is super special and that if you just believe something enough it will make it true.

34

When people talk about how socialism or social welfare works for “homogeneous” countries, what they really mean is that America can’t do it because we have too many Blacks and Mexicans.

35

Oh, is that what I REALLY meant? :stuck_out_tongue: So, really, I meant that America can’t do this sort of thing because I live here then?? :dubious:

36

None of those countries is socialist. They are all mixed economies, like the US, differing only by degree.

You’re holding us back, XT!! :smiley:

37

Ok…what would picking any of those suggest? Do they have lower sustained unemployment than the US? They don’t appear too. Higher wages? Again, they don’t appear too. They do have universal health care, but other than that they don’t seem to be consistently and across the board better than the US in all the other cherry picked categories I was responding to with Norway…just like the ones you picked. Why didn’t you pick, say, France, Spain, Ireland and Italy? How about Greece?? :stuck_out_tongue: In addition, none of these countries are ‘socialist’…they are all mixed economies. Just like the US is.

ETA: Or what John Mace said. And yeah…I’m obviously the reason that the US can’t achieve socialist paradise and allow all the lefties to live as og intended. :slight_smile:

38

As far as I am aware none of the countries are “socialist”. They are (or have been) social democracies that have instituted ideas of a socialist nature such as UHC and free universities.

But yes, I think the US has some seriously stupid policies and that about half the population is living in ideological la-la land, believing in irrational myths like trickle down economics and other forms of nonsense. And since they keep believing these things after they have been proven wrong again and again, I have to assume that it is that I say. That they think that just because you believe something, it makes it true.

39

… and would likely be higher if not for US sanctions.

The US has very low population density - we’re just above Sweden on the list - and abdundant oil and gas resources. I am aware that you are not brining up population homogeneity as a distinction because there is something wrong with blacks and Mexicans, but that issue has been raised numerous times here any nobody has ever been able to explain why it would matter otherwise.

40

You don’t see the irony in the fact that you believe something as well, and to you that ‘makes it true’? :wink: My own point was that Askthepizzaguy was obviously cherry picking examples and making a ridiculous comparison between Norway, 5+ million and the US, population 320+ million. We have CITIES that are larger than the population of Norway. A more apt comparison would be to compare the entire EU to the US. I don’t mind THAT comparison, even though in many cases the US comes out behind. At least it’s apples to apples though.