georgeob1 wrote:Norway has been blessed for the last two decades with enormous income from the North Sea oil fields. This has made the difference in prevailing living standards there - not the high tax, social welfare policies of its government. Thirty years ago Stavanger was a pleasant, but slightly rundown, picturesque little town. What a difference the oil money has made!
Some 95 % of Norwegian oil revenue is invested rather than spent. The vast majority of the oil money now resides in the oil fund, invested in markets across the world. Hydropower was more important in industrializing and modernizing the country, and the fish industry, while it does not produce the revenues of the oil industry, provided a lot of jobs back in the days, still provide quite a few.
Sweden and Denmark have done without these resources though, and have achieved results similar to ours with policies similar to ours. Afraid you will have to come up with a better parry than "the oil did it".
georgeob1 wrote:It is true that the Scandanavian countries generally have succeeded in developing successful social welfare programs that have not yet choked off economic activity. However I doubt they are a useful model for the rest of the developed world. They are very homogenious societies that have worked hard to exclude foreign cultural influences. Immigration policies in Sweden and Norway are highly restrictive, even by European standards. Greenhouse flowers.
How would increased immigration spoil our domestic policies?
Quote:Einherjar, yes. Those policies are which i would cosider those socialist policies and which make a country not socialist in terms of completely government run, but high government involvement, progressive tax and high spending on healthcare and education. I know it is a vague and not all encompassing definiton, but it is just how i picture it.
The scandinavian countries fit this mold.
kflux wrote:It is a common misconception , that the extreme right wing control american politics . what is really going on , in my opinion , is that the center of our country feels that the left wing has gotten out of control , so we are voting for the right inorder to bring things back into balance.
The Democrats are slightly right of center by an international standard, and are loosing elections to a right of right wing party, thus the US is controlled by the extreme right.
kflux wrote:to Answer "how much de we seem to hate the US on TV" . well , i do realise that the most extreme actions always make the front page , So if you look to the most extream antiamerican protest and statements comeing from Europe , that is almost all that we see right now . It is important that both sides know what the center is thinking , something the world media ignores allot of the time . looking at the common ground between nations is what makes peace possible , not looking at extremist on either side.
Yes, you people appear rabidly anti-european as well. Europeans are pretty much in line with the Democrats on most issues, we wish you well, but might not quite agree with you about what well would be. While the vast majority disagree with your more controversial policies, only a small minority would want to see you enter another recession in order to prevent you from continuing those policies.
The vast majority consider guantanamo to violate international law (doesn't really matter to people wether there is a loophole, geneva is supposed to secure a minimum of humane treatment, and violating it, even if it is legal, does not ring well in these parts.) We also object to Iraq over legality issues. Your Iraq policy is viewed as rash and impatient, and a large majority of us are convinced that Bush lied leading up to the war.
People also find the religious undertones in politics disturbing, or at least ridiculous. exessive nationalism is also sometimes criticized, the american "sofa patriot" is a popular caricature.
We do distinguish between US policy and the US though, at least most of us do.
nimh wrote:I'm one of those big on distinguishing socialism from communism. Socialists are indeed typically for free elections, for example (in re: to a post just above). But since any discussion of socialism with Americans tends to often get to be about communism, instead, I just found this quote that I thought represents communism perfectly ... thought I'd post it here ...
Communism is a social order where people are organised in a number of communities, "communes", with territorial borders drawn between communities. These communities are free to trade with each other. Within each community work and benefits are distributed according to the "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" principle.
Socialism is used both of the governmental structure of the USSR and the economic policies of the USSR. This regime styled itself socialist, and considered itself a prelude to a communist social order. Socialism is also used by some to describe policies aimed at wealth redistribution, and improving workingconditions. It is used by others to describe govenmental social security systems, and by others yet again to describe high governmental spending in areas such as of healthcare and education.
I gave up pinning down the definition of socialism a long time ago, and have instead taken to parroting "how do you define socialism?" whenever the topic comes up.
Love the quote by the way.
eddited for spelling multiple times (what is the matter with the spell checker?)