4 ms·

I think it's very much a cultural thing. Much of the social system in the US is informal. For example in the American South, things like the Salvation Army are

I think it's very much a cultural thing. Much of the social system in the US is informal. For example in the American South, things like the Salvation Army are huge and lots of small churches have homeless programs, food drives, and facilities that push for employment skills. Of course that ties a lot of dogma into social help, but it's there. Sweden, having a much smaller government with fewer conflicting factions is able to have more efficient government. The average American who supports these other social systems doesn't trust that the government can do an effective job of providing them (and maybe for good reason). I very much agree with you, but that informal/formal distinction is important.

geon 10y ago
> Sweden, having a much smaller government with fewer conflicting factions Lol. In contrast to the US, Sweden has a somewhat functioning democracy with more than 2 mainstream parties.
- vidarh 10y ago
  But I think Sweden, and the rest of Scandinavia (I'm Norwegian) has a less adversarial political system. We're used to coalitions, so most political parties are careful not to burn bridges totally. We also often have broad negotiated compromises where the US is more likely to have bitterly fought battles leading to a small majority where the losers ends up trying hard to reverse the decision afterwards (witness the Affordable Care Act debacle). E.g. when the immigration crisis hit all the parties in parliament in Norway other than the Progress Party (furthest right wing populists in parliament) negotiated a joint agreement, rather than wrangling until someone managed to get just a 5x% majority for their plan. As a result a lot of decisions end up being a lot less controversial than one might think, and remain more stable, as few substantial decisions rest on a minor parliamentary majority.
  - geon 10y ago
    Insightful. I also think the 2-party system in the us tends to polarize all discussion. Everything has to fit on the same left/right scale, and there is no middle ground.
    - soundwave106 10y ago
      It hasn't always been the case, though. During a period from roughly 1930 to late 1970s, political polarization in this country was rather modest. (http://www.voteview.com/pdf/The_Polarization_of_Modern_US_Politics.pdf http://www.voteview.com/pdf/The_Polarization_of_Modern_US_Po...) Only recently has political polarization approached the levels last seen in the late 19th century. And even with current heavy polarization, it's not completely binary. I can easily see, say, four party possibilities out of our current two.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > It hasn't always been the case, though. During a period from roughly 1930 to late 1970s, political polarization in this country was rather modest. That's because the country was undergoing a partisan realignment (well, at least two that overlapped, one economic tied to the new deal coalition and one racial and tied to civil rights), where the emerging new axes of political differentiation did not align well with the divide between the major parties (but where the two were progressively moving into alignment.)
  - kwhitefoot 10y ago
    I think the same contrast applies between most northern European countries on one side and Us plus UK on the other as far as adversarial politics is concerned. But I think it is not just politics, everyday life is less adversarial too here in Norway. I've been living here for over thirty years now and all the interactions that I have with the state are less complicated than they were when I was the UK (where I come from). I generally feel that people in the civil service, health system, etc. are genuinely trying to be helpful and not obstructive. Systems seem to be designed to work for the individual and not just for the treasury. For instance when you pay for medicine or treatment there is a cap and when that is exceeded you are refunded automatically in your next year's tax settlement. Of course it's not perfect but it seems that there is a stronger sense of solidarity here than in the English speaking countries.
digi_owl 10y ago
I think by social system he includes the health services. A similar notion about Norway singled out the public health services as an enabler for someone to come up with an idea and start their own business without worrying about things like health insurance. Thus the business could grow more organically than the pump and dump VC circus seen in USA.
- PastaMonster 10y ago
  Health services in Sweden is going down hill fast, I've heard. Money issues. They are trying to save money wherever they can. The recent sudden influx of foreigners didn't help. They say Sweden couldn't really afford taking in any foreigners but did it anyway. Sweden shooting itself in the foot. It sounds like. Perhaps someone can give a recent update on this?
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    I suspect that is scaremongering from the suits that wants to let in American style for profit medical services. Same shits been going on in Norway for decades.
    - ionised 10y ago
      And the UK
Maakuth 10y ago
These informal systems are nice and all, but one problem in charity in general is the judgment involved. A welfare state has the ability to provide for the unpleasant people as well, whereas charity often requires you to match the expectations as a person in need. Think about people with substance abuse or other psychological problems - these kind of people might have hard time getting help from a charity. It doesn't feel charitable to help drunken, angry or otherwise distasteful people, yet they deserve help.

geon 10y ago

> Sweden, having a much smaller government with fewer conflicting factions Lol. In contrast to the US, Sweden has a somewhat functioning democracy with more than 2 mainstream parties.

vidarh 10y ago
But I think Sweden, and the rest of Scandinavia (I'm Norwegian) has a less adversarial political system. We're used to coalitions, so most political parties are careful not to burn bridges totally. We also often have broad negotiated compromises where the US is more likely to have bitterly fought battles leading to a small majority where the losers ends up trying hard to reverse the decision afterwards (witness the Affordable Care Act debacle). E.g. when the immigration crisis hit all the parties in parliament in Norway other than the Progress Party (furthest right wing populists in parliament) negotiated a joint agreement, rather than wrangling until someone managed to get just a 5x% majority for their plan. As a result a lot of decisions end up being a lot less controversial than one might think, and remain more stable, as few substantial decisions rest on a minor parliamentary majority.
- geon 10y ago
  Insightful. I also think the 2-party system in the us tends to polarize all discussion. Everything has to fit on the same left/right scale, and there is no middle ground.
  - soundwave106 10y ago
    It hasn't always been the case, though. During a period from roughly 1930 to late 1970s, political polarization in this country was rather modest. (http://www.voteview.com/pdf/The_Polarization_of_Modern_US_Politics.pdf http://www.voteview.com/pdf/The_Polarization_of_Modern_US_Po...) Only recently has political polarization approached the levels last seen in the late 19th century. And even with current heavy polarization, it's not completely binary. I can easily see, say, four party possibilities out of our current two.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > It hasn't always been the case, though. During a period from roughly 1930 to late 1970s, political polarization in this country was rather modest. That's because the country was undergoing a partisan realignment (well, at least two that overlapped, one economic tied to the new deal coalition and one racial and tied to civil rights), where the emerging new axes of political differentiation did not align well with the divide between the major parties (but where the two were progressively moving into alignment.)
- kwhitefoot 10y ago
  I think the same contrast applies between most northern European countries on one side and Us plus UK on the other as far as adversarial politics is concerned. But I think it is not just politics, everyday life is less adversarial too here in Norway. I've been living here for over thirty years now and all the interactions that I have with the state are less complicated than they were when I was the UK (where I come from). I generally feel that people in the civil service, health system, etc. are genuinely trying to be helpful and not obstructive. Systems seem to be designed to work for the individual and not just for the treasury. For instance when you pay for medicine or treatment there is a cap and when that is exceeded you are refunded automatically in your next year's tax settlement. Of course it's not perfect but it seems that there is a stronger sense of solidarity here than in the English speaking countries.

digi_owl 10y ago

I think by social system he includes the health services. A similar notion about Norway singled out the public health services as an enabler for someone to come up with an idea and start their own business without worrying about things like health insurance. Thus the business could grow more organically than the pump and dump VC circus seen in USA.

PastaMonster 10y ago
Health services in Sweden is going down hill fast, I've heard. Money issues. They are trying to save money wherever they can. The recent sudden influx of foreigners didn't help. They say Sweden couldn't really afford taking in any foreigners but did it anyway. Sweden shooting itself in the foot. It sounds like. Perhaps someone can give a recent update on this?
- digi_owl 10y ago
  I suspect that is scaremongering from the suits that wants to let in American style for profit medical services. Same shits been going on in Norway for decades.
  - ionised 10y ago
    And the UK

Maakuth 10y ago

These informal systems are nice and all, but one problem in charity in general is the judgment involved. A welfare state has the ability to provide for the unpleasant people as well, whereas charity often requires you to match the expectations as a person in need. Think about people with substance abuse or other psychological problems - these kind of people might have hard time getting help from a charity. It doesn't feel charitable to help drunken, angry or otherwise distasteful people, yet they deserve help.