4 ms·

Good point. Socialism doesn't scale. This is more of an issue about the size and homogenity of the population than any ingenious public policy. Unfortunately, l

• vidar 18y ago
  Most of the points raised here about Iceland (my home country) and your so-called "socialism" apply equally well to Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Look them up in the happiness, education and economic statistics. They are multimillion populations that are doing quite nicely, "socialism" notwithstanding.
  • anamax 18y ago
    There are US cities with more people and there are more Swedes in Minnesota than in Sweden. We'll see how those monolithic countries cope with an influx of "other". I wish them the best.
  • sbt 18y ago
    I apologize for being vague. First off, Scandinavia is not socialist. It is pragmatic, if anything. Secondly, when I said socialism doesn't scale I was thinking about countries with at least 20 million citizens. However, it seems likely that some of the policies employed in Scandinavia in general simply wouldn't apply to a country like the UK. It seems likely that larger populations are more difficult to organize, and one has to resort to a more "greedy" approach. That said, Scandinavia is not all about homogenity and scale. It's also about culture: work-ethic, egalitarianism and a culture where people don't just screw each other over to make a fast buck.
    • michael_dorfman 18y ago
      20 million people is the maximum size for Scandinavian-style socialism? In that case, here's a suggestion-- why not divide the US into, say, fifty separate geographical administrative units? (By the way: I live in Norway, and was recently screwed over big-time by Norwegians looking to make a fast buck. In my experience, the "work ethic" is far below that of hte US. But I wouldn't be too quick to generalize....)
      • JesseAldridge 18y ago
        We tried dividing it in two once -- didn't work out so well...
        • michael_dorfman 18y ago
          Yeah, that's why I thought 50 semi-independent units might do the trick. I figure one for the islands out in the Pacific, and one for the big chunk hanging off of Canada; and the other 48 can divide the piece between Canada and Mexico. I've even got cute names picked out, if you'd like to hear them...
          • Xichekolas 18y ago
            I think the reason a "nation with one big budget and financial system" works better than "50 small budgets and systems in a confederacy" is that the smaller, poorer states benefit heavily from the bigger richer states. In general, taxpayers in rich states get back less than they pay in federal taxes, and the beneficiaries are poorer states, who get back more than they pay. It's a good setup, because prosperity in one area can help the whole country, and it lessons the infighting among the states. A rising tide lifts all boats if you will. If one state suddenly goes from 'poor' to 'rich' (like Texas when oil became a big deal) then other states will automatically benefit.
            • LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
              The original confederacy under the Articles of Confederation resulted in a system where nothing got done, due to the lack of any federal executive power. The US Constitution was explicitly designed to balance the power of the federal and state interests. Since the Civil War though, that balance has tipped towards the federal government retaining the power and authority over money. The increase of executive power in the federal system is a two-edged sword. So is the large budget. It lends itself to inefficiencies in spending which are more easily remedied at a state or local level.
      • rms 18y ago
    • ichverstehe 18y ago
      Oh, and third off: Scandinavia only refers to Denmark, Norway and Sweden. To include Iceland and Finland, which is what we're doing here, it's the Nordic countries.
  • johnyzee 18y ago
    Honestly, both Sweden, Denmark and Norway have growing problems with influx of immigrants and refugees, who are unable to contribute, but nonetheless must be offered the same benefits as everyone else. This is creating a dangerous backlash. To say that you can't generalize about work ethic and business integrity just shows a lack of experience. Please travel to the rest of the world. The reason our countries are like this is what's been hinted at: Affluency and homogenous cultures. The real test of a society, in my opinion, is what happens when you have to adapt? When diverse groups join or sources of wealth become scarcer. In this regard the American model has really proven itself: Let everyone in, but expect them to make it work for themselves instead of having everything handed to them. (Unfortunately, lately America is preferring the Fort Apache model.)
    • michael_dorfman 18y ago
      I'm one of those "immigrants" in Norway, and I seem to have been able to contribute just fine-- in fact, my start-up employees 30 people, most of them natives. My reticence to generalize about work ethic and business integrity is not due to a lack of experience-- I have travelled a fair bit-- but because stereotyping based on anecdotal experience seems dangerous.
      • gahahaha 18y ago
        An immigrant, cool, which part of Somalia do you come from? I am very impressed that you adapted so well from being an illiterate sheep herder to a highly structured western society, and was even able to start your own company. Good job. Joking aside. Highly skilled workers like yourself immigrating isn't the problem. People aren't racists, but they are also not blinded by ideology like people on the left (be kind to others) and right (free movement of people) who, for different reasons welcome unlimited immigration.
        • michael_dorfman 18y ago
          People aren't racists? You sure about that? I don't remember saying anything about "unlimited" immigration, by the way...