3 ms·

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

by 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
  That's how it used to be, but ever since the US Civil War the federal government has been gaining more and more power. States used to self-govern, no more. See the federal raids on legal medical marijuana caregivers and patients in California.
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.

by sbt 18y ago

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
That's how it used to be, but ever since the US Civil War the federal government has been gaining more and more power. States used to self-govern, no more. See the federal raids on legal medical marijuana caregivers and patients in California.

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.