3 ms·
If you want to argue that, at least get your facts straight first. In Europe, the stronger welfare states of Northern Europe and Scandinavia has had much strong
by xorcist 12y ago
If you want to argue that, at least get your facts straight first. In Europe, the stronger welfare states of Northern Europe and Scandinavia has had much stronger economies during the financial crisis. They have also had much better success retraining their work force when industrial jobs has been lost to the cheaper Asian countries.
There are many reasons why (most of) Europe is in a depression right now. One of the important ones is the financial crisis that started in the US and spread across the world, where European banks were invested up to their ears. Another is the former tiger states of Ireland and Portual, where low company taxes attracted money which was invested in a real estate bubble which popped when the economy tanked. A third is the Euro experiment which didn't really pan out the way politicians had hoped (to put things mildly).
So there is a whole complex of reasons for the current situation and no one can really point out any single one as more important with any confidence. But one of the few things we do know is that welfare states have generally fared better in the crisis, not worse.
- ende 12y agoJust FYI, the Nordic countries had been in a process of scaling back their welfare states considerably leading up to the financial crises and are still struggling to achieve sustainability (except Norway which has a mountain of oil). It is the southern european states that have spent lavishly on behemoth welfare states that are struggling the hardest, forced into harsh austerity as a condition of bailout by wealthier states.
- xorcist 12y agoWell, it's all relative here. The welfare state has been getting slimmer over the past 20 years. But to understand what has changed, one needs to look at the details. It is mainly the work loss insurances that pays out over a shorter period out time. Defense spending is also continously down in all the mentioned countries. But investments in health care and education has paid off well during the same time period, and there is no democratic mandate to lessen it. Compared to the US it would still look like a socialist model. The southern countries (not states) have spent a lot of money, but not necessarily on classic social insurance systems, so I don't really think it compares. Their main problem is that their underlying economy was much too weak for what they've been spending.
- ende 12y agoSlimmer, but also just more efficient in some respects. The Nordic countries aren't afraid to experiment and innovate, which is perhaps the real Nordic model. Interesting that you take exception to my use of the word state. I generally regard the word interchangeable with any sovereign territory outside of a US context, as does much of the international relations field.