3 ms·

They were kept in check by the other parties -- and the smartest of the smartest amongst the Social Democrats understood that the state didn't actually work and

They were kept in check by the other parties -- and the smartest of the smartest amongst the Social Democrats understood that the state didn't actually work and that they needed a free private sector to tax so they could afford to buy votes. (The Scandinavian countries have more economic freedom in their private sectors than almost all the rest of the world, including the US. That's why they can, sorta, kinda, afford those bloated States and all that Socialism. Plus Norway has the oil, of course.)

peterfirefly 12y ago
What I wrote there was correct and a positive contribution to the discussion and can be backed with sources. No need to downvote just because one disagrees.
- alvarosm 12y ago
  Forget about discussing anything here. You'll get downvoted to oblivion by the Marxist religious zealots.
- tenementfunster 12y ago
  "Winners" in America usually stick with capitalism as they get older because it worked well for them.
tormeh 12y ago
You have some good points, but I dislike how you say "buy votes". Is it only buying votes when you give money to the poor instead of the rich? And the private sector wasn't all that big in the post-world war 2 era. Norway's government spending is now at 40% of GDP and Sweden's at 50%. And they used to be way bigger. And we're not counting cooperatives.
- peterfirefly 12y ago
  The poor have more votes and are probably cheaper to buy ;)
  - pgeorgi 12y ago
    But as can be seen in the US, policies that favor the rich are effect buy-outs of votes, too. Just that they target temporarily embarrassed millionaires (same group, different promise).
arethuza 12y ago
"the state didn't actually work" If only my state didn't work as well as the average Scandinavian state.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  Indeed. It's only possible to claim that European Social Democracy is some kind of ordeal for most of the population, compared to US Capitalism if you ignore all the facts. E.g. Even in the tooth-and-claw UK, I remain thankful for the fact that I can run a business without having to worry about being financially raped by healthcare providers. The reality is that socialist-lite state funding of essential services and infrastructure gives populations a lot of freedoms that simply aren't available in a corporatocracy, and is also more stable socially, politically and economically. Dogmatic assertions that wilfully disregard the mountains of evidence to the contrary don't have much to offer in this kind of argument.
- peterfirefly 12y ago
  But private companies in your country tend to work better than the state, unless protected somehow by that state, don't they?
  - karavelov 12y ago
    Compare the private health system of US with the state health system in the Scandinavian countries or most of the EU and tell me which runs better and is more efficient? We could make this argument also for the education, public transport, social security, etc.

peterfirefly 12y ago

What I wrote there was correct and a positive contribution to the discussion and can be backed with sources. No need to downvote just because one disagrees.

alvarosm 12y ago
Forget about discussing anything here. You'll get downvoted to oblivion by the Marxist religious zealots.
tenementfunster 12y ago
"Winners" in America usually stick with capitalism as they get older because it worked well for them.

tormeh 12y ago

You have some good points, but I dislike how you say "buy votes". Is it only buying votes when you give money to the poor instead of the rich? And the private sector wasn't all that big in the post-world war 2 era. Norway's government spending is now at 40% of GDP and Sweden's at 50%. And they used to be way bigger. And we're not counting cooperatives.

peterfirefly 12y ago
The poor have more votes and are probably cheaper to buy ;)
- pgeorgi 12y ago
  But as can be seen in the US, policies that favor the rich are effect buy-outs of votes, too. Just that they target temporarily embarrassed millionaires (same group, different promise).

arethuza 12y ago

"the state didn't actually work" If only my state didn't work as well as the average Scandinavian state.

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
Indeed. It's only possible to claim that European Social Democracy is some kind of ordeal for most of the population, compared to US Capitalism if you ignore all the facts. E.g. Even in the tooth-and-claw UK, I remain thankful for the fact that I can run a business without having to worry about being financially raped by healthcare providers. The reality is that socialist-lite state funding of essential services and infrastructure gives populations a lot of freedoms that simply aren't available in a corporatocracy, and is also more stable socially, politically and economically. Dogmatic assertions that wilfully disregard the mountains of evidence to the contrary don't have much to offer in this kind of argument.
peterfirefly 12y ago
But private companies in your country tend to work better than the state, unless protected somehow by that state, don't they?
- karavelov 12y ago
  Compare the private health system of US with the state health system in the Scandinavian countries or most of the EU and tell me which runs better and is more efficient? We could make this argument also for the education, public transport, social security, etc.