Skip to main content

Below are some facts that show how dubious the whole “socialism is awesome in Scandinavia” claim really is. Use these arguments to quickly rebuke mindless socialists in the course of conversation.

1. Scandinavia isn’t really all that socialist

Scandinavian countries have certain socialist characteristics such as high taxes and extensive welfare systems. However, these countries have relatively capitalistic markets. Scandinavian businesses are mostly free from regulation, nationalization and protectionism.

Let’s look at a few key indicators of free enterprise in Scandinavia.

Denmark:

Ranks higher than the US in business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption.

Source

Finland:

Ranks higher than the US in business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, fiscal freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption.

Source

Iceland:

Iceland ranks a little lower than the US in most of these key indicators. It’s close, though. Remember also that Iceland has a smaller total population (320,000) than Wichita, KS.

Source

Norway:

Ranks higher than the US in trade freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption.

Source

Sweden:

Ranks higher than the US in business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption.

Source

The overall point here is that Scandinavian countries have fairly capitalistic business environments. It is foolish to point to any Scandinavian country and call it an example of socialism working.

We can also look at government spending as a percentage of GDP. In the “capitalist” United States, government spending is equal to roughly 40% of the national GDP. In the “socialist” Norway, government spending is equal to roughly 46% of the national GDP. (Source.)

It is dishonest to compare Norway to the US and call one an example of successful socialism and the other an example of failed capitalism when both governments spend similar amounts of money on a percentage basis.

2. Scandinavia isn’t actually as prosperous as liberals like to claim

A study by Swedish group Timbro compared the GDP of various European Union nations to those of individual states in the United States. As stated by the study:

“If the EU were a part of the United States of America, would it belong to the richest or the poorest group of states?”

Denmark:

If Denmark were one of the US states, it would rank tenth among the poorest states for per capita GDP.

Finland:

Finland would come in fifth among the poorest if it were a US state.

Sweden:

Sweden would be the seventh-poorest as a state of the US.

Additionally, the study found that the United States as a whole ranks higher in economic output per person than every European Union nation except for the tax haven economy of Switzerland. Denmark, Sweden and Finland all ranked significantly lower than the United States. Norway was not included in the study as it is not a member of the EU.

Next, the study compared individual US states to various countries in the EU. Once again, individual states ranked higher in economic output per person than each EU country. Only Luxemburg ranked near the top. Most EU nations ranked alongside the poorest states in the US.

So, that does it for economic output. Next, the study took a look at private consumption. Once again, we find that the US as a whole outranks the entire EU, including those Scandinavian countries that are EU member nations.

The study also found several other interesting facts: those classified as “low income” in the US live better than those classified as low income in the EU – including Denmark, Sweden and Finland. The US also ranked higher in average dwelling space and domestic appliance ownership (clothes washers, dishwashers, radios, etc.).

3. Scandinavians have lower gross and disposable incomes

People in Scandinavia make less money before taxes and after taxes.

United States:

Average disposable income: 31,410 US Dollars

Average gross income: 42,028 US Dollars

Source

Norway:

Average disposable income: 25,224 US Dollars

Average gross income: 37,094 US Dollars

Source

Finland:

Average yearly income: 24,958 US Dollars

Source

Sweden:

Average yearly income: 22,387 US Dollars

Source

Denmark:

Average yearly income: 23,213 US Dollars

Source

Iceland:

Average yearly income: 22,387 US Dollars

Source

This completely destroys the point that liberals like to make about individuals living better in Scandinavia than they do in the United States. On top of that, Scandinavian countries have some of the highest costs of living in Europe.

4. But money isn’t everything! What about the poor?

It’s clear that the United States outranks Scandinavia in most economic indicators. Americans make more money. But, the ever-empathetic liberal may say that money isn’t everything. More important than how much money people make is how well a country takes care of its poor.

Your liberal friends may claim that the low poverty rates in Scandinavian countries show that its massive welfare systems are working as intended. What’s so bad about everyone making a little less money if we can make a dent in poverty? You know, it’s the old “the rich can afford to pay a little more” argument…

It’s almost impossible to compare poverty levels between the US and various Scandinavian countries due to differences in the definition of “poverty.” There are serious problems with how poverty is determined. For example, some countries only take current income into account and therefore count students and retired wealthy people among the poor.

But having said that, we can generally agree that Scandinavian countries have fairly low poverty levels. Does this mean that the high-tax, big-welfare system is better?

Nope.

First of all, it is quite a leap to point to tax rates or welfare programs as the single determinant of poverty or prosperity. For example, the extremely capitalistic country of Switzerland has a lower poverty rate than most Scandinavian countries. Switzerland is a unique example (international tax haven), but the point is that you cannot point to any one factor as the single determinant of poverty rates.

There is zero evidence anywhere in the world that high taxes reduce poverty. Just because a few countries with high taxes have low poverty rates does not mean high taxes are good. There are plenty of counter examples of countries with high taxes and high poverty rates and vice versa.

Look at the United States. The War on Poverty was declared nearly 50 years ago and has pumped roughly 7 trillion tax dollars into combating poverty. At current spending levels, we could just straight up give $27,000 a year to every poor person in the US and they’d be better off.

Look at what all that public spending has accomplished:

Source

High taxes do not help the poor; economic growth does.

We also have to take into account the massive immigrant population in the United States. In a country of 310 million people, 14.5% of the US population is foreign-born. Most other countries with high levels of immigration also have high levels of poverty. There are numerous studies that show high immigration rates actually do affect a country’s poverty rates.

Sweden is the only Scandinavian country with a foreign-born population comparable to the United States. However, poverty among immigrants in Sweden has been growing rapidly over the past few years. According to this study, immigrant children accounted for 65% of all poor children in Sweden in 2008. By comparison, only 5% of native Swedish children live in poverty.

According to that same study:

“The Swedish model appeared to produce amazing results as long as the country was completely homogeneous and full of Swedes. But the much admired welfare state was unable to deal with even moderate levels of ethnic diversity (still far below the levels of the United States) without a collapse in social outcomes.”

The conclusion we can draw from all this is that the Swedish system is not responsible for low poverty rates. Other factors, such as homogenous population and the industrious spirit of the Swedes, is responsible. If immigration and government spending continue unchecked in Sweden, the model will eventually become unsustainable.

Note: I got some help from this article in making this point.

5. Norway is backed by big oil

When liberals point to the per-capita GDP of Norway, they forget to mention that much of this is a result of big oil interests. Norway is the largest oil producer and exporter in all of Western Europe. Norway produces roughly 200 barrels of oil per person per year. That puts it at number 5 in the world for per capita oil production. (Source.)

The conclusion we can draw from this is that a significant portion of Norway’s per capita GDP is based on oil revenues. In other words, Norway is successful despite its government, not because of its government.

Incidentally, I find it funny that those same liberals who vehemently vilify big oil are happy to ignore that little fact when pointing to the success of Norway.

6. Scandinavians aren’t as happy as Americans

Liberals (and Scandinavians) love to claim that Scandinavian countries top various “happiness indexes.” They say that Scandinavians are so much happier and more content than Americans for a variety of reasons.

Let’s just ignore all the problems that come with trying to assign a number to “happiness.” Let’s ignore that there is no single definition for happiness. Let’s also ignore how easy it is for left-leaning organizations to manipulate these studies to show what they want to show. Let’s just forget all of that.

Instead, let’s look at suicide rates. Suicide rates are cold, hard numbers not subject to interpretation. You’re either dead by your own hand or not.

Every single Scandinavian country ranks higher than the United States in suicide rates. Every single country. Finland ranks 5th in the world for suicides per 100,000 people. By comparison, the United States ranks 18th.

Suicide rankings compared:

  • Finland: 5th in the world
  • Denmark: 11th in the world
  • Sweden: 12th in the world
  • Norway: 13th in the world
  • Iceland: 15th in the world
  • United States: 18th in the world

Source

Conclusion

In a conclusion based on facts and hard numbers, we can see that Scandinavia is not an example of successful socialism by any measure. It’s not a terrible place to live, but it’s clearly not the utopia that liberals love to make it out to be.

The above facts and figures prove that socialism did not make these countries great. These countries have small, homogenous populations, oil money and free markets. These countries do well despite high taxes, not because of high taxes.

Plus, if you look around the world at true socialisms, you’ll see massive failures. Historically, socialism (and other forms of collectivism) has always resulted in poverty, starvation and widespread death. Scandinavians are fortunate that they don’t yet live in an all-out socialism.

Useful Links

I am far from the first person to write about the Scandinavian socialism myth. Take a look at the following links for even more facts, figures and dismantling of liberals. Most of these links are a little more digestible and well-written than my own monstrosity of a post.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyo...the_scandinavia.html

http://www.forskningsradet.no/...253967894814?lang=en

Last edited by Bestworking
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Twenty percent of Norway's tax revenue is from North Sea oil Another 10 percent, or so is from other direct and indirect tax revenue from that oil.  Such includes taxes pay by oil company workers, VAT and property taxes paid by the oil company.  Plus, similar for the companies that support the oil companies.  What happenings when the oil runs out -- a revival of Viking raiders.

I have read other articles along this line, even before crazy old bernie came along. As the title says, it's not a utopia at all. Why liberals lie, know that we KNOW they are lying, and then double down on their lies, is a puzzle. It's like a woman that everyone in the family tries to avoid because she is a THEIF and a liar. She'll rob someone blind, smirk at them, admit to others she did it, and dare the ones she robbed to prove it, and threaten to sue anyone that says she admitted to it! Pity, when she is caught, as she has been, she is allowed to pay her way out of it. That's BS and just the way the left operates.

Last edited by Bestworking

One doesn't even need to cross the big pond to see the fruits of regressive "progressivism":

 

General Electric’s big move to Boston this summer could mean much more than leaving an empty corporate campus behind.

Residents and small business owners in the tony town of Fairfield, Conn. – home to GE’s global headquarters for more than four decades – are bracing themselves for the collateral damage after the company announced last month it would be moving to Massachusetts and taking 800 jobs, millions in grants and opportunities for expansion with them. 

But that’s not even the half of it.

The trickle-down devastation triggered by GE’s move is predicted to spare no sector. The real estate market is expected to suffer as residents pick up and leave for better job prospects. Small businesses and infrastructure projects also could start to see setbacks in the near future, as the high taxes blamed in part for GE's move remain. 

“Probably half of the higher-end homes that used to house the GE executives will sit either unsold or foreclosed because no one else living in the area can afford them at their current price,” Christopher Mills, president of C. Mills & Associates, which manages real estate portfolios nationwide, told FoxNews.com. 

While there is a slight possibility a large company could swoop in and save the city, the odds aren’t in Fairfield’s favor.

“[It’s] not likely to happen because the same tax and legislative hindrances that chased GE out will keep other companies away,” he said. “Those hindrances are what have to be removed to prevent a localized depression.”

GE, which has a market value of nearly $290 billion, made good on threats to leave Connecticut following two of the largest corporate tax hikes in the state’s history in 2011 and 2015.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...e.html?intcmp=hplnws

Corporations are leaving the US at an unprecedented rate (as are citizen). Hillary, as idiotic as always, suggested new taxation to discourage them.  Problem is, anyone with a modicum of business sense would see her plan would ensure new private companies would leave while still relatively small before going public -- no more new Microsofts or Apples in the US.

Stanky posted:

One doesn't even need to cross the big pond to see the fruits of regressive "progressivism":

 

General Electric’s big move to Boston this summer could mean much more than leaving an empty corporate campus behind.

Residents and small business owners in the tony town of Fairfield, Conn. – home to GE’s global headquarters for more than four decades – are bracing themselves for the collateral damage after the company announced last month it would be moving to Massachusetts and taking 800 jobs, millions in grants and opportunities for expansion with them. 

But that’s not even the half of it.

The trickle-down devastation triggered by GE’s move is predicted to spare no sector. The real estate market is expected to suffer as residents pick up and leave for better job prospects. Small businesses and infrastructure projects also could start to see setbacks in the near future, as the high taxes blamed in part for GE's move remain. 

“Probably half of the higher-end homes that used to house the GE executives will sit either unsold or foreclosed because no one else living in the area can afford them at their current price,” Christopher Mills, president of C. Mills & Associates, which manages real estate portfolios nationwide, told FoxNews.com. 

While there is a slight possibility a large company could swoop in and save the city, the odds aren’t in Fairfield’s favor.

“[It’s] not likely to happen because the same tax and legislative hindrances that chased GE out will keep other companies away,” he said. “Those hindrances are what have to be removed to prevent a localized depression.”

GE, which has a market value of nearly $290 billion, made good on threats to leave Connecticut following two of the largest corporate tax hikes in the state’s history in 2011 and 2015.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...e.html?intcmp=hplnws

Simply view our once great cities like Detroit, now a shadow of itself for the future. 

Last edited by direstraits
direstraits posted:

Connecticut -- just how utterly screwed up must it be to force a company to move to Taxachusetts!

I guess GE could make a tax deal with the massivetwoshetts folks because they lost a bunch of taxpayers to New Hampshire. I suspect that those tax evaders didn't learn much since they might be the ones wanting to Bern the White House in the former  "Live Free or Die" state.

https://stateimpact.npr.org/ne...es-to-massachusetts/

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×