I can't remember. I looked into it some years ago. It was one that wasn't full single payer, though. It had a hybrid system of some sort. Like a guaranteed baseline level of care for serious illnesses, and then you could purchase additional coverage if you wanted.
I'm similar to you but different. I was fiscally liberal (pay for tons of public programs and make NASA's budget 50 times larger, for example) and socially conservative when I was younger. But as I got older, I become fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I just needed to be exposed to some facts like how terrible and corrupt the drug war is. Also, a lot of me becoming more socially liberal had to do with Christian teachings. Christ's teachings resonated with me when I was in my late teens. "Perhaps I shouldn't judge others so much, forgive freely, and let others do what they want - it's up to God to judge." Something like that.
Part of it had to do with having multiple atheist friends who loved to smoke weed. The world said they were bad people. But I knew better. They were great people.
People really do change as they get older. I am "influence-able" with facts, solid studies, and great arguments.
Well, actually, it is evidence in support of that argument. It's not 100% proof of course, as I can't hook up everyone's brains to measure their fear response. But hey, don't call it fear if you don't want. The general revulsion fades the further we get from those time periods, indicating a connection with the smear campaign that went on.
It's a good point because you dismissed socialism entirely with jokes, while benefiting from socialist policies in your own country. That is what we're trying to highlight.
It doesn't mean you're a bad person. We're simply trying to establish a healthy discourse here.
Cool man. You want a nuanced discussion of mixed economies, I'm all for it. But, again, that isn't what you were doing before. Socialism quite clearly has elements that function successfully in modern economies, just like capitalism. Now that you're not simply going "lolsocialism", we can actually talk.
When people say the "socialist" countries using the Nordic model, they refer to their successful implementation of socialist policies that naysayers claim will be the death of any economy. Are they socialist? Not purely, but they skew that way in a manner previously thought absurd by some.
In all honesty, I'm not sure any pure economy would do well in the end. How many have we even had throughout history at all?
Well, see, this is where I think the discussion is to be had. What socialist/capitalist/whatever policies to we enact, where do we put them, and how do we implement them. "Overboard" will mean different things to different people. I think we are a far cry from evolving to a money-less system, but universal healthcare or universal basic income is doable.
I'm always watching.
Last edited by StyleTime on Aug 26th, 2018 at 10:28 PM
Yeah but the thing is, most liberals would throw a fit if we just outright adopted the Nordic model economy. Take Denmark for example... Yeah, rich people pay more taxes, but so does everybody else. And a whole lot of people we consider to be "middle class" like successful plumbers, would also fall into the 60% tax bracket. Their corporate tax rate is higher, but not by a whole lot. Ours is 21% and theirs is 24.5%... and liberals here were shouting for us to raise it further back when it was 37%. What's more the cost of goods and services over there is also higher pretty much across the board. Housing is more expensive, and individual houses are smaller in general. Yes education is free, but you don't get to pick what school you go to the way you do over here. And their options in regards to their personal education is much more limited than it is in the US. You focus your college on a specific career path rather than getting to study whatever kind of randomness you want the way you do over here, and the government will only pay for it IF you choose a field that the Ministry of Education decides the country needs more graduates from.
Basically, the people arguing for it would be miserable if they actually got it. As for they themselves being happier about their system, that kind of thing is understandable when you consider the fact that military service is mandatory over there. If we forced all of our 18 year olds to serve in the military for a couple of years we'd likely have a happier and more homogeneous culture too since instilling a love of one's country is basically the primary goal for training/service.
From what I've seen, what most people who clamor for Nordic socialism really want is to take the good stuff and leave the stuff that would make their own life harder... but I honestly don't see that working. If we start taxing all the rich people and corporations enough to make up the difference for the parts of the Nordic system we leave behind, what will end up happening is that those rich people and corporations will move somewhere else and this whole country will go bankrupt. All we know is that the Nordic model is a successful system AS A WHOLE, there's not evidence that we could adopt the 1/3 of their system most liberals want and leave the rest behind and be anywhere near as successful as they are.
Last edited by darthgoober on Aug 27th, 2018 at 12:30 AM
Lol no, it's not evidence. You didn't show conclusively most people today are just afraid of the word.
It's only a good point if you believed people weren't making jokes about socialism with those comments. Which *you* clearly recognize is what was going on. Now for someone who doesn't and has to use this "gotcha" it's weak.
But again: people joke about how awful socialism is. I guess the point is there was no valid gotcha here.
A socialist policy is not the same as a socialist country.
__________________ "I know it's gonna work because it's impossible"-George Lucas
"Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners"-George Carlin
Last edited by Surtur on Aug 27th, 2018 at 03:15 PM
Yes, it is. You're confusing information which supports a matter with information which settles a matter. I didn't prove it's a fact, so you don't have to use fear if you don't want. I did establish a valid framework for the view though.
Well, no. You can make a joke and actually believe the logic informing the joke. You didn't indicate otherwise until recently, so our reaction is perfectly understandable.
Same as above.
I never said otherwise. As I pointed out earlier, it's used as shorthand, the same way America is called "capitalist." In an in-depth discussion, most people will acknowledge we're basically talking about complicated, mixed up systems.
All I can really say to this is "maybe, maybe not." Maybe people will be happier with it. Maybe not. Evidence says they will be.
And the "mandatory" military service is mandatory in name and not practice when you get right down to it. Most people serve like 4 months, not several years, if I understand correctly. Additionally, they only fulfill 5000 spots(and only if they actually need them), so the rest of the populace is totally safe. And there's ways of getting out of it, including just conscientious objection.
In 2014, only 19 individuals were actually forced to serve. 99.1% of their military is voluntary. I'm depending on translations for that, but it sounds similar to our Selective Service tbh. I got my card like everyone else, but the military never came knocking for me. You'd need to be in a serious wartime situation for that it seems.
Regardless, that style of military dates back to the Viking Ages for many Scandinavian countries. They did that stuff long before socialism or capitalism, and there is no reason to think you need mandatory military service to make those economic practices work.
This is me theorizing, but I feel like empowering as many people as possible can only benefit society.
I'm always watching.
Last edited by StyleTime on Aug 27th, 2018 at 09:59 PM
Not really. There's zero evidence that all the people who want the corporate tax raised to over 37% will be happy about it settling at 24%. There's zero proof that successful members of the middle class will enjoy a 60% income tax rate. There's no proof that ANYONE would enjoy sales taxes being raised from 7% to 25%... let alone the whooping 180% sales tax Denmark has for automobile purchases. People already b*tch to high heaven too much now about how much housing costs in the US now to believe they'll be ok with the the price going up even further. There are too many students who are dyng to move across the country for college to get away from their parents while they study stuff like gender studies to believe that they'd enjoy having to stay close to home and drop that stuff and focus their studies on whatever fields the government dictates we need more graduates from. Denmark is small and for the most part culturally homogeneous, the US is big as shit and culturally diverse.
No it's mandatory. Don't get me wrong because I don't (now)mean that every single person serves(I originally thought that was the case because I misread the thing and I now admit to being mistaken about that), but on the Day of Defense(which I couldn't get specific details on but from the sound of it happens every year) every male over the age of 18 is drafted for introduction to the military and health test. Those who are healthy have to participate in the draw for conscription even if they don't want to serve. If there's not enough volunteers for service, depending on what number they draw, people who are against the whole thing have to serve anyway, even in peacetime. Them only needing to force 19 people into service in 2014 was due to a massive increase in the number of volunteers, when there are fewer volunteers more people are forced to serve.
And I never meant to say that the mandatory military service was required for their economic system to work, I said that it likely contributes to why their culture is happier than ours. When you've been taking 18 year olds who might otherwise be on the way to opposing your way of life and spend time brainwashing them(the way pretty much every military does) for over 300 years, it will likely to add up and make a big difference overall.
Last edited by darthgoober on Aug 27th, 2018 at 10:54 PM
The evidence is that the people under that system are pretty happy. This "they are homogenous, so that's why" reasoning is in-group bias tbh. Maybe it's not what you meant, but I usually notice people are referring to race when they say this. They don't all share the same viewpoint on everything just because they are mostly white. It also ignores the fact that American culture is a bit more uniform than people acknowledge. Asian/black/white American kids of similar economic backgrounds will likely have more in common with each other than they would with some rando from their "ancestral homeland." But, cool, we'll set Denmark aside for a moment. What about Norway, which has a sizable and still growing immigrant population? They've repeatedly rated happiest nation on Earth in spite of that.
Right, but in practice it's mandatory in name only. Only 4200 of those will actually even be considered, and most of those still won't get selected. They've been curtailing this practice in general, as 2 out 3 Danes want to abolish it. https://www.b.dk/politiko/forsvarsm...gt-skal-bevares
And there's still the option to take alternatives to conscription for those who are called. These places don't have many enemies, so keeping a military task force is a huge concern.
Fair enough, and I didn't mean to oversimplify your statement if it came off that way.
I guess I just don't see why it would make them happier. Most Danes want to abolish the practice, so it seems like they are happy in spite of it rather than because of it.
I think we've got this idea of American exceptionlism slammed into our heads from childhood, and it makes us think we're some ultra unique beast that could never benefit from the practices of other countries. Sure, there are some weird Americanisms around, but "we have more brown people" isn't really a defense against universal healthcare advocacy.
I'm always watching.
Last edited by StyleTime on Aug 28th, 2018 at 03:04 AM
This is the opposite of what most gen x'rs are taught. We were taught the melting pot which means we absorb other cultures and make them our own. We don't look to identify with individual cultures within.
I believe we were taught america opens doors of opportunity for everyone that comes to our country. That does create some exceptionlism I suspect.
That is true in my experience as well, but it doesn't seem to apply to economics and systems of government. The melting pot idea seems to stop at racial/religious tolerance. When it comes to the way we actually run the country, I always detect an air of "diversity is all well and good, but don't you dare alter our system you commie bastard" from the masses. Not to say it doesn't get altered and borrow from other places, but people don't want it pointed out.
Just feels like we can't admit we may have gotten something wrong sometimes.
I'm always watching.
Last edited by StyleTime on Aug 28th, 2018 at 07:30 AM