Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is there any TRULY Capitalist nation on Earth?
04192008 | WesternCulture

Posted on 04/19/2008 2:08:46 PM PDT by WesternCulture

Yes there is.

Read on and you'll find out about it.

Capitalist paradise exists here on Earth.

However, it comes with a price tag called "competence".

Most of the world lacks this "competence" and will have a hard time aquiring it, because it is a matter of spirit, a spirit that I'm convinced most parts of the world ever will fail to aquire.

In my opinion, Scandinavia leads the world in true Capitalist endeavour (check out how many multinationals we possess in realation to population size).

The explanation for this tradition of entrepreneurship is not Scandinavian "Socialism". Sooner, it is a question of Scandinavian FREEDOM.

While continental Europeans suffered under the yoke of Feudalism, Scandinavians were running their own farms!

This is a MAJOR and often overlooked explanation behind our unparalled competence in the field of producing successful companies as well as producing wealth. Entrepreneurship is more or less in our blood.

Our prosperity is NOT a matter of coincidence.

I am a son of Gothenburg, Sweden, Scandinavia.

The region of Gothenburg is a part of Europe which would be churning out heavy trucks, buses, luxury cars and heavy industrial equipment even if she daily was struck by nuclear assaults.

It's a question of work ethics combined with self-reliance. Without a widespread attitude like this, Sweden wouldn't house more BMWs per capita than Munich, the home of BMW, or more Audis/capita than Ingolstadt etc, etc.

While continental Europe is away from its 6 hour work day due to ridiculous strikes, Scandinavia is working overtime.

The founding of the major port city of Gothenburg here on the West Coast of Sweden meant the guaranteed death of Danish hegemony over the Baltic region (Sweden could hereby reach the Seven Seas) and in the end, even our Viking brothers and sisters in Denmark accepted the cold, hard, concrete reality of Gothenburg - today a thriving little city of (almost) one million inhabitants on the go.

I've found out people from this home city of mine seldom reflect upon the fact that we DESERVE to drive around in luxury cars, travel around the world and live in affluence. We take it for granted. But why is this so? I think it's because a true lifestyle of progress can be taught.

In Gothenburg, you'll meet with few inhabitants who claim they're rich (even if their family owns two houses and a Volvo XC90). BUT, if you ask them if they feel strongly convinced their sons and daughters will be even better off than they, they'll answer:

YES!!!!

THIS is a sign of a well functioning Capitalism structure.

I've never been a soldier, but I sure have experienced a frontline;

The assembly line of Volvo - Try it, you won't like it.

Still, Volvo is an extremely well run company (although Ford isn't) and I'm proud of living in a country where such an example of modern Capitalism (and American-Swedish cooperation) exists.

For better or for worse, Scandinavia is a part of the world where Capitalism is still given chance - by ordinary, hard working, responsible people.

I doubt there is ANY part of the Earth that boasts such a work ethic as Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Finland.

The only part of the world that can compete is Eastern Europe (and hardly surprising, the economic development of this part of Europe is a completely different story compared to Germany, France and Italy - the sick core of a magnificent, giant economy).


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: capitalism; denmark; finland; iceland; norway; scandinavia; sweden; usa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last
To: tomjohn77

First of all, Norway has population that is about half of New York City and is basically a welfare state because of all the North Seal oil. Hopefully for you, it won’t run out before you die. You have a pretty good deal, a lot of resources and very few people (like Australia —we call ourselves the “lucky country”), however, amongst other things, the weather would be enough that you couldn’t pay me enough to live in Norway.


41 posted on 04/20/2008 5:32:43 AM PDT by Aussiebabe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Aussiebabe
Its not all about the oil. We actually save most of the money for future generations. Also we are ranked one of the best places on earth to do business. To call it a welfare state just shows that you don't have the basic knowledge of our country. Westernculture has written a dozen replies to people like you that come to very simple conclusion.

But I agree that the weather is crap. Thats why I will relocate to warmer climate in probably 4-5 years. Meanwhile I will save up money so that I can purchase a house without loan.

42 posted on 04/20/2008 8:50:26 AM PDT by tomjohn77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: tomjohn77
I thought that your pension programs are almost completely funded by oil. I had heard that the pension program is funded by oil and the investments must be outside of Norway. Is that incorrect? That is why I called Norway a welfare state. Plus the fact that things like your health services (like Australia) are funded by high taxes.

In Australia, our pension program is funded by the money we put into our own accounts from money earned.

Also, the high wages and employment in Norway is driven by oil production and other resources. So the living is great now for the few people that live there. But is hard to compare a country of 5 million people with all of these resources to much larger countries like the USA. You should compare youselves more to small areas like Dubai.

43 posted on 04/20/2008 3:27:43 PM PDT by Aussiebabe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: tomjohn77
p.s. actually, this article from the University of Norway confirms exactly the beliefs that I had that Norway was as a welfare state. It explains that Norway is heaviest “welfare state” of the Scandinavian countries: http://www.nnn.se/intro/approach.htm

The Nordic Approach
To General Welfare

AT THE START of the present century, the Nordic countries were among the poorest in Europe. But as the 1900s come to a close, that state of affairs has been reversed, thanks to a demonstrably successful blend of market economy, democracy, voluntary organizations and active government policies.

*For a definition of “Norden”, see Norden & Scandinavia.

All European countries may to some extent be described as general welfare states. What is distinctive about the Nordic approach is the dominant role of national governments in the formation of social policy, and the development of an extensive public sector for the implementation of that policy. The state also has an important social-political function in other European countries; but a much more prominent role is played by the private sector, voluntary organizations, and the family than is generally the case in Norden.*

The European invention of social insurance has since spread throughout the world The invention of social insurance
Social insurance, which constitutes the foundation of the modern welfare state, is a European invention. In replacing the “poor laws” of Europe, national insurance programmes provided a more effective and humane response to the problems of old age, illness, industrial accidents and unemployment.

One of the first programmes to be established was workmen's compensation for Norwegian miners, in 1842. A number of limited insurance plans were developed throughout Europe during the following decades, but a major breakthrough occurred with the introduction of a national insurance system in Bismarck's Germany during the 1880s. The most lasting and significant innovation of the Germany system was the principle of state-supervised compulsory insurance. That principle was fiercely debated at the time, but has since been incorporated into most social insurance systems.

The European invention of social insurance has since spread throughout the world. As of 1995, some 165 countries had adopted some form of social insurance system; nearly all provide old age and survivors’ pensions, as well as compensation for work-related injury. Less widespread is unemployment insurance, which currently exists in approximately sixty countries.

Historical factors help to explain why citizens of the Nordic countries tend to expect a great deal of their governments
The role of the state
In the early developmental stages of European social insurance systems, debate centred on the proper role of the state. There eventually emerged a variety of approaches, the basic outlines of which remain visible today. A rough distinction can still be drawn between a Northern European approach which emphasises national citizenship and a co-ordinated institutional structure, and a continental approach with more fragmentary institutions and a greater reliance on the family.

There are historical factors which help to explain why the citizens of Northern European countries in general, and the Nordic countries in particular, tend to expect more of their governments than do the peoples of Southern Europe and the United States. The feudalism of the Nordic region was less rigid than in continental Europe; and, although far from classless, Nordic societies were comparatively egalitarian during the pre-industrial era. They have always had fairly small populations, with a high degree of cultural homogeneity in terms of language, religion, social behaviour, etc.

In all of the Nordic countries, there was a forced merger of church and state following the Reformation, which helped to strengthen and legitimate the central government. In Southern Europe on the other hand, health, education and social welfare services remained the province of the “supra-national” Roman Catholic Church until quite recently.

The growing strength of the labour movement and the class-based struggles of the industrial era resulted in political compromises which laid the groundwork for the universal, egalitarian social insurance systems of today's Nordic countries. The notion of a “people's insurance” was already well-established at the turn of the century; but it was not until the 1950s and 1960s that such systems were more or less fully established throughout the region.

The state guarantees basic pensions and free or heavily subsidised health services for all residents
The Nordic model
In comparison with the rest of Europe, the Nordic general welfare states share twelve fairly distinct characteristics which, taken together, may be regarded as a specifically Nordic “model”. Those characteristics are:

1. A greater degree of active state involvement than in other countries. For example, the state guarantees basic pensions and free or heavily subsidised health services for all residents, although the delivery of such services is usually administered by provincial or local governments.

2. By international standards, the greatest proportion of the labour force employed in the social, health and educational sectors— roughly thirty percent.

There is a comparatively high level of trust between citizens and governments 3. Heavy reliance on the public sector for the provision of social and educational services; roughly ninety percent of all personnel in those sectors are public employees. The corresponding figures for other European countries range from 40-80 percent; in the U.S., the figure is 45 percent.
4. The organization of social insurance within co-ordinated national systems which have overall responsibility for basic pensions, sick-leave benefits, child allowances and health services.

5. A comparatively high level of trust between citizens and governments. Nordic societies are more “state-friendly” than other European societies.

Entitlement is not conditional on participation in the labour market
6. Comprehensive, or universal, social insurance systems which cover entire populations or sub-groups. For example: every resident is entitled to a basic old-age pension upon attaining retirement age, even in the absence of any history of gainful employment; child allowances are allocated to all families with children, regardless of income level; all residents are entitled to the best available medical services, irrespective of income, social status or other personal characteristics. This contrasts with most other European countries, where entitlement is conditional on successful participation in the labour market.
7. An advanced level of gender equality, especially as a result of legislation since the 1970s; essentially all benefits are “gender-neutral”, in that women are treated as individuals with needs and rights of their own, rather than as merely wives and mothers. Nordic labour markets are characterised by high rates of female employment, nearly-equal incomes for men and women in comparable occupations, and a well-developed support system for working mothers.

8. Social insurance systems free of class or occupational bias. Those with high incomes are included in the same system as those with low or no incomes.

The egalitarian spirit of the Nordic countries very likely contributes to social cohesion and stability
9. General taxation as the principal means of financing, which has the effect of redistributing income. As a result of the Nordic countries’ universal, redistributive social insurance systems, their poverty rates are among the lowest in the world. Minimum pensions are not especially high, but generous in comparison with those of most other countries.
10. A greater emphasis on providing services, as opposed to direct income transfers, than in other European countries. Those services include an extensive network of child-care centres, old-age homes, and in-home assistance for the severely ill and the elderly.

11. A traditionally strong emphasis on full employment as a goal in itself, and as a prerequisite for generating the necessary economic resources for the general welfare state.

12. Strong popular support. Such issues as children's well-being, public health, old-age care, etc., are consistently accorded the highest priority in opinion surveys and during elections. No political party seeking broad support can afford to ignore them.

See also,
Three Types of
Eureopean Society

Additional writings by Stein Kuhnle on this subject:

“Reshaping the Welfare State”, in The Politics of the New Europe; Ian Budge and Kenneth Newton et al. (eds.), Longman, London and New York, 1997.

“The Nordic Welfare Model and the European Union”, co-authored with
Rune Ervik, in Comparative Welfare Systems: The Scandinavian Model in a Period of Change; Bengt Greve (ed.), Macmillan Press, Basingstoke, 1996.

Prof. Stein Kuhnle
Dept. of Comp. Politics
University of Bergen
N-5007 Bergen
Norway

E-mail: stein.kuhnle@isp.uib.no The fact that the Nordic countries can be described with the foregoing list of distinguishing features does not mean that they have become “welfare paradises”. As nations everywhere, they are confronted with a variety of old and new challenges. But in comparison with other developed countries, they are subject to far less severe and widespread levels of crime, alcohol and drug abuse, poverty and related problems. Furthermore, problems associated with single parenthood and unemployment appear to be less severe, due to the support provided by Nordic societies to those affected.
This comparatively favourable state of affairs is almost certainly a consequence of the institutions and social policies of the region's strong and efficient central governments. In addition, the comparatively egalitarian spirit of the Nordic countries, as expressed for example in their redistributive income policies, very likely contributes to greater social cohesion and stability.

Current challenges

Thus far, the 1990s have been a decade of considerable economic turbulence, resulting in unusually high rates of unemployment and growing strains on social insurance systems. Sweden and Finland have been most severely affected, while Norway has thus far managed to avoid cutbacks, thanks in part to its substantial oil and gas revenues. Iceland and Denmark occupy a middle position in that regard.

In recent years, all Nordic governments have stepped up their efforts to encourage and assist the jobless to find gainful employment. Some may be tempted to interpret that trend as a concession to neo-liberal ideology. But it is actually in complete accord with the traditional Nordic emphasis on the value of work and full participation in society. Politicians who blow the neo-liberal trumpet too loudly tend to encounter resistance in Norden. Thus, the basic structures of the Nordic general welfare states have remained intact, largely due to broad political compromises and the sufficient, if somewhat grudging, support of the voting public.

At this point, it is impossible to say whether the minor modifications to the social insurance systems of Sweden and Finland, and to a lesser extent of Denmark, may prefigure some kind of fundamental change. But so far, the institutions and programmes of the Nordic general welfare states have survived fairly intact, despite the severe challenges of recent years. It is therefore still appropriate to speak of the “Nordic model” of society.

— Stein Kuhnle, March 1998

44 posted on 04/20/2008 4:25:45 PM PDT by Aussiebabe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Aussiebabe

“First of all, Norway has population that is about half of New York City and is basically a welfare state because of all the North Seal oil”

- When it comes to Norwegian prosperity, oil matters less than some people seem to realize.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1864973/posts


45 posted on 04/21/2008 12:14:09 PM PDT by WesternCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: WesternCulture

See my two previous posts. I believe, correct me if I wrong, but Norway’s pension system is almost completely funded by oil. This a tremendous advantage to companies doing business there as they don’t have to pay any of these costs and with this system, many of the Norway citizens should become millionaires.


46 posted on 04/21/2008 4:15:53 PM PDT by Aussiebabe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Aussiebabe
“See my two previous posts. I believe, correct me if I wrong, but Norway’s pension system is almost completely funded by oil. This a tremendous advantage to companies doing business there as they don’t have to pay any of these costs and with this system, many of the Norway citizens should become millionaires.”

- Oil is of course an important explanation behind Norwegian wealth, but it is certainly not the only one.

Like I'm pointing out in the thread I linked to above, there are oil exporting countries that are roughly the size of Norway population vise, but are much, much poorer. Norway would be as poor as Libya if the country was run like Libya and had the same backward culture.

IMO The key factors behind Scandinavian prosperity are Capitalism, business and engineering competence, high levels of education and Lutheran work ethics. “Socialism” and oil has got less to do with it.

47 posted on 04/22/2008 8:09:12 AM PDT by WesternCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: WesternCulture
I can't argue with what you post. I wasn't saying that the culture of the Scandinavian countries is anything like the Middle East. In fact, some of my favourite people are the Danes (now, as a Swede, but probably hate that statement). But nevertheless, to try to compare how these tiny country populations with the USA is not realistic. I mean, look how the tiny amount of immigrants from the Middle East and Eastern into your countries are already messing up your cultures.
48 posted on 04/22/2008 5:13:53 PM PDT by Aussiebabe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Aussiebabe
“I wasn't saying that the culture of the Scandinavian countries is anything like the Middle East.”

No, of course not and I didn't interpret what you've written that way.

“But nevertheless, to try to compare how these tiny country populations with the USA is not realistic”

- I can't see any reason why differences in population size would make different sorts of comparisons pointless.

You can always compare how successful two given countries are in different areas, even if one has a large population and the other has a pretty small one. You can look at how educational systems function, crime rates, economic growth etc, etc and make different conclusions about how well societies perform in these regards, try and finds reasons to the actual results and so on.

49 posted on 04/23/2008 8:23:05 AM PDT by WesternCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: WesternCulture

Population and ethnic mix are the key factors. That is why it is unrealistic to compare the tiny Scandinavian countries with the USA in general. A more valid comparison of things like health care, crime rates and education would be with small states with 90% people with the same race/culture , such as Maine or Vermont with Sweden.


50 posted on 04/23/2008 9:31:59 PM PDT by Aussiebabe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: WesternCulture; stockpirate

In your opinion which country is currently the best gulch for Gaults?

It used to be the USA but I don’t know for sure anymore, or is it just that the number of Gaults is declining?


51 posted on 04/24/2008 6:02:52 AM PDT by dynoman (Objectivity is the essence of intelligence. - Marylin vos Savant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson