@dehoogn I live in Iceland the most Taxed country in the north and thanks to social policies, i can live happily with only 250 dollars a month after tax.
This guy is so full of shit. The problems with healthcare in the US can only be fixed by choice and competition. Try nationalizing health care and see it decline rapidly
Like going back to the 19th century will do any good. The free market policies of those days, or more precisely the failure of the free market policies of those days, are the very reason behind the 20th century development of communism and consequently fascism - the ideological emergency exit of libertarianism.
Been there, done that, and do not want to experience it again.
@Dovenpeis In the 1900's is when america experienced the one of the greatest booms in economic prosperty... The reason why communism/ socialism / facism occur is because government loves power and control and will use any excuse to grow and gain more control... the government in sweden is doing social engineering, they are destroying swedish men, they are deciding moral behaviour and conduct, it wont be long before the government starts replacing rights of the individual for the collective good
Why do you people always try to rewrite history? The reason why communism arose as a genuine threat to capitalism in the early 1900’s is the bad experiences gained from the golden age of libertarianism in the 1800’s. The laissez-faire policies simply created too much insecurity and social problems. Thus people wanted the government to regulate and control. Interestingly the start of the greatest US economic boom, in the early 1900’s, was the end of small government in the US as well.
@Dovenpeis You think they experienced free market laissez faire in europe... England was still running an empire and looting from the world as was much other nations in europe. You couldnt have a communist government in the US in the 1800's because it would be to hard to control and US was not developed like it is today... today the country is wealthy so they are moving towards facism/socialism or whatever you want to call it. US economically prospered because of limited government interference
It is clearly a response to the libertarian post hoc that even claims causality based on incorrect data, and the point is obviously to point out the fact that both A and B are wrong in itself. The greatest economic height of the US was quite the opposite of at time with small government and non-intervention, as this libertarian claims it to be.
You mean there has been no true libertarianism like there has been no true communism? This is just an excuse for the ideological fanatic. The real world has been close enough to both of these theoretical state of things to have gained empirical data on how they work in practice. The real world nineteenth century saw very libertarian economic policies, both in terms of very small government and very little government intervention in the economy.
@Dovenpeis The world experienced the economic boom of the 20th century because of the freedom of the 19th century. And look at all the good that came out of that economic boom, but then govt started to get larger and consolidate the wealth in the hands of the few. Economic freedom doesn't cause social problems, poverty/inequality does. What economic freedom does create is prosperity and reduces inequality.
The recent banking crisis started 150 years ago when govt started to regulate banks.
Sure, and the recent industrial crisis started with William the Conqueror, while Trofim Lysenko ideologically triumphed over science.
It never seizes to amaze me how similar Marxists and Libertarians are, both in their ideological fanaticism and their complete detachment from reality.
What is this guy talking about??? He is completely misinformed or is lying. I live in Sweden and the quality of life is miserable, especially if you are sent to a nursing home to die quietly. But I guess that is a good strategy for liberals in the US. Say something about how great it is on the other side of the planet under a socialist regime. Who are going to call your bluff?
The liar is obviously the one who claims the quality of life is miserable in Sweden. However, rubbish like this is all too typical of libertarians, and especially among the local Scandinavian variant. They are completely detached from reality, but interestingly that does not stop them from expecting to be taken seriously.
@Dovenpeis Life is not miserable for everybody. We have a large poliitical class that lives off the backs of working men and women, and they are content. The rest is commiting suicide or are on drugs in an above average rate, matched only by the former Soviet union. I used to live in the US for many years. I subscribed to and always listened to NPR and frequently heard things like "You know, in Sweden you have free daycare". No we don't...
Sadly the Scandinavian model and the Flexicurity system is being dismantled here because whenever the economy is under pressure our egalitarianism is identified as the culprit of deficits.
Also short term economic gains are easiest to accomplish by cutting spending on these systems. But they are extremely expensive to reinstate later.
I fear once they are lost, they will stay lost for a long time.
I do not know what is most hilarious, the fact that you are completely detached from reality, or the fact that you are completely detached from reality.
I have news for you, my Scandinavian brother by empiricism, Sweden actually ranks as number seven in the international ranking of satisfaction with life index, sixteen places above the US, who came in at number twenty three (and you crushed Norway at nineteen by the way).
@Dovenpeis I know. I read them "rankings" from time to time. My advice is to take them with a grain of salt. How the hell do you measure "satisfaction" anyway. I think that the only way to say anything about how content people are is to observe behaviour. Who is moving where, once there do they stay put, how many commits suicide (really important imho), etc. The fact remains that the flow flow of pepole to sweden is almost 100% from middle east and 0% is from France, USA, Canada or even Norway.
It is out of touch with real life libertarian assertions such as “every Swede wants to move to the US” I and every well-adjusted person take with a grain of salt.
Obviously not in terms of actual numbers, and as in the rest of the European World there are probably more downsides to immigration than positives in Canada as well.
However, you clearly do need to be acknowledged as a morally superior being. So immigration is perhaps working for you.
@longbeachboy57 I don't get why would they prefer the U.S which is far more authoritarian and backwards? Like you guys have an egalitarian society which even functions better than the US in some points despite having a larger welfare state.
I don't understand why would you switch to the republican side?
You have to remember the fact that if we Scandinavians actually wanted to switch to the dark side, we would have done so a long time ago. Do not forget that the Scandinavian model is a product of the Scandinavian peoples. We vote for the Scandinavian model in democratic elections time and time again. The Scandinavian model is actually in the blood of the Scandinavian peoples.
It all depends on how you view reproduction. Making an economy is like making and raising a child. Are you a mother, father, and extended family to make and raise the children? Are you going to raise them also raise a family? Or are you a rapist or perhaps a run away dad? American capitalists are at worst rapists, and usually run away dads who sell the children before the big investments become needed. In the long run, we lose our economic structure weakened.
The fact that you only have TWO parties to choose from in the USA is quite mindboggling when you look beyond the drama and the facade that is the electorial race. (and yes, I know you have independent parties, but really, they don't make much of a difference) Polls have consistently confirmed that the policies of both the democrats AND the republicans are far to the right of public opinion. It's not a question of voting left or right, it's more like choosing between right and far right.
@Dovenpeis Thats bullshit and you know it! Dont reply talking like a SD or DF facist. Dont you get it, YOU are the problem if everyone would think like you noone would trust anyone. Dont blame your felow brothers and sisters when the fact is that YOU ARE THE BIG PROBLEM...
@Dovenpeis This argument is something of a meaningless factor. But you will learn some day that hate don't solve anything... Send a pm when you do that.
@oipenliga He is right tho. The Scandinavian model is closely connected to the culture of the people. That is just how it is. It is not racism or hate, it is just the truth.
You probably suspect that displacing the very people who represent the egalitarian culture behind those high taxes will displace those high taxes as well, which explains why so many right wingers are supportive of mass immigration.
Yes, I am on the left wing, and I want to stop mass immigration. Is it not obvious? Is it not clear that immigration is hurting the working man’s pay and salary?
you will blame it but watch as that xenophobia fuels Sweden's right wing to do the same thing America's right wing is currently doing. The reason why the right wing in America refuses social programs is simply because it also benefits those Americans with brown skin.
But I have to say,, Scandinavia is comming from Socialism and heading to liberalism... US is going straight to Socialism,, a loong time since they were libertarians...
"What is the difference between Norway and Venezuela?"... Venezuela socialized their oil industries,, Norway privatized it... The cripple effect of every individual is much better then centrally planned industries... Venezuela has endless amount of oil,, still they are poor..
You are clearly having an ideological daydream about the Norwegian oil policy. In reality the only difference between the Norwegian and Venezuelan oil policy is that Norway nationalised the oil industry from day one. Unlike in Venezuela the Norwegian oil industry was a centralised government enterprise from the very beginning. And thank god for that as anything else would have been treason.
@Dovenpeis We didn't have ANY government oil company pumping oil for decades,,, "Den norske stats statsoljeselskap" Now Statoil didn't have anything to do with oil until 1981, when they got operator responsibility, i think it was 24%.
Did the Norwegian government build ships, tools,, equipment, did they build anything?? Name one thing that the Norwegian government built. It is not oil itself that is important but the cripple effect, thousands of private industries delivering goods and services
You are delusional. The government played a key role in the oil sector from the very beginning when the state oil company was founded. The unanimous political intention was Norwegian participation in the oil production and to create a basis for a national Norwegian oil industry - an endeavor which the Norwegian private sector was not at all capable of undertaking. In other words we are indebted to the government for all the high technology jobs that is the Norwegian oil industry today.
In addition to the activities of the state oil company, which has an overwhelming share of over 80 % on the Norwegian continental shelf, the Norwegian government is the principal owner of all the resources there. This is administered through a portfolio called State’s Direct Financial Interest. Ever since they found oil on the Norwegian continental shelf there has been a political goal that as much as possible of the economic rent of petroleum production goes to the state.
@Dovenpeis This is not true,, Statoil do not own 80% on the Norwegian continental,,, this is just nonsense... It is actually a lie...
The Norwegian government has always been good at dividing production blocks between Foreign and domestic Oil Companies. That is why Norway is very efficient... Because they divide between so many companies, in the opposite direction look at Venezuela who only have one Big company...
Venezuela have no incentives to be efficient, because of lack of competition.
@Dovenpeis Of course the government has played an important role, but my point was that it was built a privately owned industry, not a government-owned one.
The government did an amazing job about getting international agreements,, because the land where the most amount of oil is today, was unclaimed.
BUT my point is that most of the oil industry is privately owned.. Because it is better when the oil is gone to have 1000 companies trying 1000 different things,, then to have one big company.
On its websites Statoil states that it operates 80 % of all oil and gas production on the Norwegian continental shelf. This private oil notion of yours is nothing but a liberal’s ideological daydream. And this De facto nationalisation has actually been the political intention from day one.
Besides, without a dominant government oil company there would not have been a Norwegian oil industry, dimwit. It would have been an all American industry with a very little basis in Norway.
@Dovenpeis You still don't get my point, production of oil is peanuts compared to the cripple effect of all other private small and medium businesses. If there is 500 directly related to Petroleum industry, there is probably 5000 secondary beneficiaries and perhaps 20 000 businesses have something to do with the industry..
In Venezuela you have 7 Government owned businesses. LOL
This is a typical senario in Norwegian oil field
Statoil AS 28% (Operator), BP AS 28%, ConocoPhillips 28%, Total 16%
@Dovenpeis If there is 500 directly related to Petroleum industry, there is probably 5000 secondary beneficiaries and perhaps 20 000 businesses that have something to do with the industry..
YOU DONT HAVE THAT KIND OF FREEDOM IN VENEZUELA, because the government owns everything.
It is the government oil company Statoil which is at the center of the oil industry and totally dominates the whole god damn thing. In fact the oil industry in Norway is Statoil. You clearly do not have a clue as to how big and dominating Statoil is. Is one of the 50 largest companies in the entire world regardless of industry peanuts - and in Norway of all things? You are obviously delusional, and I am tired of responding to a liberal dimwit who is having ideological daydreams.
A wealthy nation can provide a high quality of life for all of its citizens until that wealth runs low and must be replenished again by the productive working people.
Countries or states with low corporate taxes are attractive to new and existing companies. If, for example, a successful businessman sees opportunity to become more wealthy by moving his company to a country or state with lower corporate taxes then he should move. It makes good business sense for him to do so.
This is a several centuries old libertarian myth which is proven dead wrong by the even older welfare state. The productive people do not stop producing simply because they have to pay taxes to finance a welfare state. In reality there is not a single incentive to do so.
Besides, just because it is a good business decision to move a business to a country with lower taxes it is not a good social decision to allow it. The globalisation needs to end.
globalization is fine. It is just being done in the form of neoliberal economic policies which is the real problem. I wish we could do what Japan has done. One prefecture one product. Each prefecture in Japan has a specialty. Of course you can get everything you need no matter where you live in Japan. There is atleast one product in a prefecture that is unique to that prefecture. IT actually helped keep local culture going in Japan. since it is so homogeneous.
I do not think Japan is a model on anything except her homogeneousness, which she has managed to maintain only because she is not White.
In the event of the de facto globalisation, Japan has increasingly demonstrated her failure at countering the social problems of capitalism. The Nordic model, however, has proven much more adept at countering the social problems of capitalism. And she does not need the planned economy of Japan.
YOu don't even know what I'm speaking of. I was basically speaking of how they adapted to globalization. Yea, they have social problems man, but it could be a lot worse. They could be like China.. China radically destroyed its social safety nets in exchange for rapid development. To be honest though. I've never stated Japan had the best system, but compared to America. Yes, it is better. Globalization in the form of neoliberal policies is the culprit. Not globalization itself.
now this is where I think you do not understand me. Globalization right now is done under the pretense of neo-colonialism, and neo-liberalism. Open up your markets, and get raped by large multinationals. This happens to developing countries quite often. Hell Asia didn't even develop on the model of a neo-liberal economy.. My point out of the post was neo-liberalism is the problem, not necessarily globalization. trade is fine. forcing farmers to compete globally isn't cool..
part of that competition is being allowed the ability to protect your economy. that nasty little word protectionism. This is how the developed Asian countries benefitted from globalization. Free up land, subsidize vocational training, gradually get a professional class, etc etc. While industries are in infancy keep competing foreign companies out. Neo-liberal economic policies demand the opening of one's economy, and the lifting of trade tariffs. globalization is old.
globalization is quite an old concept being thrown around, and confused with the new developed of neo-liberal economic policies. The simple fact that you're mixing the two irritates me, and your arrogance pisses me off. And the fact that what I just said shows me you have no clue about the subject itself. neo-liberalism is basically free market fundamentalism.This drive to force countries with infant industries to compete globally instantly is insane. sets them up for exploitation
globalization is about competing globally, but with that being said. I wouldn't blame globalization on the economic issues. You can, but it isn't simply globalization. That has been around for quite some time. What is really hurting the developing world is neo-liberalism. Now This is the point I have made over and over. So what are you going on about? DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM IS MORE THAN JUST GLOBALIZATION AND HAS MORE TO DO WITH NEO LIBERALISM?
And yes, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Brunei, Thailand are examples of successful economies in the 1990s. With Taiwan, Korea, Singapore and Thailand, and Brunei reaching developed status then. They didn't do it through neo-liberal policies of imediately competing with outside markets.They built up their industries and gradually entered them into world markets.Thus saying, these countries adapted to globalization, whereas other countries are forced into neo-liberal policies by IMF
All of these Asian countries were not given any other opportunities than that of the rest of the world, including Africa. Basically, they did it by themselves.
However, the problem of globalisation stings much deeper than the problem of poor countries ability to assert their independence.
Just think about it! If you were a Richie in a globalised world, where would you like to place your factories? If you really think about it, I cannot understand why you embrace globalisation.
@Dovenpeis never said they were given opportunities. So what are you talking about at this point? I believe we are having two separate conversation. One grounded in international political economy, and the other guy whose only experience with this seems to be from watching fucking demagogues talk about it. Otherwise I assume you simply are just looking for an argument. Also I never said I embrace globalization I said the problem lies not in globalization alone.
John Locke was the philosophic angle from which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were in large part based on. Locke also was the one who instilled the notion of the inherent "natural" rights of man, which was taken up by Jefferson. Bentham's view of utilitarianism, while similar in some respects, is more crude and basic then his utilitarian inheritor, John Stuart Mill, who amended Bentham's theories and allowed for the concept of qualitative goodness, more like Locke
Some times I wonder how the USA a high developed country fails so hard athaving a good health care system good education system and just a better quality of life like the countries of western europe. you could compare Europe to a wise old man that has stopped trying to brag to everyone else and is making smart decisions while the USA could be compared to a immature, new-rich, uneducated youngster that is rich but still unbelievably ignorant and unexperienced.
The idea that one person must be forced to take care of a stranger is ridiculous . If a stranger on the street holds a gun to your head and says "Give me today's paycheck, I'm going to give to the lazy man who lives down the street." everyone would demand he be imprisoned. If the government does the same thing in larger scale, some people are actually stupid enough to praise this. The very idea that stealing from one to give to another is even slightly moral, is incorrect.
@JohanVonDoorf Two words I have for you: Practical Result. And btw, "stupidity" is definable as inability to learn, be ti from own mistakes, others' example or both.
@JohanVonDoorf Two words I have for you: Practical Result. And btw, "stupidity" is definable as inability to learn, be it from own mistakes, others' example or both.
so what is done in the rest of the developed world is immoral and is really enslaving them. While us Americans have the freedom to not get our cancer treated, and have the freedom to not get educated, and have the freedom to not have infrastructure. This is freedomland and I love it because it is crumbling. Obviously your priorities are screwed. In your world ignorance is strength uh?
@lordblazer No, I never said end the school system or give companies the right to refuse medical service to dying patients, I simply stated that welfare and incessant spending is idiotic.
This is the usual crap from the left. "If only we taxed and spent more, our society would be sooooo much better". We tax and spend more today than we ever did before, and its NOT any better.
This “crap” as you say is the reality in Scandinavia. In reality Americans pay very little tax and they actually pay way less tax today than they did under Nixon. Not surprisingly the class differences back then were much lower than it is today, just like Scandinavia, and middle class Americans received a share in the economic growth unlike today. Neither surprisingly the Nixon era had far less social problems than America today. So he could have made the same point using US history.
@Dovenpeis That's not what I hear from conservative Swedes. They would argue that the high rate of growth that Sweden experienced, was predominantly from the pre-1970's era, before the rise of the welfare state. Only one of top 50 companies in Sweden was started after 1970.
With respect to the US, you need only look at the dollars spent on Social Programs and how its changed since 1970. You will see a MASSIVE increase, that oddly enough, coincides with an increased Gini gap.
There is one more thing that conservative/libertarian Swedes forget to tell you Americans. The Nordic model is virtually without political opposition in the Nordic countries. Any politician or a political party who would take the dismantling of the welfare state to the ballots, and introducing a US market health care system in particular, will commit political suicide. This is how successful the Nordic model is. Even the conservatives here are fishing votes through the welfare state.
@Dovenpeis Yes, we have the same problem here in the US. Anyone who attempts to cut Social Security is going to get slain in the next election. In fact, that's what the entire "Tea Party Movement" is attempting to correct. Perhaps someday, when our nations are both in bankruptcy court, some headway on the issue can be made.
Do not kid yourself you have not had a welfare state since Reagan, and no conservative/libertarian number magic is going to change that. The point is that the claims in this video are actually true and based on real life examples, which is shown not only by the Nordic countries themselves, but by the US political history as well. And the conservatives/libertarians have claimed the inevitable bankruptcy of the welfare state for over 150 years and it is still alive and stronger than ever.
@Dovenpeis Is it so hard to believe that Norway and Sweden have performed well DESPITE being the world leaders in welfare state politics?
Economist's all share a common dilusion: that success can only be explained by differences in tax, spending, interest rates, rule of law, etc...
Don't you think that Nordic success might simply be a function of who you are? You guys were Vikings for God's sake, and Viking's wouldn't take this shit from anyone.
You are insinuating that our Viking heritage is synonymous to the libertarian influenced tea party movement. This could not be further from the truth. Our Viking heritage is the exact opposite as it is egalitarian and collective in nature. As such I believe the success of our welfare states is universal. However, I believe the massive political support of the welfare state is due to our Viking heritage, which is reason to fear the consequences of the libertarian immigration policies.
@Dovenpeis The morality of the situation is clear. I suppose you could express it several different ways:
1) Take not that which does not belong to you.
2) He who does not work, neither shall he eat
But more importantly, American's don't like the idea that they need "Big Brother's Help" to survive in this world. Most are quite offended by the idea that your labor belongs to someone other than yourself.
@Dovenpeis So you take issue with the second sentence of the US Declaration of Independence. Give it a read below:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
Well, Mr. Jefferson thinks Natural Rights do exist, and considers their existence quite obvious. Interested to know if you disagree and why...
I do not take issue to anything regarding the US constitution. Why would I do that? I am taking issue to whether or not natural rights exist, and it is quite clear that Jeremy Bentham has repudiated the whole thing.
@Dovenpeis Well, it was the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, but close enough.
So after a brief read of Mr. Bentham's work....
He states that rights "owe their existence to the govt", and are therefore Legal rather than Natural rights. Example: Man commits crime and govt takes away his liberty. Clearly, liberty cannot therefore be a Natural right.
@Dovenpeis Others have argued that Liberty is still a Natural right, since the person in question had to "relieve himself of his right to liberty", in this case, by committing a crime (ie, violating someone else's Natural rights)
Seems a bit like asking "how many angles fit on the head of a pin". In either case, we can all agree that people have rights, and that the govt is supposed to work for us, not the other way around.
@Dovenpeis This is just to show you that im right.
The keywords are, "Selvstyrende folkesamfund i det danske rige"... :)
as being norwegian i take it that you can read the Mother language ;)
§ 1. i loven om Færøernes Hjemmestyre:
"Færøerne udgør inden for denne Lovs Rammer et selvstyrende Folkesamfund i det danske Rige. I Henhold hertil overtager det færøske Folk ved sin folkevalgte Repræsentation, Lagtinget, og en af dette oprettet Forvaltning, Landsstyret, inden for Det danske Rige
All that conservative/libertarian Swedes say comes from right wing think tanks with a political agenda and therefore cannot be trusted. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Nordic model is far older than the 1970s, and the fact that the top names within capitalism are extremely conservative in nature. Old money stays old and new money rarely arises. Not to mention that Sweden’s by far richest man, the founder of IKEA, made his initial success during the golden years of the welfare state.
@Dovenpeis Yes, who knew that plywood furniture would become so popular? Ha Ha, Ha. Is there no other person in the Nordic region who has done well for himself in the last 40 years? That's quite a long time. Its not difficult to think of a number of Americans who have made significant changes to the US business landscape.
The fact that some think tanks might be classified as conservative does not necessarily invalidate their viewpoints.
What you write about social spending in contemporary US is not at all true. During the Nixon era you paid more taxes and you actually had a welfare state back then. And you do not at all have that now while you pay less tax. So it is simply not possible that you spend more tax money on social programs today than you did back then. This looks like typical conservative/libertarian number magic that we have become well accustomed to over the years.
@Dovenpeis The numbers from the GAO are quite clear, the US devotes a much, much larger percentage of the budget to social programs today than it ever did before. If you don't believe it, you can locate the figures yourself on the GAO's website. Nearly 60% of the federal budget goes to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. These are itemized as "Mandatory Spending" in the official literature.
@Darusdei Why would you say that? I'm from Sweden and i would gladly include Iceland and Finland. That's however not what they're discussing. They are discussing capitalism vs. socialism, and it's effect on the poor. I think what Dovenpeis is missing is that the scandinavian countries are very much not communist countries, but rather a mix of both. We are more left wing than the States, no doubt, but definately not communist societies. That wouldn't work.
You will understand why Darusdei answered me like he did if you are displaying all comments. Then you will see his answer right below my comment which he answered.
By the way, I do not at all argue for socialism. I do, however, give an argument of why liberalism is very bad at fighting poverty, and subsequently why the Nordic model is a much better model than the liberalist one at fighting poverty.
@Rqoiz Enligt Wikipedia så räknas Finland/Island ibland som Skandinavien men inte alltid. Danmark, Sverige och Norge är definitivt Skandinavien. Den etniska folkgruppen Skander är bara Norge, Danmark och Sverige. Finnar tillhör en helt annan etnisk folkgrupp mer gemensamt med Ryssar. Men vill Finnarna kalla sig själva Skandinaver är det lugnt, tror ingen bryr sig :)
Som Rqoiz sier så er Finland en geografisk del av det som på fagspråket kalles Fennoskandia. Danmark, Island og Færøyene er ikke en geografisk del av Skandinavia, men de regnes likevel som en del av Skandinavia på grunn av deres nære etniske bånd til Skandinavia. For skandinaver er det også først og fremst de etniske båndene som utgjør Skandinavia. Slikt sett er faktisk ikke Finland en del av Skandinavia på samme måte som Norge, Sverige, Danmark, Island og Færøyene.
@Dovenpeis is there a point to that rant? only ones who say scandinavia is sweden danmark and norway is propably norway and the swedish vs rest of the world.
which makes the whole fucking debate rather idiotic...
The point is what I actually wrote, namely that Scandinavia is more of an ethnocultural concept than a geographical one. This is why Denmark, Iceland and the Faroe Islands are considered a part of Scandinavia even though they are not a geographical part of Scandinavia. Thus, Finland is not a part of Scandinavia in that sense even though Finland is a geographical part of Scandinavia. Why, do you have a problem with the facts?
@Dovenpeis Just to your knowing Faroe islands is a Part of Denmark :)
and Scandinavia is Denmark, Sweden and Norway. and finland is not part of the pinsula which is scandinavia. so therefor not even geografical part of it.
else i agree with you. allthough i would not take Iceland or Finland into scandinavia. :D greetings Denmark
The Faroe Islands is an autonomous part of Denmark. Denmark has no jurisdiction there and the Faroe Islands is not a member of the EU even though Denmark is. But that is beside the point. Neither the Faroe Islands nor Denmark is a geographical part of Scandinavia. However, they are ethnically and culturally a part of Scandinavia. Just as Iceland because both Iceland and the Faroe Islands were inhabited by early Norwegians. And Finland is actually a geographical part of Fennoscandia.
I think most of FInland is genetically like other scandinavian countries.. But I agree. It might not be geografical part of it but in those standards is denmark?
He forgets to mention that there are no $ 7 an hour jobs in Scandinavia what so ever, and that daycare jobs and nursing home jobs actually are among the lowest paid jobs around here as well. Though he is right about them being semiprofessional, and they do not have as high turnaround as minimum wage jobs typically do in the US. They are better jobs than in the US, but they are not considered good jobs in Scandinavia either.
KornettenJoel is a retard. Even discussion of races pisses me off. Everyone knows that the entire world will be one big city in 100.000 years or less anyway. Ethnic will be "poff" gone. That's what makes it sad, today it's the brain that matters. Some just haven't got the skills to use it.
Back to the post: You can't compare Sweden nor Scandinavia with the US. We spend nearly nothing on Military means, while America does. To cut back when being an empire: Very dangerous.
"A quantum leap in social spending." (Meaning vastly more spending.) Requiring of course vastly higher taxes so the government can spend more money, and doing away with budget balances, meaning more and more debt and printing of money. So, higher taxes, higher debt (which our kids have to pay), and higher inflation. And of course, none of this will have any effect on the rest of the economy, or so this statist thinks. The reason the poor are poorer and the rich richer is because of this sort.
@Panpiper Here in Norway (part of Scandinavia) we have very high taxes, no national debt, low inflation and one of the strongest economies in europe, and only a very small percent of the nationall budgett comes from the oilindustry.
That is all because the word socialism is not used as an insult here.
@Svenskedaudaren Ibland hör man att Norge med sina oljefonder skulle sakna statsskuld men enligt CIA's world factbook ligger norrmännens statsskuld år 2006 på 44,8% av BNP vilket är jämförbart med vår egna som ligger på 46%. [1]
@Svenskedaudaren Norge hade en stadsskuld på 60,6 % av BNP 2009 och Sverige 35,8 %. Detta är "public debt", vad staten lånar för att täcka "goverment spending". Sen kan man också kolla external debt, men då räknar man privata och offentliga skulder i utländsk valuta, och då är Norges skuld 143 % av BNP och Sveriges 165 %.
Forskjellen er at Norge, i motsetning til USA, ikke tar opp lån for å bruke mer enn det staten har i skatteinntekter. I utgangspunktet har egentlig ikke Norge gjeld, og vi trenger heller ikke ha det da vi har et stort overskudd på statsbudsjettet. Den gjelden vi har er av ren finansteknisk art. På finansspråket kalles statens opptak av gjeld for styring av likviditeten i banksystemet. Noe som på et mer forståelig språk betyr at penger i Norge lages gjennom at staten tar opp lån.
Nei, det er nettopp det den norske staten ikke gjør, da den statlige kapitalbasen/oljefondet og det enorme overskuddet på det norske statsbudsjettet gjør dette helt unødvendig. Den norske staten tar opp lån som et finansteknisk virkemiddel for å regulere pengemengden i Norge. Men ikke spør meg hvorfor staten tar opp lån for å gjøre det. Jeg synes det virker idiotisk selv. Men det er i hvert fall forklaringen som gis. Søk etter ”statsgjeld” på norske Wikipedia.
@Dovenpeis Överskottet går till era pensionsfonder i utlandet. Staten tar lån för att öka penningmängden ibland, vilket är ganska vitalt om man vill ha någon som helst kontroll över ränta och inflation.
Ja, men da er vi jo enige, da. Den norske stat tar ikke opp lån for å bruke mer enn den har i inntekter, slik USA gjør og Sverige i hvert fall gjorde tidligere. Sånn sett er det ikke gjeld i vanlig forstand. For øvrig synes jeg fortsatt det høres merkelig ut å ta opp lån for å regulere pengemengden. Det er jo uansett staten som trykker pengene som er i sirkulasjon, så hvorfor ikke bare regulere det gjennom mengden som trykkes? Men det er en annen debatt.
Our society cannot be applied to America. We're Nordcis, while the Americans are all types of things, south Europeans, contiental Europeans, negroes, asians, etc. We simply work very diffrently, as a people.It doesn't work out for our immigrants, not the Poles, not the Balts, not the EU-labour and not our refugees.
Our society is quite obviously only in fit for the Nordic race.
I do not think race has much to do with it, as our race reaches far beyond Scandinavia, but culture sure does. It is clearly not a coincidence that the Nordic model does not exist anywhere else. However, our immigration horny politicians do not seem to understand that multiculturalism is going to destroy the egalitarian culture that is the very foundation of the Nordic model. I hope you are going to help stop this destruction process by voting Sverigedemokratarna, my friend.
@TheBenno00 The cost of labor is representative of the labor's productive capabilities. The reason why Americans make so much more than Africans is because an hour of American labor can produce multiple times as many goods as an hour of African labor because the United States is industrialized.
And of course you need social stability and some rule of law in order for economic growth. But the extent of each is different in each country.
He doesn't mention the outrageous tax rates in these Nordic countries
dehoogn 2 weeks ago 2
Comment removed
TheOneCalledSloth 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dehoogn I live in Iceland the most Taxed country in the north and thanks to social policies, i can live happily with only 250 dollars a month after tax.
Unite The Nordic People!
TheOneCalledSloth 2 weeks ago
@dehoogn "outrageous tax rates" are what makes a better quality of life for the citizens.
pharyngealized 4 days ago
@dehoogn
So you dont care if your life sucks as long as you got money. Money! Money! Money! Hahahaha! Money! Money!
SaunaFinland 2 days ago
America and Southern Europe is in a terrible state today in terms of:
- Government
- Business life and economic growth
- Education.
It's like decision makers in these parts of the World are either too daft or too stubborn to learn from countries performing much better.
scholion 3 weeks ago
If you're interested in actually informing yourself:
/watch?v=jvH4YlpCGSo
JackofOneTrade567 2 months ago
Fuck Ronald McDonald (a sorry clown) and the fully paid idiots ruling America, Greece, Portugal etc and China of today.
I'm Scandinavian and watching my corner of the World expand sure is great.
But, all the same, I worry over the rest of it.
For good reasons.
scholion 6 months ago
and by the way, how is economic inequality unjust? Shouldn't economic gain be equal to the value you create? Equality would be unjust
hermoda 6 months ago
@hermoda how does one determine "value"
junskey 6 months ago
This guy is so full of shit. The problems with healthcare in the US can only be fixed by choice and competition. Try nationalizing health care and see it decline rapidly
hermoda 6 months ago
How about getting the government out of free market... and trying some free market austrian economic policies...
PunjabiSikhRajput1 7 months ago
@PunjabiSikhRajput1
Like going back to the 19th century will do any good. The free market policies of those days, or more precisely the failure of the free market policies of those days, are the very reason behind the 20th century development of communism and consequently fascism - the ideological emergency exit of libertarianism.
Been there, done that, and do not want to experience it again.
Dovenpeis 6 months ago
@Dovenpeis In the 1900's is when america experienced the one of the greatest booms in economic prosperty... The reason why communism/ socialism / facism occur is because government loves power and control and will use any excuse to grow and gain more control... the government in sweden is doing social engineering, they are destroying swedish men, they are deciding moral behaviour and conduct, it wont be long before the government starts replacing rights of the individual for the collective good
PunjabiSikhRajput1 5 months ago
@Rajput1
Why do you people always try to rewrite history? The reason why communism arose as a genuine threat to capitalism in the early 1900’s is the bad experiences gained from the golden age of libertarianism in the 1800’s. The laissez-faire policies simply created too much insecurity and social problems. Thus people wanted the government to regulate and control. Interestingly the start of the greatest US economic boom, in the early 1900’s, was the end of small government in the US as well.
Dovenpeis 5 months ago
@Dovenpeis You think they experienced free market laissez faire in europe... England was still running an empire and looting from the world as was much other nations in europe. You couldnt have a communist government in the US in the 1800's because it would be to hard to control and US was not developed like it is today... today the country is wealthy so they are moving towards facism/socialism or whatever you want to call it. US economically prospered because of limited government interference
PunjabiSikhRajput1 4 months ago
@PunjabiSikhRajput1
The relative economics height of the US was 1940-1975
NOT a time of non-intervention in the economy.
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 2 months ago
@SUpersaiyajinjerkbag What's your point? You're basically just committing a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and applying it to economics.
JackofOneTrade567 2 months ago
@JackofOneTrade567
It is clearly a response to the libertarian post hoc that even claims causality based on incorrect data, and the point is obviously to point out the fact that both A and B are wrong in itself. The greatest economic height of the US was quite the opposite of at time with small government and non-intervention, as this libertarian claims it to be.
Dovenpeis 2 months ago
@Dovenpeis There was never a golden age of libertarianism.
JackofOneTrade567 2 months ago
@JackofOneTrade567
You mean there has been no true libertarianism like there has been no true communism? This is just an excuse for the ideological fanatic. The real world has been close enough to both of these theoretical state of things to have gained empirical data on how they work in practice. The real world nineteenth century saw very libertarian economic policies, both in terms of very small government and very little government intervention in the economy.
Dovenpeis 2 months ago
@Dovenpeis The world experienced the economic boom of the 20th century because of the freedom of the 19th century. And look at all the good that came out of that economic boom, but then govt started to get larger and consolidate the wealth in the hands of the few. Economic freedom doesn't cause social problems, poverty/inequality does. What economic freedom does create is prosperity and reduces inequality.
The recent banking crisis started 150 years ago when govt started to regulate banks.
JackofOneTrade567 2 months ago
@JackofOneTrade567
Sure, and the recent industrial crisis started with William the Conqueror, while Trofim Lysenko ideologically triumphed over science.
It never seizes to amaze me how similar Marxists and Libertarians are, both in their ideological fanaticism and their complete detachment from reality.
Dovenpeis 2 months ago
@Dovenpeis Rofl.
JackofOneTrade567 2 months ago
LOL CANT PAY HIGHER TAXES NAO DAT MESSES THE ECONOMY UP DONT TREAD ON ME FREEEEDOMMMMM
God I wish some people would just grow up. We've been on the left side of the Laffer Curve for years now.
BJ219 7 months ago
What is this guy talking about??? He is completely misinformed or is lying. I live in Sweden and the quality of life is miserable, especially if you are sent to a nursing home to die quietly. But I guess that is a good strategy for liberals in the US. Say something about how great it is on the other side of the planet under a socialist regime. Who are going to call your bluff?
longbeachboy57 7 months ago
@longbeachboy57
The liar is obviously the one who claims the quality of life is miserable in Sweden. However, rubbish like this is all too typical of libertarians, and especially among the local Scandinavian variant. They are completely detached from reality, but interestingly that does not stop them from expecting to be taken seriously.
Dovenpeis 6 months ago
Comment removed
longbeachboy57 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dovenpeis Life is not miserable for everybody. We have a large poliitical class that lives off the backs of working men and women, and they are content. The rest is commiting suicide or are on drugs in an above average rate, matched only by the former Soviet union. I used to live in the US for many years. I subscribed to and always listened to NPR and frequently heard things like "You know, in Sweden you have free daycare". No we don't...
longbeachboy57 6 months ago
Sadly the Scandinavian model and the Flexicurity system is being dismantled here because whenever the economy is under pressure our egalitarianism is identified as the culprit of deficits.
Also short term economic gains are easiest to accomplish by cutting spending on these systems. But they are extremely expensive to reinstate later.
I fear once they are lost, they will stay lost for a long time.
trefod 7 months ago
I seriously want to move to Sweden.
TheEthanwashere 8 months ago
@TheEthanwashere Funny that. Everybody in Sweden wants to move to the US.
longbeachboy57 6 months ago
@longbeachboy57
I do not know what is most hilarious, the fact that you are completely detached from reality, or the fact that you are completely detached from reality.
I have news for you, my Scandinavian brother by empiricism, Sweden actually ranks as number seven in the international ranking of satisfaction with life index, sixteen places above the US, who came in at number twenty three (and you crushed Norway at nineteen by the way).
Dovenpeis 6 months ago
@Dovenpeis I know. I read them "rankings" from time to time. My advice is to take them with a grain of salt. How the hell do you measure "satisfaction" anyway. I think that the only way to say anything about how content people are is to observe behaviour. Who is moving where, once there do they stay put, how many commits suicide (really important imho), etc. The fact remains that the flow flow of pepole to sweden is almost 100% from middle east and 0% is from France, USA, Canada or even Norway.
longbeachboy57 6 months ago
@longbeachboy57
It is out of touch with real life libertarian assertions such as “every Swede wants to move to the US” I and every well-adjusted person take with a grain of salt.
Dovenpeis 6 months ago
@Dovenpeis Whatever...
longbeachboy57 6 months ago
@longbeachboy57 Not true, look at immigration #'s. More people move to canada than the US lol.
TheEthanwashere 6 months ago
@TheEthanwashere: “More people move to canada than the US lol.”
Obviously not in terms of actual numbers, and as in the rest of the European World there are probably more downsides to immigration than positives in Canada as well.
However, you clearly do need to be acknowledged as a morally superior being. So immigration is perhaps working for you.
Dovenpeis 6 months ago
@TheEthanwashere I think you are confusing me with somone else. I never said that more people move to the US than Canada
longbeachboy57 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheEthanwashere Please feel free to stop sending me messages...
longbeachboy57 6 months ago
@TheEthanwashere Actually, you can drop me a line when you arrive to Sweden.
longbeachboy57 6 months ago
@longbeachboy57 I don't get why would they prefer the U.S which is far more authoritarian and backwards? Like you guys have an egalitarian society which even functions better than the US in some points despite having a larger welfare state.
I don't understand why would you switch to the republican side?
TheEthanwashere 6 months ago
@TheEthanwashere
You have to remember the fact that if we Scandinavians actually wanted to switch to the dark side, we would have done so a long time ago. Do not forget that the Scandinavian model is a product of the Scandinavian peoples. We vote for the Scandinavian model in democratic elections time and time again. The Scandinavian model is actually in the blood of the Scandinavian peoples.
Dovenpeis 6 months ago
@Dovenpeis Um you sound a bit too nationalistic. Anyhow the nordic model is awesome, I wonder what other economists have to say about it.
TheEthanwashere 6 months ago
@TheEthanwashere
And how did nationalism become bad in a time where a Scandinavian Crown Prince (Norway) is celebrating the establishment of South-Sudan?
The Nordic Model, as unique as it is in the entire world, is nonetheless a product of the homogenous peoples that are the people of Scandinavia.
Dovenpeis 6 months ago
Scandinavian countries have realized giant national deficits lead nowhere.
It's actually as easy as that.
Avoid big national loans, invest in young people who wish to educate themselves. The economy will grow and citizens will be productive.
scholion 8 months ago
Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden - the best place in the world. :3
PlatinumBreakdown 9 months ago 14
there are good people from sweden i have good friends from there so yay for sweden indeed
whedonfreak976 9 months ago
Scandinavia model kicks ass - bring it to the whole of EU and England please!
infokemp 9 months ago 6
USA <3
DemoneaMedia 10 months ago
we will just see how long this will last when nordic countries and germany is "bailing" everyone out...
Darusdei 10 months ago
Finland is the best!
DaBoomz13 11 months ago
It all depends on how you view reproduction. Making an economy is like making and raising a child. Are you a mother, father, and extended family to make and raise the children? Are you going to raise them also raise a family? Or are you a rapist or perhaps a run away dad? American capitalists are at worst rapists, and usually run away dads who sell the children before the big investments become needed. In the long run, we lose our economic structure weakened.
AndrewTubbiolo 11 months ago
Scandinavia FTW!!!
rabbalaba 1 year ago
I threw up in my own mouth by 2:10
jtropeano 1 year ago
The fact that you only have TWO parties to choose from in the USA is quite mindboggling when you look beyond the drama and the facade that is the electorial race. (and yes, I know you have independent parties, but really, they don't make much of a difference) Polls have consistently confirmed that the policies of both the democrats AND the republicans are far to the right of public opinion. It's not a question of voting left or right, it's more like choosing between right and far right.
4tyLLZ 1 year ago
The one thing we in scandinavia is TRUST and that's all you need for a good foundation!
oipenliga 1 year ago
@oipenliga
However, the very foundation of that trust, the Scandinavian peoples, we are rapidly destroying through multiculturalism and mass immigration.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
@Dovenpeis Thats bullshit and you know it! Dont reply talking like a SD or DF facist. Dont you get it, YOU are the problem if everyone would think like you noone would trust anyone. Dont blame your felow brothers and sisters when the fact is that YOU ARE THE BIG PROBLEM...
oipenliga 1 year ago
@oipenliga
It is not I who am the problem when you cannot get you delusions to work.
In reality, the egalitarian Scandinavian culture, which is unique in the entire world, is dependent of the very people who represent it.
If you displace the Scandinavian people, you also displace the egalitarian Scandinavian culture.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago 12
@Dovenpeis This argument is something of a meaningless factor. But you will learn some day that hate don't solve anything... Send a pm when you do that.
oipenliga 8 months ago
@oipenliga He is right tho. The Scandinavian model is closely connected to the culture of the people. That is just how it is. It is not racism or hate, it is just the truth.
Jesyce86 8 months ago
@Dovenpeis ...i don´t know what egalitarian means....but i do suspect egalitarian means very high taxes....and sales tax on tax....
wanabee100 7 months ago
@wanabee100
You probably suspect that displacing the very people who represent the egalitarian culture behind those high taxes will displace those high taxes as well, which explains why so many right wingers are supportive of mass immigration.
Dovenpeis 7 months ago
@Dovenpeis ...so you are on the left wing?...and want to stop mass immigration?....or did you just learn some new SAT words?
wanabee100 7 months ago
@wanabee100
Yes, I am on the left wing, and I want to stop mass immigration. Is it not obvious? Is it not clear that immigration is hurting the working man’s pay and salary?
Dovenpeis 7 months ago
@wanabee100
Yes, I am on the left-wing.
Yes, I want to stop mass immigration.
I mean, wanting to prevent the labour market consequence of immigration is obviously something a left-winger would want.
Dovenpeis 7 months ago
@Dovenpeis
you will blame it but watch as that xenophobia fuels Sweden's right wing to do the same thing America's right wing is currently doing. The reason why the right wing in America refuses social programs is simply because it also benefits those Americans with brown skin.
lordblazer 10 months ago
But I have to say,, Scandinavia is comming from Socialism and heading to liberalism... US is going straight to Socialism,, a loong time since they were libertarians...
"What is the difference between Norway and Venezuela?"... Venezuela socialized their oil industries,, Norway privatized it... The cripple effect of every individual is much better then centrally planned industries... Venezuela has endless amount of oil,, still they are poor..
bjarnet3 1 year ago
@bjarnet3
You are clearly having an ideological daydream about the Norwegian oil policy. In reality the only difference between the Norwegian and Venezuelan oil policy is that Norway nationalised the oil industry from day one. Unlike in Venezuela the Norwegian oil industry was a centralised government enterprise from the very beginning. And thank god for that as anything else would have been treason.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
@Dovenpeis We didn't have ANY government oil company pumping oil for decades,,, "Den norske stats statsoljeselskap" Now Statoil didn't have anything to do with oil until 1981, when they got operator responsibility, i think it was 24%.
Did the Norwegian government build ships, tools,, equipment, did they build anything?? Name one thing that the Norwegian government built. It is not oil itself that is important but the cripple effect, thousands of private industries delivering goods and services
bjarnet3 1 year ago
@bjarne
You are delusional. The government played a key role in the oil sector from the very beginning when the state oil company was founded. The unanimous political intention was Norwegian participation in the oil production and to create a basis for a national Norwegian oil industry - an endeavor which the Norwegian private sector was not at all capable of undertaking. In other words we are indebted to the government for all the high technology jobs that is the Norwegian oil industry today.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
@bjarne
In addition to the activities of the state oil company, which has an overwhelming share of over 80 % on the Norwegian continental shelf, the Norwegian government is the principal owner of all the resources there. This is administered through a portfolio called State’s Direct Financial Interest. Ever since they found oil on the Norwegian continental shelf there has been a political goal that as much as possible of the economic rent of petroleum production goes to the state.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
@Dovenpeis This is not true,, Statoil do not own 80% on the Norwegian continental,,, this is just nonsense... It is actually a lie...
The Norwegian government has always been good at dividing production blocks between Foreign and domestic Oil Companies. That is why Norway is very efficient... Because they divide between so many companies, in the opposite direction look at Venezuela who only have one Big company...
Venezuela have no incentives to be efficient, because of lack of competition.
bjarnet3 1 year ago
@Dovenpeis Of course the government has played an important role, but my point was that it was built a privately owned industry, not a government-owned one.
The government did an amazing job about getting international agreements,, because the land where the most amount of oil is today, was unclaimed.
BUT my point is that most of the oil industry is privately owned.. Because it is better when the oil is gone to have 1000 companies trying 1000 different things,, then to have one big company.
bjarnet3 1 year ago
@bjarnet3
On its websites Statoil states that it operates 80 % of all oil and gas production on the Norwegian continental shelf. This private oil notion of yours is nothing but a liberal’s ideological daydream. And this De facto nationalisation has actually been the political intention from day one.
Besides, without a dominant government oil company there would not have been a Norwegian oil industry, dimwit. It would have been an all American industry with a very little basis in Norway.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
@Dovenpeis You still don't get my point, production of oil is peanuts compared to the cripple effect of all other private small and medium businesses. If there is 500 directly related to Petroleum industry, there is probably 5000 secondary beneficiaries and perhaps 20 000 businesses have something to do with the industry..
In Venezuela you have 7 Government owned businesses. LOL
This is a typical senario in Norwegian oil field
Statoil AS 28% (Operator), BP AS 28%, ConocoPhillips 28%, Total 16%
bjarnet3 1 year ago
@Dovenpeis You still don't get my point, production of oil is peanuts compared to the cripple effect of all other private small and medium businesses.
In Venezuela you have 7 Government owned businesses. LOL
This is a typical senario in Norwegian oil field
Statoil AS 28% (Operator), BP AS 28%, ConocoPhillips 28%, Total 16%
bjarnet3 1 year ago
@Dovenpeis If there is 500 directly related to Petroleum industry, there is probably 5000 secondary beneficiaries and perhaps 20 000 businesses that have something to do with the industry..
YOU DONT HAVE THAT KIND OF FREEDOM IN VENEZUELA, because the government owns everything.
bjarnet3 1 year ago
@bjarnet3
It is the government oil company Statoil which is at the center of the oil industry and totally dominates the whole god damn thing. In fact the oil industry in Norway is Statoil. You clearly do not have a clue as to how big and dominating Statoil is. Is one of the 50 largest companies in the entire world regardless of industry peanuts - and in Norway of all things? You are obviously delusional, and I am tired of responding to a liberal dimwit who is having ideological daydreams.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
@Dovenpeis Private Subsea Oil and Gas Companies in Norway is 300+ (I stopped counting),,, Subsea Oil and Gas Companies in Venezuela is 7.... LOL
bjarnet3 1 year ago
A wealthy nation can provide a high quality of life for all of its citizens until that wealth runs low and must be replenished again by the productive working people.
Countries or states with low corporate taxes are attractive to new and existing companies. If, for example, a successful businessman sees opportunity to become more wealthy by moving his company to a country or state with lower corporate taxes then he should move. It makes good business sense for him to do so.
2tolerant 1 year ago
@2tolerant
This is a several centuries old libertarian myth which is proven dead wrong by the even older welfare state. The productive people do not stop producing simply because they have to pay taxes to finance a welfare state. In reality there is not a single incentive to do so.
Besides, just because it is a good business decision to move a business to a country with lower taxes it is not a good social decision to allow it. The globalisation needs to end.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
@Dovenpeis
globalization is fine. It is just being done in the form of neoliberal economic policies which is the real problem. I wish we could do what Japan has done. One prefecture one product. Each prefecture in Japan has a specialty. Of course you can get everything you need no matter where you live in Japan. There is atleast one product in a prefecture that is unique to that prefecture. IT actually helped keep local culture going in Japan. since it is so homogeneous.
lordblazer 10 months ago
@lordblazer
I do not think Japan is a model on anything except her homogeneousness, which she has managed to maintain only because she is not White.
In the event of the de facto globalisation, Japan has increasingly demonstrated her failure at countering the social problems of capitalism. The Nordic model, however, has proven much more adept at countering the social problems of capitalism. And she does not need the planned economy of Japan.
Globalisation is, nonetheless, the main culprit.
Dovenpeis 10 months ago
@Dovenpeis
YOu don't even know what I'm speaking of. I was basically speaking of how they adapted to globalization. Yea, they have social problems man, but it could be a lot worse. They could be like China.. China radically destroyed its social safety nets in exchange for rapid development. To be honest though. I've never stated Japan had the best system, but compared to America. Yes, it is better. Globalization in the form of neoliberal policies is the culprit. Not globalization itself.
lordblazer 10 months ago
@Dovenpeis
now this is where I think you do not understand me. Globalization right now is done under the pretense of neo-colonialism, and neo-liberalism. Open up your markets, and get raped by large multinationals. This happens to developing countries quite often. Hell Asia didn't even develop on the model of a neo-liberal economy.. My point out of the post was neo-liberalism is the problem, not necessarily globalization. trade is fine. forcing farmers to compete globally isn't cool..
lordblazer 10 months ago
@lordblazer
Well, globalisation is in fact global trade competition between all trades.
Dovenpeis 10 months ago
@Dovenpeis
part of that competition is being allowed the ability to protect your economy. that nasty little word protectionism. This is how the developed Asian countries benefitted from globalization. Free up land, subsidize vocational training, gradually get a professional class, etc etc. While industries are in infancy keep competing foreign companies out. Neo-liberal economic policies demand the opening of one's economy, and the lifting of trade tariffs. globalization is old.
lordblazer 10 months ago
@lordblazer
You are making no sense at all. Do you condemn or approve globalisation? Because now it seems you do both.
Dovenpeis 10 months ago
@Dovenpeis
globalization is quite an old concept being thrown around, and confused with the new developed of neo-liberal economic policies. The simple fact that you're mixing the two irritates me, and your arrogance pisses me off. And the fact that what I just said shows me you have no clue about the subject itself. neo-liberalism is basically free market fundamentalism.This drive to force countries with infant industries to compete globally instantly is insane. sets them up for exploitation
lordblazer 10 months ago
@lordblazer
You type: “This drive to force countries with infant industries to compete GLOBALLY [my emphasis] instantly is insane.”
I ask: What is globalisation if this is not?
Dovenpeis 10 months ago
@Dovenpeis
globalization is about competing globally, but with that being said. I wouldn't blame globalization on the economic issues. You can, but it isn't simply globalization. That has been around for quite some time. What is really hurting the developing world is neo-liberalism. Now This is the point I have made over and over. So what are you going on about? DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM IS MORE THAN JUST GLOBALIZATION AND HAS MORE TO DO WITH NEO LIBERALISM?
lordblazer 10 months ago
@Dovenpeis
And yes, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Brunei, Thailand are examples of successful economies in the 1990s. With Taiwan, Korea, Singapore and Thailand, and Brunei reaching developed status then. They didn't do it through neo-liberal policies of imediately competing with outside markets.They built up their industries and gradually entered them into world markets.Thus saying, these countries adapted to globalization, whereas other countries are forced into neo-liberal policies by IMF
lordblazer 10 months ago
@lordblazer
All of these Asian countries were not given any other opportunities than that of the rest of the world, including Africa. Basically, they did it by themselves.
However, the problem of globalisation stings much deeper than the problem of poor countries ability to assert their independence.
Just think about it! If you were a Richie in a globalised world, where would you like to place your factories? If you really think about it, I cannot understand why you embrace globalisation.
Dovenpeis 10 months ago
@Dovenpeis never said they were given opportunities. So what are you talking about at this point? I believe we are having two separate conversation. One grounded in international political economy, and the other guy whose only experience with this seems to be from watching fucking demagogues talk about it. Otherwise I assume you simply are just looking for an argument. Also I never said I embrace globalization I said the problem lies not in globalization alone.
lordblazer 10 months ago
@Dovenpeis
and yes, neo-liberal policies are forcing billions into poverty.
lordblazer 10 months ago
@lordblazer
At least we can agree on that. However, globalisation is in fact neo-liberal policies.
Who else but the inherently mobile capital profits from a global competition of attracting capital?
Dovenpeis 10 months ago
John Locke was the philosophic angle from which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were in large part based on. Locke also was the one who instilled the notion of the inherent "natural" rights of man, which was taken up by Jefferson. Bentham's view of utilitarianism, while similar in some respects, is more crude and basic then his utilitarian inheritor, John Stuart Mill, who amended Bentham's theories and allowed for the concept of qualitative goodness, more like Locke
PeterG00000 1 year ago
@PeterG00000
Well, Bentham’s master piece is undoubtedly the repudiation of natural rights. Pffhh, there goes the ideological foundation of libertarianism.
Bentham is a fucking hero!
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
Some times I wonder how the USA a high developed country fails so hard athaving a good health care system good education system and just a better quality of life like the countries of western europe. you could compare Europe to a wise old man that has stopped trying to brag to everyone else and is making smart decisions while the USA could be compared to a immature, new-rich, uneducated youngster that is rich but still unbelievably ignorant and unexperienced.
Tschiihad 1 year ago 2
@Tschiihad Scandinavians and most Europe don´t allow illegal immigrants to stay
xaviqaz 11 months ago
@Tschiihad
not that simple man..
lordblazer 10 months ago
Comment removed
Tschiihad 1 year ago
The idea that one person must be forced to take care of a stranger is ridiculous . If a stranger on the street holds a gun to your head and says "Give me today's paycheck, I'm going to give to the lazy man who lives down the street." everyone would demand he be imprisoned. If the government does the same thing in larger scale, some people are actually stupid enough to praise this. The very idea that stealing from one to give to another is even slightly moral, is incorrect.
JohanVonDoorf 1 year ago
@JohanVonDoorf Two words I have for you: Practical Result. And btw, "stupidity" is definable as inability to learn, be ti from own mistakes, others' example or both.
polnoezabvenie 1 year ago
@polnoezabvenie You must be new to the English language, and how stupidity is used.
JohanVonDoorf 1 year ago
@JohanVonDoorf Two words I have for you: Practical Result. And btw, "stupidity" is definable as inability to learn, be it from own mistakes, others' example or both.
polnoezabvenie 1 year ago
@JohanVonDoorf
so what is done in the rest of the developed world is immoral and is really enslaving them. While us Americans have the freedom to not get our cancer treated, and have the freedom to not get educated, and have the freedom to not have infrastructure. This is freedomland and I love it because it is crumbling. Obviously your priorities are screwed. In your world ignorance is strength uh?
lordblazer 10 months ago
@lordblazer No, I never said end the school system or give companies the right to refuse medical service to dying patients, I simply stated that welfare and incessant spending is idiotic.
JohanVonDoorf 10 months ago
YAY FOR SWEDEN!!!!
excepto94 1 year ago 31
This is the usual crap from the left. "If only we taxed and spent more, our society would be sooooo much better". We tax and spend more today than we ever did before, and its NOT any better.
andharvey8 1 year ago
@harvey
This “crap” as you say is the reality in Scandinavia. In reality Americans pay very little tax and they actually pay way less tax today than they did under Nixon. Not surprisingly the class differences back then were much lower than it is today, just like Scandinavia, and middle class Americans received a share in the economic growth unlike today. Neither surprisingly the Nixon era had far less social problems than America today. So he could have made the same point using US history.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
@Dovenpeis That's not what I hear from conservative Swedes. They would argue that the high rate of growth that Sweden experienced, was predominantly from the pre-1970's era, before the rise of the welfare state. Only one of top 50 companies in Sweden was started after 1970.
With respect to the US, you need only look at the dollars spent on Social Programs and how its changed since 1970. You will see a MASSIVE increase, that oddly enough, coincides with an increased Gini gap.
andharvey8 1 year ago
@harvey
There is one more thing that conservative/libertarian Swedes forget to tell you Americans. The Nordic model is virtually without political opposition in the Nordic countries. Any politician or a political party who would take the dismantling of the welfare state to the ballots, and introducing a US market health care system in particular, will commit political suicide. This is how successful the Nordic model is. Even the conservatives here are fishing votes through the welfare state.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
@Dovenpeis Yes, we have the same problem here in the US. Anyone who attempts to cut Social Security is going to get slain in the next election. In fact, that's what the entire "Tea Party Movement" is attempting to correct. Perhaps someday, when our nations are both in bankruptcy court, some headway on the issue can be made.
andharvey8 1 year ago
@harvey
Do not kid yourself you have not had a welfare state since Reagan, and no conservative/libertarian number magic is going to change that. The point is that the claims in this video are actually true and based on real life examples, which is shown not only by the Nordic countries themselves, but by the US political history as well. And the conservatives/libertarians have claimed the inevitable bankruptcy of the welfare state for over 150 years and it is still alive and stronger than ever.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
@Dovenpeis Is it so hard to believe that Norway and Sweden have performed well DESPITE being the world leaders in welfare state politics?
Economist's all share a common dilusion: that success can only be explained by differences in tax, spending, interest rates, rule of law, etc...
Don't you think that Nordic success might simply be a function of who you are? You guys were Vikings for God's sake, and Viking's wouldn't take this shit from anyone.
andharvey8 1 year ago
@harvey
You are insinuating that our Viking heritage is synonymous to the libertarian influenced tea party movement. This could not be further from the truth. Our Viking heritage is the exact opposite as it is egalitarian and collective in nature. As such I believe the success of our welfare states is universal. However, I believe the massive political support of the welfare state is due to our Viking heritage, which is reason to fear the consequences of the libertarian immigration policies.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
@Dovenpeis Well, be that as it may, welfare state politics is something that the US is always going to rail against, even in vain. Cheers...
andharvey8 1 year ago
@andharvey8
I say it is a limitation as to how long you can rail against reality. But at this point I am more interested in the moral justification?
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
@Dovenpeis The morality of the situation is clear. I suppose you could express it several different ways:
1) Take not that which does not belong to you.
2) He who does not work, neither shall he eat
But more importantly, American's don't like the idea that they need "Big Brother's Help" to survive in this world. Most are quite offended by the idea that your labor belongs to someone other than yourself.
andharvey8 1 year ago
@andharvey8
1) Natural rights do not exist.
2) Why?
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dovenpeis So you take issue with the second sentence of the US Declaration of Independence. Give it a read below:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
Well, Mr. Jefferson thinks Natural Rights do exist, and considers their existence quite obvious. Interested to know if you disagree and why...
andharvey8 1 year ago
@harvey
I do not take issue to anything regarding the US constitution. Why would I do that? I am taking issue to whether or not natural rights exist, and it is quite clear that Jeremy Bentham has repudiated the whole thing.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
@Dovenpeis Well, it was the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, but close enough.
So after a brief read of Mr. Bentham's work....
He states that rights "owe their existence to the govt", and are therefore Legal rather than Natural rights. Example: Man commits crime and govt takes away his liberty. Clearly, liberty cannot therefore be a Natural right.
andharvey8 1 year ago
@Dovenpeis Others have argued that Liberty is still a Natural right, since the person in question had to "relieve himself of his right to liberty", in this case, by committing a crime (ie, violating someone else's Natural rights)
Seems a bit like asking "how many angles fit on the head of a pin". In either case, we can all agree that people have rights, and that the govt is supposed to work for us, not the other way around.
andharvey8 1 year ago
@andharvey8
The thing is that nobody has repudiated Mr. Bentham, in favor of natural rights, and consequently natural rights does not exist.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
@Dovenpeis This is just to show you that im right.
The keywords are, "Selvstyrende folkesamfund i det danske rige"... :)
as being norwegian i take it that you can read the Mother language ;)
§ 1. i loven om Færøernes Hjemmestyre:
"Færøerne udgør inden for denne Lovs Rammer et selvstyrende Folkesamfund i det danske Rige. I Henhold hertil overtager det færøske Folk ved sin folkevalgte Repræsentation, Lagtinget, og en af dette oprettet Forvaltning, Landsstyret, inden for Det danske Rige
TPKKPT 1 year ago
@TPKKPT
Well, I guess keeping the Faroe Islands as a possession on paper was the only thing you bastards eventually could do. ;)
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
All that conservative/libertarian Swedes say comes from right wing think tanks with a political agenda and therefore cannot be trusted. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Nordic model is far older than the 1970s, and the fact that the top names within capitalism are extremely conservative in nature. Old money stays old and new money rarely arises. Not to mention that Sweden’s by far richest man, the founder of IKEA, made his initial success during the golden years of the welfare state.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
@Dovenpeis Yes, who knew that plywood furniture would become so popular? Ha Ha, Ha. Is there no other person in the Nordic region who has done well for himself in the last 40 years? That's quite a long time. Its not difficult to think of a number of Americans who have made significant changes to the US business landscape.
The fact that some think tanks might be classified as conservative does not necessarily invalidate their viewpoints.
andharvey8 1 year ago
@harvey
What you write about social spending in contemporary US is not at all true. During the Nixon era you paid more taxes and you actually had a welfare state back then. And you do not at all have that now while you pay less tax. So it is simply not possible that you spend more tax money on social programs today than you did back then. This looks like typical conservative/libertarian number magic that we have become well accustomed to over the years.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
@Dovenpeis The numbers from the GAO are quite clear, the US devotes a much, much larger percentage of the budget to social programs today than it ever did before. If you don't believe it, you can locate the figures yourself on the GAO's website. Nearly 60% of the federal budget goes to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. These are itemized as "Mandatory Spending" in the official literature.
andharvey8 1 year ago
@Darusdei Why would you say that? I'm from Sweden and i would gladly include Iceland and Finland. That's however not what they're discussing. They are discussing capitalism vs. socialism, and it's effect on the poor. I think what Dovenpeis is missing is that the scandinavian countries are very much not communist countries, but rather a mix of both. We are more left wing than the States, no doubt, but definately not communist societies. That wouldn't work.
xzours 1 year ago
@xzours
You will understand why Darusdei answered me like he did if you are displaying all comments. Then you will see his answer right below my comment which he answered.
By the way, I do not at all argue for socialism. I do, however, give an argument of why liberalism is very bad at fighting poverty, and subsequently why the Nordic model is a much better model than the liberalist one at fighting poverty.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
Inte ett ord om Finland :( Jäkla amatörer
safiiri 1 year ago
@safiiri Är Finnar verkligen Skandinavier? Undrar själv.
Jesyce86 1 year ago
@Jesyce86 Det finns en sak som heter Fennoskandinavien. Då är det SV, NO, DK, FIN och IS.
Men vi säger bara skandinavien och menar alla länder i norden...
Rqoiz 1 year ago
@Rqoiz Enligt Wikipedia så räknas Finland/Island ibland som Skandinavien men inte alltid. Danmark, Sverige och Norge är definitivt Skandinavien. Den etniska folkgruppen Skander är bara Norge, Danmark och Sverige. Finnar tillhör en helt annan etnisk folkgrupp mer gemensamt med Ryssar. Men vill Finnarna kalla sig själva Skandinaver är det lugnt, tror ingen bryr sig :)
Jesyce86 1 year ago
@Jesyce86
Som Rqoiz sier så er Finland en geografisk del av det som på fagspråket kalles Fennoskandia. Danmark, Island og Færøyene er ikke en geografisk del av Skandinavia, men de regnes likevel som en del av Skandinavia på grunn av deres nære etniske bånd til Skandinavia. For skandinaver er det også først og fremst de etniske båndene som utgjør Skandinavia. Slikt sett er faktisk ikke Finland en del av Skandinavia på samme måte som Norge, Sverige, Danmark, Island og Færøyene.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
@Dovenpeis is there a point to that rant? only ones who say scandinavia is sweden danmark and norway is propably norway and the swedish vs rest of the world.
which makes the whole fucking debate rather idiotic...
Darusdei 1 year ago
@Darusdei
The point is what I actually wrote, namely that Scandinavia is more of an ethnocultural concept than a geographical one. This is why Denmark, Iceland and the Faroe Islands are considered a part of Scandinavia even though they are not a geographical part of Scandinavia. Thus, Finland is not a part of Scandinavia in that sense even though Finland is a geographical part of Scandinavia. Why, do you have a problem with the facts?
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
@Dovenpeis Just to your knowing Faroe islands is a Part of Denmark :)
and Scandinavia is Denmark, Sweden and Norway. and finland is not part of the pinsula which is scandinavia. so therefor not even geografical part of it.
else i agree with you. allthough i would not take Iceland or Finland into scandinavia. :D greetings Denmark
TPKKPT 1 year ago
@TPKKPT
The Faroe Islands is an autonomous part of Denmark. Denmark has no jurisdiction there and the Faroe Islands is not a member of the EU even though Denmark is. But that is beside the point. Neither the Faroe Islands nor Denmark is a geographical part of Scandinavia. However, they are ethnically and culturally a part of Scandinavia. Just as Iceland because both Iceland and the Faroe Islands were inhabited by early Norwegians. And Finland is actually a geographical part of Fennoscandia.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
@TPKKPT
I think most of FInland is genetically like other scandinavian countries.. But I agree. It might not be geografical part of it but in those standards is denmark?
pyllywaltteri 1 year ago
@pyllywaltteri yes most definitely
MikeLtheSoulChild 1 year ago
As for strengthening the middle class, however, the Nordic model is obviously a better system than the laissez-faire system in the US.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
He forgets to mention that there are no $ 7 an hour jobs in Scandinavia what so ever, and that daycare jobs and nursing home jobs actually are among the lowest paid jobs around here as well. Though he is right about them being semiprofessional, and they do not have as high turnaround as minimum wage jobs typically do in the US. They are better jobs than in the US, but they are not considered good jobs in Scandinavia either.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
KornettenJoel is a retard. Even discussion of races pisses me off. Everyone knows that the entire world will be one big city in 100.000 years or less anyway. Ethnic will be "poff" gone. That's what makes it sad, today it's the brain that matters. Some just haven't got the skills to use it.
Back to the post: You can't compare Sweden nor Scandinavia with the US. We spend nearly nothing on Military means, while America does. To cut back when being an empire: Very dangerous.
Selor12 1 year ago
"A quantum leap in social spending." (Meaning vastly more spending.) Requiring of course vastly higher taxes so the government can spend more money, and doing away with budget balances, meaning more and more debt and printing of money. So, higher taxes, higher debt (which our kids have to pay), and higher inflation. And of course, none of this will have any effect on the rest of the economy, or so this statist thinks. The reason the poor are poorer and the rich richer is because of this sort.
Panpiper 1 year ago
@Panpiper Here in Norway (part of Scandinavia) we have very high taxes, no national debt, low inflation and one of the strongest economies in europe, and only a very small percent of the nationall budgett comes from the oilindustry.
That is all because the word socialism is not used as an insult here.
Svenskedaudaren 1 year ago
@Svenskedaudaren Ibland hör man att Norge med sina oljefonder skulle sakna statsskuld men enligt CIA's world factbook ligger norrmännens statsskuld år 2006 på 44,8% av BNP vilket är jämförbart med vår egna som ligger på 46%. [1]
frips1000 1 year ago
@frips1000 I følge tall fra statistisk sentralbyrå, har ikke Norge statsgeld.
søk på stsistisksentralbyrå på google, og så bruk den interne søkemotoren på sida, og søk statsgjeld Norge.
Svenskedaudaren 1 year ago
@Svenskedaudaren Norge hade en stadsskuld på 60,6 % av BNP 2009 och Sverige 35,8 %. Detta är "public debt", vad staten lånar för att täcka "goverment spending". Sen kan man också kolla external debt, men då räknar man privata och offentliga skulder i utländsk valuta, och då är Norges skuld 143 % av BNP och Sveriges 165 %.
Sök på "Norway debt of gdp"...
TheBenno00 1 year ago
@Benn
Forskjellen er at Norge, i motsetning til USA, ikke tar opp lån for å bruke mer enn det staten har i skatteinntekter. I utgangspunktet har egentlig ikke Norge gjeld, og vi trenger heller ikke ha det da vi har et stort overskudd på statsbudsjettet. Den gjelden vi har er av ren finansteknisk art. På finansspråket kalles statens opptak av gjeld for styring av likviditeten i banksystemet. Noe som på et mer forståelig språk betyr at penger i Norge lages gjennom at staten tar opp lån.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
@Dovenpeis Jaha, okey. Betyder det att den norska staten tar upp lån för att göra statliga investeringar?
TheBenno00 1 year ago
@TheBenno00
Nei, det er nettopp det den norske staten ikke gjør, da den statlige kapitalbasen/oljefondet og det enorme overskuddet på det norske statsbudsjettet gjør dette helt unødvendig. Den norske staten tar opp lån som et finansteknisk virkemiddel for å regulere pengemengden i Norge. Men ikke spør meg hvorfor staten tar opp lån for å gjøre det. Jeg synes det virker idiotisk selv. Men det er i hvert fall forklaringen som gis. Søk etter ”statsgjeld” på norske Wikipedia.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
@Dovenpeis Överskottet går till era pensionsfonder i utlandet. Staten tar lån för att öka penningmängden ibland, vilket är ganska vitalt om man vill ha någon som helst kontroll över ränta och inflation.
TheBenno00 1 year ago
@TheBenno00
Ja, men da er vi jo enige, da. Den norske stat tar ikke opp lån for å bruke mer enn den har i inntekter, slik USA gjør og Sverige i hvert fall gjorde tidligere. Sånn sett er det ikke gjeld i vanlig forstand. For øvrig synes jeg fortsatt det høres merkelig ut å ta opp lån for å regulere pengemengden. Det er jo uansett staten som trykker pengene som er i sirkulasjon, så hvorfor ikke bare regulere det gjennom mengden som trykkes? Men det er en annen debatt.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
Our society cannot be applied to America. We're Nordcis, while the Americans are all types of things, south Europeans, contiental Europeans, negroes, asians, etc. We simply work very diffrently, as a people.It doesn't work out for our immigrants, not the Poles, not the Balts, not the EU-labour and not our refugees.
Our society is quite obviously only in fit for the Nordic race.
KornettenJoel 1 year ago
@KornettenJoel
I'm just jealous of your Swedish women. Good lord, they're hot.
cheesebone82 1 year ago
@cheesebone82
In order to preserve the beauty of our people, we have to stay pure, without allowing inferior races live and breed with us.
KornettenJoel 1 year ago
@KornettenJoel
LOL, ok Hitler.
cheesebone82 1 year ago
@cheesebone82
And now I'm a Hitler, because I see the obvious diffrence between the Nordic race, and those who destroy our country and people?
Look at France, their president is a real modern time "Hitler".
KornettenJoel 1 year ago
@KornettenJoel
I do not think race has much to do with it, as our race reaches far beyond Scandinavia, but culture sure does. It is clearly not a coincidence that the Nordic model does not exist anywhere else. However, our immigration horny politicians do not seem to understand that multiculturalism is going to destroy the egalitarian culture that is the very foundation of the Nordic model. I hope you are going to help stop this destruction process by voting Sverigedemokratarna, my friend.
Dovenpeis 1 year ago
Howcome that many of the African nations don't have any economic growth? Because they sure have cheaper labor than China.
TheBenno00 1 year ago
@TheBenno00 The cost of labor is representative of the labor's productive capabilities. The reason why Americans make so much more than Africans is because an hour of American labor can produce multiple times as many goods as an hour of African labor because the United States is industrialized.
And of course you need social stability and some rule of law in order for economic growth. But the extent of each is different in each country.
breakinthebend 1 year ago