Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Could a Social Democracy Work in the US?

The_Commander
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 7:33:06 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Like the ones in Norway or Sweden? Or is the US too large for it to work?

By the way, this is not accounting political factors, just whether it would be economically viable over multiple years.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 2:42:16 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/10/2015 7:33:06 AM, The_Commander wrote:
Like the ones in Norway or Sweden? Or is the US too large for it to work?

Typically, there's change that will happen everywhere -- and with the looks of things, social democracy is the way we're headed. Not that it will work, of course, but that seems to be the ideology behind most individuals.

By the way, this is not accounting political factors, just whether it would be economically viable over multiple years.

The construct of our economy versus European-style (social democracy) is quite different, and we shouldn't be wishing for what they've adopted. Under our current economic structure, there is more of a safety net and economic freedom, without extraneous regulations, for the most part. There are cutbacks associated with adopting a social democratic system that we don't suffer from in the US. Besides the strictly by-the-book policy differences, cultural and root differences would prohibit an effective social democratic structure in the US. Built on economic freedom and political liberty. Margaret Thatcher explained another flaw quite well, "[the problem] with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." Just giving out "free stuff" isn't something that would work well economically, politically, or socially in a country such as ours, one built on autonomous freedom and liberty.

Moreover, a lot of the success and block-building from model Scandinavian countries aren't entirely justified. Particularly, these countries have seen a *decline* in socialist practices and policies in recent years. The public sector, one could argue based on these experiences, isn't sustained over the long-term. With startlingly high tax rates but mediocre education, these countries models don't look as bright as they are painted.

In the end, there's a lot of structural things that ensure socialism won't be a big hit in the US, but there's also the problem of strict economics, and how social features bar the way from economic success under a social democracy.

TL;DR -- No, social democracy, even strictly economic, would not functional *well* in the US.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Stefanwaal
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 3:46:20 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/10/2015 2:42:16 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 12/10/2015 7:33:06 AM, The_Commander wrote:
Like the ones in Norway or Sweden? Or is the US too large for it to work?

Typically, there's change that will happen everywhere -- and with the looks of things, social democracy is the way we're headed. Not that it will work, of course, but that seems to be the ideology behind most individuals.

By the way, this is not accounting political factors, just whether it would be economically viable over multiple years.

The construct of our economy versus European-style (social democracy) is quite different, and we shouldn't be wishing for what they've adopted. Under our current economic structure, there is more of a safety net and economic freedom, without extraneous regulations, for the most part.

More of a safety net? Why so? I did some research and the USA spends about 16% of GDP on the safety net in 2007 while Norway spent 20% of GDP and Sweden 27% (1).

There are cutbacks associated with adopting a social democratic system that we don't suffer from in the US. Besides the strictly by-the-book policy differences, cultural and root differences would prohibit an effective social democratic structure in the US. Built on economic freedom and political liberty. Margaret Thatcher explained another flaw quite well, "[the problem] with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." Just giving out "free stuff" isn't something that would work well economically, politically, or socially in a country such as ours, one built on autonomous freedom and liberty.

If socialism doesn't work economically speaking, why is the GDP per capita of Norway higher than the one of the USA? (2)


Moreover, a lot of the success and block-building from model Scandinavian countries aren't entirely justified. Particularly, these countries have seen a *decline* in socialist practices and policies in recent years. The public sector, one could argue based on these experiences, isn't sustained over the long-term. With startlingly high tax rates but mediocre education, these countries models don't look as bright as they are painted.

Mediocre education? Norway scored higher than the US in 2013 on the education index (3).


In the end, there's a lot of structural things that ensure socialism won't be a big hit in the US, but there's also the problem of strict economics, and how social features bar the way from economic success under a social democracy.

TL;DR -- No, social democracy, even strictly economic, would not functional *well* in the US.

Also, in the world happiness report Norway and Sweden are both placed above the USA (4).

But now back to the topic. I don't see why social democracy wouldn't work in the US if you would only look at it economically. But this is because I believe social democracy works in general. I have no idea how to figure out if it would work in a specific country when looking at it in a purely economical way.

Sources:

1) http://theweek.com...
2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
3) https://en.wikipedia.org...
4) https://en.wikipedia.org...
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 4:24:27 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/10/2015 3:46:20 PM, Stefanwaal wrote:
At 12/10/2015 2:42:16 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 12/10/2015 7:33:06 AM, The_Commander wrote:
Like the ones in Norway or Sweden? Or is the US too large for it to work?

Typically, there's change that will happen everywhere -- and with the looks of things, social democracy is the way we're headed. Not that it will work, of course, but that seems to be the ideology behind most individuals.

By the way, this is not accounting political factors, just whether it would be economically viable over multiple years.

The construct of our economy versus European-style (social democracy) is quite different, and we shouldn't be wishing for what they've adopted. Under our current economic structure, there is more of a safety net and economic freedom, without extraneous regulations, for the most part.

More of a safety net? Why so? I did some research and the USA spends about 16% of GDP on the safety net in 2007 while Norway spent 20% of GDP and Sweden 27% (1).

[http://www.nytimes.com...]

There are cutbacks associated with adopting a social democratic system that we don't suffer from in the US. Besides the strictly by-the-book policy differences, cultural and root differences would prohibit an effective social democratic structure in the US. Built on economic freedom and political liberty. Margaret Thatcher explained another flaw quite well, "[the problem] with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." Just giving out "free stuff" isn't something that would work well economically, politically, or socially in a country such as ours, one built on autonomous freedom and liberty.

If socialism doesn't work economically speaking, why is the GDP per capita of Norway higher than the one of the USA? (2)

[http://www.iea.org.uk...]

"In relative terms, economic growth has been sluggish in Sweden since the early 1970s, since the size of government there had become really huge. For example, per capita GDP in Sweden was 16% higher than the UK in 1980 (and public spending accounted for a mammoth 60% of GDP), but only 3% higher in 2008. Indeed, Sweden suffered a severe fiscal crisis in the early 1990s, so high was the level of state spending, and radical reforms had to be introduced in an attempt to curb the growth of government."

What I'm asserting is that it isn't sustainable. Short-term may be appealing, but the long term is not.

Moreover, a lot of the success and block-building from model Scandinavian countries aren't entirely justified. Particularly, these countries have seen a *decline* in socialist practices and policies in recent years. The public sector, one could argue based on these experiences, isn't sustained over the long-term. With startlingly high tax rates but mediocre education, these countries models don't look as bright as they are painted.

Mediocre education? Norway scored higher than the US in 2013 on the education index (3).

Denmark. With such high taxes, education should be way better, it's not.

In the end, there's a lot of structural things that ensure socialism won't be a big hit in the US, but there's also the problem of strict economics, and how social features bar the way from economic success under a social democracy.

TL;DR -- No, social democracy, even strictly economic, would not functional *well* in the US.

Also, in the world happiness report Norway and Sweden are both placed above the USA (4).

I wonder why? Perhaps because we're becoming more and more socialist?

But now back to the topic. I don't see why social democracy wouldn't work in the US if you would only look at it economically. But this is because I believe social democracy works in general. I have no idea how to figure out if it would work in a specific country when looking at it in a purely economical way.

Sources:

1) http://theweek.com...
2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
3) https://en.wikipedia.org...
4) https://en.wikipedia.org...
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Stefanwaal
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 6:46:43 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/10/2015 4:24:27 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 12/10/2015 3:46:20 PM, Stefanwaal wrote:
At 12/10/2015 2:42:16 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
The construct of our economy versus European-style (social democracy) is quite different, and we shouldn't be wishing for what they've adopted. Under our current economic structure, there is more of a safety net and economic freedom, without extraneous regulations, for the most part.

More of a safety net? Why so? I did some research and the USA spends about 16% of GDP on the safety net in 2007 while Norway spent 20% of GDP and Sweden 27% (1).

[http://www.nytimes.com...]

Where in that source is the conclusion the US has more of a safety net than countries like Norway and Sweden?


There are cutbacks associated with adopting a social democratic system that we don't suffer from in the US. Besides the strictly by-the-book policy differences, cultural and root differences would prohibit an effective social democratic structure in the US. Built on economic freedom and political liberty. Margaret Thatcher explained another flaw quite well, "[the problem] with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." Just giving out "free stuff" isn't something that would work well economically, politically, or socially in a country such as ours, one built on autonomous freedom and liberty.

If socialism doesn't work economically speaking, why is the GDP per capita of Norway higher than the one of the USA? (2)

[http://www.iea.org.uk...]

"In relative terms, economic growth has been sluggish in Sweden since the early 1970s, since the size of government there had become really huge. For example, per capita GDP in Sweden was 16% higher than the UK in 1980 (and public spending accounted for a mammoth 60% of GDP), but only 3% higher in 2008. Indeed, Sweden suffered a severe fiscal crisis in the early 1990s, so high was the level of state spending, and radical reforms had to be introduced in an attempt to curb the growth of government."

What I'm asserting is that it isn't sustainable. Short-term may be appealing, but the long term is not.

I did some research and found this http://i2.wp.com...
So if growth of real GDP is all that matters then Norway and Sweden probably have governments that are too big. But I'm unsure if growth in real GDP is really all that matters in an economy.


Moreover, a lot of the success and block-building from model Scandinavian countries aren't entirely justified. Particularly, these countries have seen a *decline* in socialist practices and policies in recent years. The public sector, one could argue based on these experiences, isn't sustained over the long-term. With startlingly high tax rates but mediocre education, these countries models don't look as bright as they are painted.

Mediocre education? Norway scored higher than the US in 2013 on the education index (3).

Denmark. With such high taxes, education should be way better, it's not.

Just because taxes are high doesn't mean education should be good. After all, it's not necessary that the government spends a lot on education. So I did some math.

I did GDP per capita (1) * Government expenditure on education (% of GDP) (2) = total spendings. Then this got compared with the Education index (3). For every country I looked at 2011, because I had all of the data for that year.

Norway 2011: 62,737 * 6.6% = 4141 for .910
Sweden 2011: 43,709 * 6.5% = 2841 for .830
Finland 2011: 40,251 * 6.5% = 2616 for .815
Denmark 2011: 43,314 * 8.5% = 3682 for .873
US 2011: 49,781 * 5.2% = 2589 for .890

It seems like the governments of Sweden, Finland and Denmark are all spending more on education and get less quality in return. Norway does have a higher quality, but also way more government spendings.


In the end, there's a lot of structural things that ensure socialism won't be a big hit in the US, but there's also the problem of strict economics, and how social features bar the way from economic success under a social democracy.

TL;DR -- No, social democracy, even strictly economic, would not functional *well* in the US.

Also, in the world happiness report Norway and Sweden are both placed above the USA (4).

I wonder why? Perhaps because we're becoming more and more socialist?

Who are 'we'? The US?

Sources:

1) http://data.worldbank.org...
2) http://data.worldbank.org...
3) https://en.wikipedia.org...
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 9:31:20 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Also, in the world happiness report Norway and Sweden are both placed above the USA (4).

I wonder why? Perhaps because we're becoming more and more socialist?

But now back to the topic. I don't see why social democracy wouldn't work in the US if you would only look at it economically. But this is because I believe social democracy works in general. I have no idea how to figure out if it would work in a specific country when looking at it in a purely economical way.


I have a strong disdain for this feelings argument against Capitalist Free Market/Republic. Losing privileges and freedoms you once had normally gets under your skin.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 10:51:17 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/10/2015 7:33:06 AM, The_Commander wrote:
Like the ones in Norway or Sweden? Or is the US too large for it to work?

By the way, this is not accounting political factors, just whether it would be economically viable over multiple years.

No socialist democracy is viable over an extended period of time. Any sensible sociologist and economist would tell you that redistribution of wealth doesn't do much to create actual wealth, and actually slows down the rate of GDP and corporate growth, all while making citizens further dependent on the government, IE, rich lobbyists behind the government.