https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante

This attitude is prevalent in Nordic countries. As the article states, there has been some slight movement away from Janteloven, but not very much. It is precisely this attitude that allows for people to accept drastically higher taxes, not just for the 1%, but across the board. The social culture is dramatically different in the USA, possibly to our detriment.

Per capita means nothing. All NATO states are supposed to be spending at least 2% of their GDP towards defense. As I said, Norway spends around 1.2% of their GDP, if the USA did the same, we would have a massive amount of money for social programs. Again, I must stress that I am not slamming Norway or other Nordic countries for not reaching the 2%, I am simply pointing out additional reasons why they have more money available for social programs than we do.

I don't see what developmental aid has to do with anything. I am sure Norway spends money in other places as well. I am pointing out why socialism works in Nordic countries and why it would be a hard sell in the USA.

I understand that you are happy with your situation. In a perfect world, we could all follow a similar rule. Unfortunately to fit into that type of situation you need a population that is of relatively the same mind. In most larger nations that is impossible, there are too many different groups that have competing ideals.

Santa Clause Bernie.

Trumpism is winning on all fronts.

Free school, free healthcare, 15$/hr, Everyone will have a government job if they need a job.

Socialism works great till you run out of others people money.


Other than fixing the jail system this guy is dead wrong.

Peterffy is right on everything except that voting Republican will help solve the problem. Both democrats and republicans strongly support social welfare/safety nets, bailouts, big military/national security spending, and many other forms of government expansion. The LIBERTARIANS are presently the only major party that is a realistic alternative to the socialist/Keynesian agenda. Too much socialism will eventually destroy the economic power of the USA. Many people, unfortunately do not understand this concept because 1) the major socialist/communist superpowers of years ago have collapsed and are long gone (and the horrors of those regimes are largely forgotten), and 2) People have become increasingly dependent on social programs, subsidies, & government employment to survive.

As Upton Sinclair once said, "It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." How do you explain to a government worker that people in the private sector make 35% less in pay & benefits? You don't, they'll still ask for more by striking & threatening to shut down 'indispensable' government services--and they'll get what they want every time because their employer is already in the business of giving handouts. When they win it will be reported as a 'victory for labor' or the 'middle class', but it's really only a victory for the ballooning protected government/elite class. How do you explain to a long-time welfare recipient that the check won't be in the mail this month? You don't. You buy votes with social programs or the promise of a cushy government job. This is how the slippery slope of socialism works and eventually there will be more people in the wagon than are actually pulling it. The economy will gradually become less innovative, creative, dynamic, & productive as a result. The overall standard of living will decline and there will be continued threats to freedom & prosperity.

Socialist policies may have great intentions, but the actual results are often very different from such great intentions. As the old saying goes..."The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Socialism is a great example of such a road. Unfortunately many people have to see it to believe it.

Here's what wiki has to say about Ford and his high wages -- that he called profit sharing for qualified workers. Started in 1914. By the Great Depression, no more profits, I guess, and therefore no more high wages:

Ford was a pioneer of "welfare capitalism", designed to improve the lot of his workers and especially to reduce the heavy turnover that had many departments hiring 300 men per year to fill 100 slots. Efficiency meant hiring and keeping the best workers.[20]

Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage ($120 today), which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers.[21] A Cleveland, Ohio newspaper editorialized that the announcement "shot like a blinding rocket through the dark clouds of the present industrial depression."[22] The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs.[23][24] Ford announced his $5-per-day program on January 5, 1914, raising the minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying workers. It also set a new, reduced workweek, although the details vary in different accounts. Ford and Crowther in 1922 described it as six 8-hour days, giving a 48-hour week,[25] while in 1926 they described it as five 8-hour days, giving a 40-hour week.[26] (Apparently the program started with Saturdays as workdays and sometime later it was changed to a day off.)

Detroit was already a high-wage city, but competitors were forced to raise wages or lose their best workers.[27] Ford's policy proved, however, that paying people more would enable Ford workers to afford the cars they were producing and be good for the economy. Ford explained the policy as profit-sharing rather than wages.[28] It may have been Couzens who convinced Ford to adopt the $5 day.[29]

The profit-sharing was offered to employees who had worked at the company for six months or more, and, importantly, conducted their lives in a manner of which Ford's "Social Department" approved. They frowned on heavy drinking, gambling, and what might today be called "deadbeat dads". The Social Department used 50 investigators, plus support staff, to maintain employee standards; a large percentage of workers were able to qualify for this "profit-sharing."

Ford's incursion into his employees' private lives was highly controversial, and he soon backed off from the most intrusive aspects. By the time he wrote his 1922 memoir, he spoke of the Social Department and of the private conditions for profit-sharing in the past tense, and admitted that "paternalism has no place in industry. Welfare work that consists in prying into employees' private concerns is out of date. Men need counsel and men need help, oftentimes special help; and all this ought to be rendered for decency's sake. But the broad workable plan of investment and participation will do more to solidify industry and strengthen organization than will any social work on the outside. Without changing the principle we have changed the method of payment."[30]

We bring you peace.
>> ^chilaxe:

@Porksandwich "Socialism works in other countries, and works quite well."

Does this apply to socialist countries outside of northern Europe?
Socialism works in Scandinavia because it's full of Scandinavians. Scandinavians in the US - regardless of whether their family has been here 100 years or 1 year - are like East Asians and Jews in the US... they contribute to society at a rate far above other cultural groups.
If the US was full of Scandinavians it would rank similarly to Scandinavia, regardless of the differences in economic systems. US outcomes in general are driven by cultural groups.

>> ^chilaxe:

@Porksandwich "Socialism works in other countries, and works quite well."

Does this apply to socialist countries outside of northern Europe?
Socialism works in Scandinavia because it's full of Scandinavians. Scandinavians in the US - regardless of whether their family has been here 100 years or 1 year - are like East Asians and Jews in the US... they contribute to society at a rate far above other cultural groups.
If the US was full of Scandinavians it would rank similarly to Scandinavia, regardless of the differences in economic systems. US outcomes in general are driven by cultural groups.


It would be a lie to say you knew every aspect of every country without living in those countries to judge whether it "works" or not. You'd have to live at every income level and in various locations within each country to really KNOW for yourself. For example the US works quite well if you are a billionaire, but not so much if you make minimum wage. Your opportunity chance is going to be a magnitude higher as a billionaire, and if you fail you won't be destitute...versus the minimum wage worker.

With that said, there is a general theme in the US that if they don't believe they came up with the idea, plan of execution and implementation without basing any of it on "other" countries then we don't want it.

The common argument during the universal healthcare debate was that while other countries offer it, it wouldn't work in the US. And that's where the explanation usually ended, they would always follow up with the US needs to come up with it's own solution. And then inevitably it would be slight changes to the current system that already doesn't work for many. Then we would ignore that something like 30-35% of the US population is already receiving Medicare/Medicaid coverage that would typically be considered a universal healthcare program if it included everyone else.

It was a really disingenuous argument when you consider that they are trying to keep corporations involved in healthcare and never considered that maybe they should throw them out of the decision making process until they've come up with a plan. Then figure out how they could allow them in that wouldn't be detrimental.

I just think they never looked at other countries implementations to see what they could use for a framework in the US and see what would be required to implement it corporations or not.

But the point of all this is that, despite the evidence that things work in other countries. The US fosters the idea that borrowing ideas from other countries and suiting them to ourselves makes us inferior, and we'd rather stew in the mess we've created until we can come up with something wholly uninfluenced by things outside the country rather than try to fix it sooner by looking abroad. This would be a fine mentality if we didn't cut funding on things that were designed to give us the edge when it comes to discoveries of new things and ideas throughout various fields. There was a time when we were openly giving many of those findings to other countries to do what they will with them, but now we in turn are too good to look at them and consider what we could gain from their methods.

Our government is there to serve and protect it's people, but it doesn't protect them from corporations through regulations or limitations of the powers they have over us. SOPA and John Doe piracy lawsuits are good examples. Mortgage crisis is better. None of those serve the people or the society the people make up. And corporations are not people, so they are part of the society but they do not create the society. Corporations should exist as long as they are beneficial to society, not a minute longer.

It may be cultural group driven, but it seems the younger people are willing to abandon cultural beliefs to attempt something else so they have a chance at a future. We as a nation are unwilling to undo what we have done...we look at our past and despite there being evidence of marching down a slowly declining path that is becoming steeper and steeper.....we continue downward. Now we have to wonder if it's so dark we can't see the huge spiked pit with the very narrow walkway for the well off to tread upon. While the rest of us walk blindly into the pit.

Wool over our eyes, blinders, cart on a lead. Tracks to the cliffs edge. Whatever analogy you want to use.

Edited for clarity and thinking ahead and using the wrong word in a couple places.

@Porksandwich "Socialism works in other countries, and works quite well."


Does this apply to socialist countries outside of northern Europe?

Socialism works in Scandinavia because it's full of Scandinavians. Scandinavians in the US - regardless of whether their family has been here 100 years or 1 year - are like East Asians and Jews in the US... they contribute to society at a rate far above other cultural groups.

If the US was full of Scandinavians it would rank similarly to Scandinavia, regardless of the differences in economic systems. US outcomes in general are driven by cultural groups.

I think it's that socialism works in other countries, and works quite well. While in the US capitalism has become very predatory, everyone is out to tie you up in confusing deals and contracts or hit you with hidden fees. There's almost no straight forward business being done when it comes to things that are considered "necessities" by most citizens.

Healthcare, every one says they are doing what they do to keep costs down...overwhelmingly your experience at the doctors office gets shorter and shorter, they order more tests that show nothing and you pay more and more. Most doctors, if you have even the slightest cause for a test, they are off the hook for frivolous tests....you should be able to trust the doctor to have your best interest in mind and not withhold information to earn themselves referral fees and what not.

Banking, just look at all the fees fiascos we've been having recently. Then look at the mortgage situation, they were filling out completely false paperwork in people's names and submitting it. Now they are coming to take your house, whether they have a right to do legally or not. They aren't so helpful with loans anymore either, you'll find it more difficult to get a reasonable loan (than say 7 years ago), despite all the federal aid and such they took in.

Phone, you have so many fees on cell phones and landlines. They used to toy with area codes and have "local long distance" areas that would change randomly over periods of time. I remember a friend of mine could walk across the street and make a no extra fees local call while at his house it was local long distance rates. It's equivalent to roaming on cell phones.

Internet, not only are they trying to pass laws to censor everything they rape you on most plans. You pay the same or more for less every year as they over burden their networks and never expand. Then complain about all the congestion like they weren't adding more people the whole time and it's YOUR fault.

Air travel, you get felt up, treated like a criminal, and you better have a smile on your face while this is all going down. Plus pay extra for your bags, use special containers, etc etc.

The idea of capitalism is great, but only when the companies can't leverage their monopolies or size to quit being competitive and become predatory. And we have predatory capitalism, where instead of offering the best possible services for the lowest possible prices, you get less and less as time goes on for the same money. Or they offer a "standard service" but it becomes more costly as times goes on for unexplainable reasons in many cases that usually end up being "Rising costs" but no one knows where or why they are rising.

Plus there's more and more barriers to entry for small businesses who only make enough to support their employees. New required licensing for a job they've never required licenses for previously, minimum insurance coverage for their work, minority ratio requirements if you are working on something that is receiving public funding.

And then we have outrageous requirements for jobs, such as 4 year degrees for jobs that even 10 years ago probably didn't have those requirements.

Rising education costs which pair up with the above point, making it even costlier to simply function in our capitalist society. Less apprenticeships and similar training programs to receive hands on experience under a working professional.

30 years, it's just become more and more complicated to do anything at all many times with no good reason for it being that way beyond allowing a small group of people to exploit everyone else.

*politics
*controversy

I think those of us that are disillusioned with the 1%'s economic narrative need to understand how the conservative people see the occupy movement.

These conservative people really do think that poor people are people who haven't worked hard enough, or haven't gone to college or haven't pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps.

So we get conservatives that blame budget shortfalls on the 'extravagant' salaries of public school teachers.
We get conservatives who think that kids going into social work- should have $40,000 in student debt.
We get conservatives who believe that $7.25 an hour is just too much to pay for back-breaking work.

really, I can testify that liberals are guilty of group-think even more than conservatives are. so in the spirit of trying to absorb the tone of this conservative vomit...
*promote

>> ^dag:

I think you need to substitute "loses" for "uses to provide a valuable service"
>> ^lantern53:
Medicare is efficient? it loses $60B a year.
If socialism worked, the US would be hip-deep in gold toilet seats.



What doesn't follow under that heading, really.

>> ^lantern53:

Medicare is efficient? it loses $60B a year.
If socialism worked, the US would be hip-deep in gold toilet seats.


Medicare WOULD be way more efficient if it didn't have to deal with all the bullshit of a privatized system. There's soo much bullshit to go through we lose tons of money with our inefficient health system, it's ridiculous. Single payer would actually save us money...which is why Obamacare got traction in the first place and got passed...because GM noticed it had to pay 2,000 more a care in Detroit than across the way in Windsor (Canada) just because of Health care BS.

By your logic, then the Department of Defense is the worst federal program in the history of all gov't programs, and it's not socialist.

>> ^lantern53:

Medicare is efficient? it loses $60B a year.
If socialism worked, the US would be hip-deep in gold toilet seats.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I think you need to substitute "loses" for "uses to provide a valuable service"

>> ^lantern53:

Medicare is efficient? it loses $60B a year.
If socialism worked, the US would be hip-deep in gold toilet seats.

Medicare is efficient? it loses $60B a year.

If socialism worked, the US would be hip-deep in gold toilet seats.