*related=https://videosift.com/video/Denmark-Responds-To-Fox-News-Fantasy-With-Facts

Denmark Responds To Fox News Fantasy With Facts has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash.

*doublepromote

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, November 3rd, 2018 12:13am PDT - doublepromote requested by oritteropo.

Now scale the population up by 70 times, does it still hold together? USA has around 10 metropolitan areas with population higher than the entire country of Denmark.

I like what I hear.... but the USA is huge by comparison.

Why wouldn't it?

I can think of material reasons why what works in Denmark wouldn't work in other countries, but basic population doesn't seem important (once you have a basic population big enough to support the services, it seems like they'd scale just fine).

It doesn't work because there is an intrinsic group think personality in the Nordic region. Most people in that region that were born and raised there are very sensitive to profit making and ostentatious displays.

Which means that people are glad to simply 'get by'. There is not a mass drive to be better than your neighbor or own more toys than them. Of course there are outliers, but the bulk of Scandinavians are very used to the accepted norm. They are more willing to accept massive tax rates because they know they will be taken care of by the government. They aren't necessarily concerned about 'getting rich'.

Contrast that to other areas, especially the USA, and you will find out that it would never work here because we are an individualistic nation. Even the bluest liberal wants to be rich here. It's more cutthroat, more selfish, than you will find in a Scandi nation.

Another huge reason it would never work is that they do not spend anywhere near the percentage of their budget on defense that we do. Denmark spends about 20 billion per year on defense. Norway, an oil rich Scandi nation that is considered one of our most important NATO allies, spends about 6 billion. Less than 1.2% of their GDP. This is one thing that Trump was actually right about. We spend around 700 Billion, roughly 3.5% of our current GDP.

"Half the alliance — 16 of the 29 countries — don’t even spend 1.5 percent (of gross domestic product) let alone 2 percent that we all agreed on four years ago (at a NATO summit) in Wales,” Michael Fallon, who served as secretary of state for defense from 2014 to 2017, said. In 2017, only the U.K., Greece, Poland and Estonia reached the 2 percent target.

Whether that level of spending is needed is another argument altogether. I personally think we overspend way too much on defense, but regardless it is a huge factor as to why we can't offer the same level of 'socialism' that the Nordic nations do. If we spent the same percentage as Norway, we would be saving close to 460 billion dollars a year that could be applied to other programs. Such as paying for college for qualified students or trade school for ones that are not college minded. Or providing benefits to new mothers that we currently don't.

I wish we could just transfer some of the extreme wealth of the wealthy and put it into infrastructure, jobs, sustainable energy, free education, free healthcare, etc. Because fuck them, they have way too much money and I certainly haven't seen anything good come from the elites in this country having that much money while the working class has remained stagnant for the last 40 years.

Not wanting to get rich in Norway? Not wanting toys? Meh.
Military spending in Norway per capita? We're in 7th place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_per_capita

In Scandinavia anyone can get wealthy. Anyone can get a proper college education.

Health care? In the US you spend more per capita than in Scandinavia.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-spending/u-s-health-spending-twice-other-countries-with-worse-results-idUSKCN1GP2YN

I quite prefer the model here, and wouldn't switch for the world.
Sure I pay a lot of taxes - half my salary goes to taxes, and I pay 25% VAT on the rest - but I do get value for my money; education, health care, pension and a good infrastructure.

And hey - to help other countries - how about we add up the military spending we use with with how much we spend on development aid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors

Even if Americans wouldn't accept the level of taxes and other wealth distribution methods that happen in Denmark, I think that we'd almost certainly be net better off / "happier" / have a higher standard of living if we moved in that direction at least a little bit.

Yes, Americans want to be rich. But, the 1% is going to be relatively equally happy whether they are 10 times, 100 times, or 1000 times richer than the 98th percentile just below them. Today, that disparity is massive. In eras that the GOP likes to remember as the good ol' days, say the 1950s, rich was still rich but nowhere near as far beyond the middle class as it is today.

High(er) taxes, particularly on income in those top percentile tax brackets, allow for the superior infrastructure, health care, and educational opportunities that benefit *everyone* and allow for the "American Dream" of anyone being able to make it big with a good idea, a lot of hard work, and a little luck. I don't think that recipe for success actually pans out in modern America, and that is a shame.

I wish those wishing to return to the good old 50's would remember the top 1% proudly paid 92% in taxes back then as opposed to the often <25% they bemoan as draconian today, which went a long way towards paying for all the nice things they like to point to nostalgically and allow for upward mobility.

I know all that; I was specifically wondering why Deathcow thought our population size difference was important.

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.

I can't speak for Deathcow, but in my own opinion if you have a significantly smaller population, it is far more likely that people will share a similar outlook on life and how people should live it. In a larger nation with a massive population you begin to notice regional and economical differences (unless the nation is an island, that has a dramatic effect of it's own).

It's obviously not a slam dunk, but it does present a likely reason as to why a nation with a smaller population that has cultural and social ideals shared by most will be able to adhere to standards others would find difficult.

I would love it if we all paid a proportionate amount of tax regardless of wealth. I would also love it if they would remove all of the various loopholes that let people like our President scam their way out of paying hardly any taxes.

One of the things people always forget about the 50's is that one of the reasons why 'everyone' (white people for the most part, ethnicities need not apply) had good jobs, etc. is because a good chunk of people died in WW2/Korea. We lost over half a million people during the years from 1942 to 1953. Additionally there was a dramatic shift in female employment, meaning that for the first time many households were not wholly dependent on one salary.

I agree....mostly.
My plan, for when I'm emperor, is one tax rate based on the budget that pays for everything in full (no deficit, and pay off the debt) and puts 2% in the bank yearly for future unforseen disasters, with a base deduction of whatever poverty level in your state is +100%, so people barely out of poverty pay nothing.
Whatever that number is should be applied across the board, no loopholes, no special tax rates for certain types of income, no extra exemptions, nothing.
Also, 100% tax on money hidden offshore to avoid taxation and use RICO on the church(s) to pay off most of the debt first.


Yes, there were many reasons why the job market was good in the 50's for white guys, most of which are unthinkable or impossible today. For instance, a single income household with one average salary could not only save, they could often have a continuously rising standard of living. There's no way today, even on two incomes most families are in debt and downwardly mobile.

Janteloven is fictional, from a satire piece. Successful Scandinavians are celebrated, not put down.
Side note: The law was not written by Aksel Sandemose - it was found and twisted. The original laws were taken verbatim from the sobriety movement, where the list of laws was hung up on the wall. Although Sandemose did one change - each law ended with "...when you drink". And then the laws suddenly make quite a bit of sense.
Sandemose's contribution was to remove this crucial point of the laws, that it fit mentality he had seen elsewhere. Like all good satire, it has a grain of truth, but it is by no means a defining description of Scandinavians - it works just as well in a lot of hickwille towns all over the world.

I know the original concept was fictional, but the general ideal does exist in theory. I can find numerous articles that discuss it and even Scandinavian politicians refer to it as being somewhat entrenched in the society.

Perhaps a better way to look at it would be the secondary summary given by Kim Orlin Kantardjiev. The law might be summarised as "You shouldn't think you're better than everyone else."

Of course it isn't a 'law' in the rulebooks, but when you have a mostly homogeneous society that believes in a certain cultural norm, then it might as well be.

I suspect we will disagree on whether it is truly a factor, I can only offer my opinion based on what I have read and studied. One of the nasty side effect of my crippling fear of flight is the likelihood that I will never visit a country I can't drive to or take a short sea voyage to.

Yeah, I've never understood churches being exempt from taxation. I know the argument is that the government could use taxation as a method to infringe upon which churches it doesn't approve of, but if all churches were forced to pay exactly the same rate it would be impossible to discriminate against a specific one.

Of course, churches and religions get away with a lot of crimes that anyone else would get destroyed for. Looking at you, Catholic Church!