per capita income in the US is far less democratic than it is in the Nordic countries
That statement doesn't make a lot of sense. Perhaps you mean "less equal" or "more concentrated"?
if a good section of Ameirican people are excluded from its benefits.
A lot of people in Europe, including Sweden, are "excluded" from the benefits in a similar way. They may not have a lot of homeless, but they have a lot of fairly poor people who depend on government benefits, or government jobs some of which are apparently make work jobs. Overall the Nordic countries do better than the rest of Europe. If you want to look at an entity closer to the size of the US rather than one more like the size of New York City, you can compare the whole EU to the US. The EU has persistently higher unemployment, including groups of people who seem almost excluded from steady employment like many of the poor immigrants in France.
---
More on Sweden and also poverty measurements -
"The international poverty figures we hear cited all the time do not measure poverty at all! (245) The only thing they measure is inequality. For example, by calculating the percentage of people below 50% of the median income (median is middle not average [mean]), the Syracuse study found poverty rates of 6.6% for Sweden and 16.9% for the United States. But this says nothing about what the median income is"
CATO citation:
"Recall that by the early 1950s Sweden was by far the richest country in Europe. Its per capita GNP was twice the European average and 25 percent above that of Switzerland, which ranked second.
Sweden's dismal economic performance from 1970 to 1990 was no less striking than its high growth from 1870 to 1930.
After the collapse of communism, some Swedes (especially the Social Democrats) thought the Swedish model would be an attractive choice for the newly emerging democracies of Central Europe. But it has not been. Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia have wisely chosen to look for free-market solutions. Other nations in that region show little interest in the Swedish model.
What should be recommended to anyone who hopes to succeed with the Swedish model? Follow the first hundred years of capitalist growth and avoid the subsequent mistakes."
cafehayek.typepad.com
----
Despite the effusive praise by some praising of the 'equality' and the 'elimination of poverty' in Sweden, the remarkably low poverty rate in Sweden might not accurately described the conditions there. A Syracuse University study explained (90):
For example, the European Union has chosen an official line equal to 60 percent of the mean income for measuring poverty (Eurostat, 2000). However, the approach of using the average to establish a poverty line means that changes in the incomes of the richest persons affect the poverty threshold, which many scholars reject on theoretical grounds (Jäntti and Danziger, 2000: 327). Therefore, many researchers prefer using the median to establish a relative poverty line. For example, the most widely used definition of a relative poverty line establishes the threshold equal to 50 percent of the median income (Rainwater, Smeeding and Burtless, 2002). Regardless, a clear consensus is lacking and relative poverty rates based on various fractions (40, 50 and 60 percent) of either mean or median income are often reported. (90)
The international poverty figures we hear cited all the time do not measure poverty at all! (245) The only thing they measure is inequality. For example, by calculating the percentage of people below 50% of the median income (median is middle not average [mean]), the Syracuse study found poverty rates of 6.6% for Sweden and 16.9% for the United States. But this says nothing about what the median income is! For example, if the median yearly income is $10,000 in Sweden, but $100,000 in the United States, which country suffers the most poverty? Perhaps this is why that Heritage study showed that our 'poor' citizens are better off than the average citizens in some countries (who probably have lower 'poverty' rates!). [note: the Census Bureau's poverty figures are not measured this way; as Chart 34 shows the Census Bureau's poverty rate is 12.1. It would be interesting to measure poverty rates of other countries using the Census Bureau's methods.]
The Australian treasury department did a study which looked at world per capita income levels Chart 50 (91):
Using the commonly used poverty standard, more impoverished people exist in 2000 then 1900. This is a ridiculous notion, and the study warns:
If the erroneous belief that international inequality is still worsening is not contested, it can damage confidence in open global markets for trade and investment. History has shown open markets to be the best vehicle for accelerated global and regional growth in income and living standards for the poor, and thereby for improvements in Australia’s own security and living standards. (91)
But even so, inequality is nothing to run away from (99). It is the natural result of human progress. This is why it has been said 'a rising tide raises all boats'. The richest societies are, almost by definition, the most unequal:
From the dawn of human history to the mid-18th century, the world was a much more equal place than today. Productivity levels across the world were very low and fairly uniform. (91)
Economist Jane Jacobs once said:
"Poverty has no causes. Only prosperity has causes... Poverty can be overcome only if the relevant economic processes are in motion." (92)
Economist Nathan Rosenberg proclaimed:
"The perception of poverty as morally intolerable in a rich society had to await the emergence of a rich society." (92)
And Winston Churchill once profoundly stated:
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. (93)
neoperspectives.com |
