Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (90423)	10/16/2008 7:41:29 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541813

Each of these countries benefits from being extremely homogenous, culturally. Well, Norway used not to be, it absorbed other peoples in the 18/19th centuries. But relative to the US, no question. This however was why I compared Dubai, Borneo or Azerbaijan... also small oil-rich nations. The climates are very different (some would prefer the heat... I'd take the Nordic climate any time) but they had uniform populations - obviously each has chosen a different path. OK, Azerbaijan is only a recent new state, but I think its path will not be that of stable social democracy. And as far as disadvantages go, Norway has only been independent for a century or so (although IIRC Sweden wasn't the most interfering of rulers) and was of course occupied by the Nazis for four years, so it's had chances to go down other cultural directions. Social mix, and peripheral placing which left them out of much [certainly not all] of the destructive warfare and politicking, but still able to participate in most of the advances of Europe 1300-1900, might explain it for the Scandanavian nations. There must be something more than simple racial/cultural homogeneity, since plenty of states have that. But it wouldn't explain why they they all have such a similar model - especially Finland, which has a completely different ethnic and linguistic history...