SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: koan who wrote (26507)9/6/2012 9:48:25 AM
From: longnshort2 Recommendations  Respond to of 85487
 
"Socialism works pretty well in Denmark and the Scandinavian countries."

only as long as Nokia has money. And since it doesn't have as much as before socialism is hurting those countries.


“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. ”
? Margaret Thatcher

It would be hard to understate the extent of romanticizing and fantasy concerning Scandinavia’s economic and social systems to be found among the Western “intellectual classes,” and that clearly includes the left wing of the Democrat Party. Scandinavians themselves are often not as convinced that Scandinavian socialism is all it is cracked up to be, and Sweden’s own ex-Prime Minister Carl Bildt (current Foreign Minister) has pronounced it a failure.

Scandinavian countries are “socialist” in some senses and vibrantly capitalist in other senses. They are “socialist” in the sense that they have very high taxes with very generous social welfare services provided by the state, the famous “cradle-to-grave” welfare state. They are vibrantly capitalist in the sense that they have low levels of interference in markets by the government, low levels of regulation, low levels of nationalization of industry and capital, and almost no protectionism. Interestingly, Scandinavian countries, especially Sweden, manage to maintain those levels of taxes and expenditures while achieving high levels of national wealth and production, and a standard of living among the world’s highest. As a result Western groupies of Scandinavia hold its “socialism” up as the model for the rest of the world and certainly for the bastions of capitalist inequality and class conflict, especially the English-speaking nations.
The wealth and riches of Sweden of course are at least in part the byproduct of Swedish cowardice and moral depravity. Sweden sat out both World Wars, and emerged from them with its economy completely in tact. In fact, “neutral” Sweden made money trading with Hitler’s Germany and providing the Nazi war machine with war materials, even while its fellow Scandinavian nations were being overrun, brutalized and devastated.

Be that as it may, Sweden in particular and Scandinavia in general are hailed as the great champions of humanism and egalitarianism, as the countries that have cured poverty and eliminated hardship and material suffering. Here is not the place for an overall assessment of Scandinavian societies, which – like all countries – have their positive points and also their problems. The question here is whether Scandinavian “socialism” is really the panacea for poverty.

Sure enough, poverty rates are comparatively low in Scandinavian countries compared with most of the rest of the world. In fairness, it should be noted that they are not the ONLY countries with low poverty rates. Ultra-capitalist Switzerland, which no one would mistake for a socialist country and which has a population similar in size to that of Sweden, appears to have poverty rates lower than those in the Scandinavian utopias. But there is a serious analytic issue that must be addressed and it is this: Are poverty rates in Scandinavian countries low because Scandinavian-style “socialism” works, or are they low because Scandinavians work?

Let us begin by noting that while the dimensions of poverty are relatively small by international standards, Scandinavian countries definitely do have poverty. Scandinavian “socialism” has not eliminated it.

Poverty rates of course are highly dubious things to compare across countries.

The definition of “poverty” and its measurement are both highly problematic, and both vary dramatically, making inter-country comparisons difficult. In all countries there are serious problems with the measures. Wealthy people are sometimes counted as part of the population below the poverty line, as long as their current income happens to be low. Examples are retired people and students. The poverty statistics are based on reported incomes, meaning that lots of people living high on the hog are counted as poor because they do not report their income at all to the tax authorities, earning income from the “shadow economy.” Poverty is generally measured by income, not consumption. It is often measured as a percent of median income, not by material hardship, or by the rather silly “Gini coefficient.” If every single person discovered a petroleum well in his yard, poverty rates would not change much.

Even if we accept the definitions and measures within each country at face value, there are still problems in making comparisons across different currency zones. And some countries, including some Scandinavian ones, just do not report an official poverty rate of any sort.

Having noted all of that, by most estimates the Scandinavian countries are in relatively good but not remarkable positions relative to the rest of the world in terms of the dimensions of poverty. Denmark’s poverty rate, with its bloated welfare state, is 12%, the same as the poverty rate in the US according to this source. And poverty in Denmark is growing – it was estimated at 6% back in 1997 in a EU study. (It should be noted though that Denmark has no official poverty measure. Neither does Norway.) Most other estimates put the US poverty rate higher than 12%. Other estimates of poverty rates for Sweden, Norway and Finland run at about 6%, although some sources put it much higher. The sources that estimate the US poverty rate as 18% also estimate the rates for Sweden and Norway at 9%. A Finnish source estimates Finland’s 2010 poverty rate at 14%. We will leave Iceland out of the comparisons, since the entire population of that country has been driven into insolvency by events in recent years.

While Scandinavian countries have relatively low poverty rates, Switzerland’s, as noted, is evidently even lower. (I say evidently because Switzerland has no official measurement of poverty. This web site puts it at 6.9%, slightly more than half that of Denmark’s.) A summary of other estimates of poverty rates from different sources can be found here. “ Child poverty rates” are a separate story, but are low in Scandinavian countries, in large part because there are so few children there being born.

So Scandinavia has not eliminated poverty. The interesting question is whether the low poverty rates there are thanks to the economic system or thanks to Scandinavians being hard-working thrifty disciplined people. That Scandinavians are hard-working is evident from the fact that in spite of enormous benefits in Sweden for the unemployed and for those who do not work, creating incentives to avoid work, Sweden has a labor force participation rate that is one of the highest in Europe.

One way to test our question is to examine Scandinavians who do not live in Scandinavia. There is a large Scandinavian population that lives in the bad-old-selfish-materialist-capitalist United States. Well, it turns out that Scandinavians living under its selfish capitalism also have remarkably low poverty rates. Economists Geranda Notten and Chris de Neubourg have studied Scandinavians living in the US and in Sweden and compared their poverty rates. They estimate the poverty rate for Scandinavians living in the United States as 6.7%, half that of the general U.S population. Using measures and definitions of poverty like those used in the US, the same analysts calculate the poverty rate in Sweden using the American poverty threshold as an identical 6.7% (although it was 10% using an alternative measure). So low poverty among Scandinavians seems to be because Scandinavians work, whether or not Scandinavian “socialism” can be said to work.





To: koan who wrote (26507)9/6/2012 10:03:25 AM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 85487
 
Those countries have school choice. Why can't America?



To: koan who wrote (26507)9/6/2012 11:44:02 AM
From: mistermj3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 85487
 
And these little itsy bitsy Scandanavian countries would not exist but for the security umbrella of a gigantic and powerful country like the United States built by the economic miracle and engine of capitalism.

If we go Socialist, and can no longer afford to protect, the barbarians will be at their gates soon enough and this little subsidized experiment will be over.




To: koan who wrote (26507)9/6/2012 1:18:44 PM
From: TimF1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 85487
 
They have lower corporate tax rates. And Denmark scores fairly well on the index of Economic Freedom, only one tenth of a point and one place below the US. Its taxes and spending are high, but its regulatory burden isn't so bad (at least in relative terms), its pretty open to trade, and it has good protection for property rights (except from taxes). And a number of the countries you mention have extensive school choice.

Also your cherry picking a few small countries (most of witch are poorer than the US anyway). Include Greece, and countries even more socialist than Greece in your equation and see where that takes you. Alternatively cherry pick the richer American states or cities and they will be well above any of the countries you mention. Or you can look at ethnic Scandinavians, in the US and see that they are richer than their counterparts in "the old country".

--------



2. Second, let us compare the production of American States with European countries.



If France were to became an American state, it would be the 50th poorest, below Arkansas.

The EU.15 as a whole, which Krugman presents to his readers an economy as dynamic as the US, would be the 49th poorest state, below Alabama

...

The GDP per capita for Americans from EU.15 is $53,000, compared to $33,500 for E.U15 itself. Those of European descent in America on average produce 58.6% more than they do in Europe.



In absolute terms, the $19.600 per capita wealth gap between Americans of European descent and Europe is as large as the gap between the Europe (the EU.15) and Turkey. In percentage terms the gap is almost large as the one between western Europe and Hungary.

super-economy.blogspot.com

The graph is income per capita in Sweden and the U.S (for Americans with Swedish ancestry) for 10 income groups, based on official Swedish statistics and census data. I define you as American with Swedish ancestry if the main ancestry group is Swedish. Americans with Swedish ancestry have a 55.8% advantage in income compared to people in Sweden; very close to the figures I estimated using similar underlying numbers and a somewhat different methodology (is a good sign).

The results of the comparison is striking.



Swedes under the American small-government system beat Swedes in the Swedish welfare system for almost 90% of the income distribution. Among the first 10th percentile the Swedes in Sweden do better. By the 15th percentile or so the Swedes in the U.S have caught up, and vastly outperform Swedes in Sweden for the rest of the income distribution.

Here is the same exact picture with income differences filled in.


The median is 42% higher for the Americans compared to the Swedes.
Overall, the middle 60% of the population earn 46% more in the American Super-Economy versus welfare state Sweden.

super-economy.blogspot.com



To: koan who wrote (26507)9/6/2012 5:23:16 PM
From: Brian Sullivan1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 85487
 
Socialism works pretty well in Denmark and the Scandinavian countries.
Let me know how it works with 15% illegal immigrants.