Originally posted by zeeblebotHo hum. Whatever.
we're posting in the English language forum, not the Scandinavian-defined-as-Sweden-Denmark-Norway-only forum, aren't we?
this topic is probably more interesting than a "Thriving Norways provides economics lesson" thread which ignores (or possibly pooh-poohs, if i cared to scroll back and look) the possibility that Norway's success is a windfall based on pumping out oil and shipping it to other countries.
1 edit
Who cares if Iceland is in Scandinavia or not? What zeeblebot has to show is that Iceland followed similar policies as what as become known as the Nordic model.
In this case, I would have to say he's right. Iceland is usually lumped with the countries that follow the so-called Nordic model. Besides, calling it "socialism" or anything near it is a complete misnomer. The model is based on strong property rights, low regulation and low trade barriers. What it has, though, is a strong redistributive motive of the state.
Nordic countries tax heavily, they do not regulate heavily.
Originally posted by zeeblebotProbably not. Fishing has always been a good contributor to Norwegian economy, what with access to
if we subtracted Norway's oil revenues would it look something like Poland or Ukraine, etc.?
a large portion of the northern sea and all.
As for the Scandinavian definition, you may want to ask yourself in what context more than Norway,
Sweden and Denmark may be included. It's certainly not in an economical or political context.
Think historical.
Iceland is a poor example on the economy of Scandinavia in any case. Their poor economy right
now is the result of senseless investments a'la grande capitalism (excuse the language), and it's
the central banks of the Scandinavian countries that's about to save them (which no doubt means
the working Scandinavian will be the actual saviours in the end), which I personally think is totally
wrong. In the end, when the economy is properly skewed back in the favour of the wealthy, I'm sure
they will walk around with straight backs bragging how they saved the economy with their daring
investments and the help of "the best system seen to date", or in their own words: "Blah, blah,
blah.", when in fact it's always the working (wo)man who carries the whole machinery on his/her
shoulders without fully realising their actual power to change their own situation.
But I'm digressing...
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagehttps://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sw.html#Econ
Why would it look like them instead of Sweden or Denmark? Why, lacking oil, are Sweden and Denmark not like the Ukraine? These are rhetorical questions.
Aided by peace and neutrality for the whole of the 20th century, Sweden has achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits. It has a modern distribution system, excellent internal and external communications, and a skilled labor force. In September 2003, Swedish voters turned down entry into the euro system concerned about the impact on the economy and sovereignty. Timber, hydropower, and iron ore constitute the resource base of an economy heavily oriented toward foreign trade. Privately owned firms account for about 90% of industrial output, of which the engineering sector accounts for 50% of output and exports. Agriculture accounts for only 1% of GDP and 2% of employment. Until 2008, Sweden was in the midst of a sustained economic upswing, boosted by increased domestic demand and strong exports. This and robust finances offered the center-right government considerable scope to implement its reform program aimed at increasing employment, reducing welfare dependence, and streamlining the state's role in the economy. Despite strong finances and underlying fundamentals, the Swedish economy slid into recession in the third quarter of 2008 and growth continued downward in the fourth as deteriorating global conditions reduced export demand and consumption. On 3 February 2009, the Swedish Government announced a $6 billon rescue package for the banking sector.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/da.html#Econ
This thoroughly modern market economy features high-tech agriculture, up-to-date small-scale and corporate industry, extensive government welfare measures, comfortable living standards, a stable currency, and high dependence on foreign trade. Unemployment is low and capacity constraints limit growth potential. Denmark is a net exporter of food and energy and enjoys a comfortable balance of payments surplus. The government has been successful in meeting, and even exceeding, the economic convergence criteria for participating in the third phase (a common European currency) of the European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), but so far Denmark has decided not to join 15 other EU members in the euro. Nonetheless, the Danish krone remains pegged to the euro. Denmark's fiscal position is among the strongest in the EU. Economic growth gained momentum in 2004 and the upturn continued through 2006. After a long consumption-driven upswing, Denmark's economy began slowing in early 2007 with the end of a housing boom. This cyclical slowdown has been exacerbated by the global financial crisis through increased borrowing costs and lower export demand, consumer confidence, and investment. The slowing global economy cut growth to 0.3% in 2008. Because of high GDP per capita, welfare benefits, a low Gini index, and political stability, the Danish living standards are among the highest in the world. A major long-term issue will be the sharp decline in the ratio of workers to retirees.
Originally posted by zeeblebotshould've said "self-professed neutrality".
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sw.html#Econ
Aided by peace and neutrality for the whole of the 20th century, Sweden has achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits. It has a modern distribution system, excellent internal and external communications, ...[text shortened]... world. A major long-term issue will be the sharp decline in the ratio of workers to retirees.
Originally posted by zeeblebotYou can't possibly think that actually answers the question.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sw.html#Econ
Aided by peace and neutrality for the whole of the 20th century, Sweden has achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits. It has a modern distribution system, excellent internal and external communications, ...[text shortened]... world. A major long-term issue will be the sharp decline in the ratio of workers to retirees.
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotNorway and Denmark wasn't neutral, and what do their economies look like now?
why not?
if Poland and the Ukraine had professed neutrality and stayed out of the war, what would their economies look like now?
Well, Norway declared neutrality but ended up being invaded anyway.
Originally posted by Jigtiehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_plan#Expenditures
Norway and Denmark wasn't neutral, and what do their economies look like now?
Well, Norway declared neutrality but ended up being invaded anyway.
Column headers
Country 1948/49
($ millions) ↓ 1949/50
($ millions) ↓ 1950/51
($ millions) ↓ Cumulative
($ millions) ↓
Columns
Austria 232 166 70 468
Belgium and Luxembourg 195 222 360 777
Denmark 103 87 195 385
France 1085 691 520 2296
Germany 510 438 500 1448
Greece 175 156 45 366
Iceland 6 22 15 43
Ireland 88 45 0 133
Italy and Trieste 594 405 205 1204
Netherlands 471 302 355 1128
Norway 82 90 200 372
Portugal 0 0 70 70
Sweden 39 48 260 347
Switzerland 0 0 250 250
Turkey 28 59 50 137
United Kingdom 1316 921 1060 3297
Totals 4,924 3,652 4,155 12,721
Originally posted by zeeblebotI really don't know. I think the state of their economies depends on a lot more than their status in WW2. After all, Germany and Japan's economies were completely flattened. But given the family resemblance, I think it's a fair bet that an oil-less Norway might have ended up more like Denmark and Sweden than Poland and Ukraine.
why not?
if Poland and the Ukraine had professed neutrality and stayed out of the war, what would their economies look like now?
This is really ridiculous.
Originally posted by zeeblebotYeah, the economies of Norway and Denmark are based on Marshall aid received after WW2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_plan#Expenditures
Column headers
Country 1948/49
($ millions) ↓ 1949/50
($ millions) ↓ 1950/51
($ millions) ↓ Cumulative
($ millions) ↓
Columns
Austria 232 166 70 468
Belgium and Luxembourg 195 222 360 777
Denmark 103 87 195 385
France 1085 691 52 ...[text shortened]... ey 28 59 50 137
United Kingdom 1316 921 1060 3297
Totals 4,924 3,652 4,155 12,721