Originally posted by zeeblebotWhy do you think the US implemented the Marshall Plan instead of the original plan of long term loans?
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
Originally posted by PalynkaBump.
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 ...[text shortened]... ve of the state.
Nordic countries tax heavily, they do not regulate heavily.
Originally posted by PalynkaLOL! You know when people fail to respond to my own posts (which happens annoyingly often by the
Bump.
way) I just let it drop, thinking maybe I'm not that interesting a read to the others. I admire your
self-confidence, that you're willing to bump your own posts. As a Swede, I find that exhilarating. And
this is not meant as an insult, by the way.
🙂
Originally posted by PalynkaYes, they have followed policies that is regarded as the Scandinavian model. They have, however, severely deregulated their financial markets in the 1990s and now they are suffering for it.
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 ...[text shortened]... ve of the state.
Nordic countries tax heavily, they do not regulate heavily.
Besides the already mentioned points the Nordic model also consists of full employment, social security and a government controlled income redistribution. So?
1 edit
Originally posted by LundosSo?
Yes, they have followed policies that is regarded as the Scandinavian model. They have, however, severely deregulated their financial markets in the 1990s and now they are suffering for it.
Besides the already mentioned points the Nordic model also consists of full employment, social security and a government controlled income redistribution. So?
This discussion started with zeeblebot's reply to this:
That level of "socialism", as paradoxical as it may sound, makes for a more healthy and sustainable brand of capitalism. Without it the market tends toward chaos and turbulence, which lead inexorably to greater and greater inequalities in wealth. A firm, restraining socialist hand at the tiller of the capitalist ship makes for smoother sailing. The economy runs on a more even keel. With less economic turbulence inequalities in wealth will lessen over time.
This is a complete mischaracterization of the Nordic model, that attempts to use it as a victory for socialism elsewhere. It's not. The Nordic model is not a good example of a "restraining socialist hand at the tiller of the capitalist ship".
Originally posted by zeeblebotI agree. We have the mighty US to thank for our economies being where they are. Even now, when the
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
crisis hit hard in most parts of the world, including the US, and we're not as exposed to the whims of
economic ups and downs, I must say it's the unbridled capitalism that holds our heads above water
before anything else. You're right of course, and it would be just plain rude of me not to say: "Thank
you. Thank you for your unparalleled contribution to our stable and somewhat successful economy,
especially here in the nordic region. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. With all my heart: thank you."
Is this where I get down on my knees, kiss the starspankled banter and say my: "Hail Dollar"'s? I will.
I really will.
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaI guess that would depend on how you would define socialism. If you would indeed define socialism as strongly regulating the market and planned economies, etc. then clearly the "Nordic model" is not an example of the successes of socialism.
So?
This discussion started with zeeblebot's reply to this:
That level of "socialism", as paradoxical as it may sound, makes for a more healthy and sustainable brand of capitalism. Without it the market tends toward chaos and turbulence, which lead inexorably to greater and greater inequalities in wealth. A firm, restraining socialist hand at the ti not a good example of a "restraining socialist hand at the tiller of the capitalist ship".
Perhaps it would be better to say the Nordic countries are an example of the successes of social-liberalism.
Originally posted by PalynkaWe agree.
So?
This discussion started with zeeblebot's reply to this:
[i]That level of "socialism", as paradoxical as it may sound, makes for a more healthy and sustainable brand of capitalism. Without it the market tends toward chaos and turbulence, which lead inexorably to greater and greater inequalities in wealth. A firm, restraining socialist hand at the ti ...[text shortened]... not a good example of a "restraining socialist hand at the tiller of the capitalist ship".
My part in the discussion, however, started when Zeeblebot claimed Iceland was a part of Scandinavia.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraExactly, but he implied the definition he meant in the part I've quoted.
I guess that would depend on how you would define socialism. If you would indeed define socialism as strongly regulating the market and planned economies, etc. then clearly the "Nordic model" is not an example of the successes of socialism.
Perhaps it would be better to say the Nordic countries are an example of the successes of social-liberalism.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a very good model.
Originally posted by JigtieWhat are you wearing?
LOL! You know when people fail to respond to my own posts (which happens annoyingly often by the
way) I just let it drop, thinking maybe I'm not that interesting a read to the others. I admire your
self-confidence, that you're willing to bump your own posts. As a Swede, I find that exhilarating. And
this is not meant as an insult, by the way.
🙂
OK,
I live in Norway, have lived in Sweden and have spent a lot of time in Finland having had, for a few years, a Finnish girlfriend. I believe I therefore have some insight into the Nordic people.
Firstly, Norway probably wouldn´t be rich without oil but it´s approach to oil income contrasts considerably with that of the UK. Norway has saved and invested the proceeds. The UK has pretty much blown them. Prudence, social responsibility, prioritizing people and living within your means are all Norwegian traits. This is what I believe the original article is referring to.
Whatever is on the Scandinavian peninsular is irrelevant. The Maldives are in the Indian Ocean but I don´t think anybody refers to them as being in India. The people of a region are entitled to define what makes up that region. The fact that a lot of people get it wrong is neither here nor there. These people also get wrong what constitutes England, the UK, Great Britain and the British Isles and can´t tell the difference between The Netherlands and Holland. The people of Norway, Sweden and Denmark have defined themselves as Scandinavian. The people of Finland, Greenland and Iceland most definitely do not consider themselves Scandinavian but of a larger Nordic region. Culturally they are all pretty similar in the Nordic region but many Fnns feel closer to Estonia than to Sweden. The languages of Norway, Sweden and Denmark are all similar enough to be understood by each other´s speakers.
Some people think the Netherlands are part of Scandinavia (presumably because the Dutch are also predominantly tall, blonde and liberal) but that doesn´t make it so.
Originally posted by WheelyActually, being a Swede myself I feel compelled to settle this argument once and for all. The truth is
OK,
I live in Norway, have lived in Sweden and have spent a lot of time in Finland having had, for a few years, a Finnish girlfriend. I believe I therefore have some insight into the Nordic people.
Firstly, Norway probably wouldn´t be rich without oil but it´s approach to oil income contrasts considerably with that of the UK. Norway has saved and inve ...[text shortened]... because the Dutch are also predominantly tall, blonde and liberal) but that doesn´t make it so.
that being Scandinavian is not about language or geographical origin. If you can hold your own against
a hungry 600 Kg polar bear, then by God, you're one of us.
Hope that helps.
