Socialism

The Nordic states ARE market economies, but they are structured better, more equitably, than some others.

Comparisons

Click on image to view comparisons.

...Comparison with the United States...

The results for the households at the bottom of the income distribution are astoundingly good, especially in contrast to the mean-spirited neglect that now passes for American social policy.

The U.S. spends less than almost all rich countries on social services for the poor and disabled, and it gets what it pays for: the highest poverty rate among the rich countries and an exploding prison population.

And by shunning public spending on health, the U.S. gets much less than it pays for, because its dependence on private health care has led to a ramshackle system that yields mediocre results at very high costs.

Obviously the precedent is there. This bad planning could be corrected. But the Dinosaur Principle dictates: 'If it doesn't work, don't fix it- particularly if a solution is available.' Hence, the Runaway Train continues, gathering momentum... With Dinosaurs, 'common sense' is at a premium.

 

 

... Or? ...

On average, they outperform the Anglo-Saxon ones on most measures of economic performance.

They have worked to keep social expenditures compatible with an open, competitive, market-based economic system.

Tax rates on capital are relatively low. Labor market policies pay low-skilled and otherwise difficult-to-employ individuals to work in the service sector, in key quality-of-life areas such as child care, health, and support for the elderly and disabled.

They maintain their dynamism despite high taxation in several ways. Most important, they spend lavishly on research and development, and higher education.