Scandinavia SUCKS

[Angst]

On the Kaiserguard vs. People debate, because I'm not sure I'm getting it:

Kaiserguard is stating that everyone is naturally racist, or that racism is at least prevalent enough for something like a multicultural Scandinavian social safety net is impossible; he bases this on appeals to the human condition broadly, not to its specific races having specifically negative traits.

(For the record, I don't agree with the premise that humans are inherently racist and unable to cooperate in a society such as Denmark, ie that Denmark only works because of homogenity, but let's leave that for now.)

People against this view claim that the view that people are racist is racist - I don't wholly follow that. Isn't the view just that humans suck, not particular races? Can you guys please explain it to me, in a simple, basic way? Am I misunderstanding something?

I mean, the view that humans suck this way is often prevalent among racists; Stormfront, for example, popularly supports its racism by saying that different tribes simply don't mix well because that's just the way humans "tick"; and with that premise they often go out of their way to explain how different races/tribes are inherently different, concluding racist conclusions.

But does that mean that thinking that humans are inherently racist is a racist thought per se?

I'm curious. Please explain it to me.

Also Kaiserguard, if I'm misrepresenting your view, please, please correct me, I don't want to twist your posts into what they aren't.

 

[Tahuti]

Also Kaiserguard, if I'm misrepresenting your view, please, please correct me, I don't want to twist your posts into what they aren't.

You are partially doing so, and probably inadvertently.

I claim not that people are racist by nature. I do claim that people are tribal by nature. Community and race are different things. To me, race is not much more than appearance, although race is inherited (as is eyecolour, and all that). Community however, also involves nurture. However, since you are likely to be raised by your biological parents, so you will take over their habits and become part of the community they belong in too.

And in the US, communities tend to revolve around racial lines. There does exist a colourblind American identity, however, it does seem most members of this colourblind community American community are largely white, with a couple of people who happen to be black (such as Morgan Freeman, who is known to have criticised black identity events). Non-whites in the US tend to be more ethnic community oriented than whites, and whites who do have often been themselves victims of persecution (Italians, Armenians, Jews, Irish, Poles) or are Neo-Nazi Stormfront types that are actively racist.

So to sum up, my view is that communities can show vast disparity in terms of lifestyles that can cause political problems when they live together in a common polity, though any connections made to race is a matter of nurture. Communities come and go. I think it is perfectly possible to have colourblind American community to replace all racial identities for instance, but my guess is that it will take at least a century.

However, even if America were monoracial or colourblind, I think America would still be too heterogenous to have an effective welfare state (except perhaps at the state level). Rural Midwesterners are vastly different than New Yorkers, even if they are from the same ethnic group or ethnicity didn't matter at all.

 

[luiz]

Im making about a bit less than 1000€ for beign uneployed. More than 2000 euros when employed on my engineering profession. Likely around +3000€. Taxes are higher in Finland, lets say less than 25% for most of people.

I think your opinion is immature because you never likely had any real problems. It is easy to keep flag high when sun shines.

Hum, you don't even have your degree yet. I've had my engineering degree for the best part of a decade, got my master's and lived and worked as an engineer in 4 different countries, both rich and poor. And did business in another dozen. I've had hundreds of real problems, both big and small, but I took care of them by myself. Disagree with my position all you like, but it's definitely more mature than yours, which is to assume that Americans must be jealous of you (see your first post).

I guarantee as en engineer working in the US, I'm not. We make more and pay far less in taxes, and everything is cheaper. You're free to like your system better, I'm free to like this one better. I wouldn't trade places with you in a million years, that's for sure.

But this study forget (or can't measure) the fact that many services are availables for free or much less expensive, and that a good chunk of mandatory expenses are simply "hidden" from stat when they have to be paid to private companies instead of being directly taxed from income.

I remember a fun discussion where people talked about the minimal amount to live, and talked about how something like 1500 dollars was not allowing for even basic life necessity in US cities.
While such amount allows for a very comfortable life in Europe.

But yeah, a culture that glorify egoism and greed is indeed a "better" place for people who are selfish, short-sighted and without social values. I guess a muscular brute also consider that a might-makes-right tribe is better than one relying on cooperation and rule of law.

Which services are available for free that I would use? Healthcare? I get world-class healthcare paid for by my employer. Hospitals here are like luxury hotels. No lines. They give me a brain scan every time I cough. Zero complains, and certainly much better than any public system anywhere in the world. Again, different things are better for different people.

As for living with 1,500 dollars a month in the US, I know for a fact that's easily doable because I did it myself. For several months in 2006 and 2007 I lived in California (one of the most expensive states) with a budget of exactly 1,500 dollars/ month. And I lived pretty well. I shared a 2 bedroom house with 3 other friends. The 4 of us shared a car we bought for 900 dollars (and sold for 1,400 when we left). We traveled every weekend: Vegas, SF, LA. And had parties in our house all the time. I suspect the Americans who say you can't live with 1,500 dollars / month simply are not used to living how I did, that is, like an European. They're used to vast personal space, their own personal car since they're 16, and so on and so forth.

Now for the last and most annoying point, the self-righteous quip about egoism and greed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked we live in a world where children die of malnutrition. Where people die by the millions of easily preventable diseases. And yet in this very same world the Scandinavian nations, some of the richest out there, spend a vastly bigger share of their national income on luxuries and conspicuous consumption than on foreign aid to those who are literally dying. Give me a break. Every society is egoist. Their solidarity (which is government-mandated and thus of questionable moral worth, but I digress) ends at their artificially-constructed national borders. My solidarity ends at borders I set myself. Personally I feel no moral imperative to have more than half of my hard-earned money confiscated so that an unemployed Scandinavian can afford to eat out and buy ski passes.

People accuse Americans of blind nationalism but as soon someone suggests that some people might actually prefer the American system to the European one, Europeans go on full blown crusader mode. How tedious! Dude, prefer whatever system you like. Do whatever you want with your own country. See if I care. Just remember different people prefer different things, and don't try to claim any moral superiority until you're actually taking care of everybody, which you're not.

 

[aelf]

The Ayn Rand is strong with this one.

 

[luiz]

The Ayn Rand is strong with this one.

It most certainly is not. I'm not claiming any moral superiority, nor that my preferences are or should be universal. I'm stating what I prefer, and pointing at the flaws and hypocrisy in the arguments of those saying I shouldn't prefer what I prefer.

 

[warpus]

Luiz, you definitely point out a lot of the positives of living in the U.S. I don't think that's why you're getting some flak - the flak is coming your way (I believe) because you claim that life is just not as good in Scandinavian nations - while every single study I've seen puts them very high at the "standard of living" scale, compared to the U.S. and other western nations.

In that context, your position is not worthy of ridicule, but the argument against it is definitely very strong. And yet, your tone seems to dismiss accepted notions about standards of living, relying on anecdotal experience, etc. I am not against you having that opinion and living your life the way you want, but I also think you are wrong about the standard of living and quality of life bit.

 

[Traitorfish]

If only everyone had the sense to be born into the colonial lumpenbourgeoisie, we wouldn't need a welfare state!

 

[luiz]

Luiz, you definitely point out a lot of the positives of living in the U.S. I don't think that's why you're getting some flak - the flak is coming your way (I believe) because you claim that life is just not as good in Scandinavian nations - while every single study I've seen puts them very high at the "standard of living" scale, compared to the U.S. and other western nations.

In that context, your position is not worthy of ridicule, but the argument against it is definitely very strong. And yet, your tone seems to dismiss accepted notions about standards of living, relying on anecdotal experience, etc. I am not against you having that opinion and living your life the way you want, but I also think you are wrong about the standard of living and quality of life bit.

I'm not claiming life is not "as good" in Scandinavian nations - for a lot of people it is surely better than what they would get in the US. I'm claiming, and backing with evidence, that for people in my situation - decent job, no debt - living in the US is materially better. Note that I'm the only one who brought actual evidence, like actual tax rates and actual living cost comparisons. Everybody else is just giving anecdotes of how awesome Scandinavia is, and how miserable this capitalist American jungle must be (that's what their high school geography teachers told them, after all).

Additionally, it's a myth that by all measures of quality of life Scandinavia does that much better than the US. Depends on the methodology. According to the UN's Human Development Index, for instance, the only Scandinavian nation with a better quality of life than the US is Norway, the viking petro-state. Denmark, Sweden, Iceland and Finland all have lower HDI's. This is me bringing forth more evidence to confront myths and anecdotes. Quality of life is excellent in the US, as it is excellent in Scandinavia. Which one is better for you? Well, that depends on what kind of person you are. Different people, different preferences.

 

[warpus]

Quality of life is excellent in the US, as it is excellent in Scandinavia. Which one is better for you? Well, that depends on what kind of person you are. Different people, different preferences.

You are forgetting to include in your consideration here the full lifetime of a person - including any potential health problems, job firings, or whatever.

Sure, if you have a good job, you don't need access to a social safety net at that very moment - so from that point of view life in the U.S. is probably better - if all we're looking at is that one snapshot of that person's life.

However, if you include every single person in the country, including all those people who do need a social safety net at one point or another - Scandinavia clearly wins. And I don't think it makes sense to look at this from any other point of view. I mean, for certain people life is better in Italy.. or Germany.. or South Korea.. or even Poland - due to their circumstances. That's why it's important to consider those who have good jobs - as well as those who don't.

 

[Farm Boy]

Money's only one thing. Granted, it's a pretty big darn thing particularly when you don't have enough. But it's one thing.

 

[luiz]

You are forgetting to include in your consideration here the full lifetime of a person - including any potential health problems, job firings, or whatever.

Sure, if you have a good job, you don't need access to a social safety net at that very moment - so from that point of view life in the U.S. is probably better - if all we're looking at is that one snapshot of that person's life.

However, if you include every single person in the country, including all those people who do need a social safety net at one point or another - Scandinavia clearly wins. And I don't think it makes sense to look at this from any other point of view. I mean, for certain people life is better in Italy.. or Germany.. or South Korea.. or even Poland - due to their circumstances. That's why it's important to consider those who have good jobs - as well as those who don't.

Well I was talking about which one is better for myself, as I was originally addressing a guy who assumed Americans must be jealous of how good they have it in Scandinavia - I'm not, because I have it better. But I was only talking about me, and others in similar situations.

From my perspective, even taking into consideration the risk of getting fired, economic downturn, illness, etc, the US is still better. I can save far more money here than I would in say Denmark, working the same job and living a much better life meanwhile (because I keep more money and everything is far cheaper). If things go wrong I can rely on my savings and investments to live until I find something else (or to pay medical bills). Even if the whole sector I work on collapsed I could still find another job pretty easily. As I said I don't really see a scenario in which I wouldn't be able to take care of myself. It's a pretty false notion that everyone needs the safety net at some point - I certainly won't, as my father never did nor his father nor his father (there wasn't any safety net worthy of the name in my country anyway). And it's not that they always had it easy, or never faced problems or bad luck - they faced more of all of those than virtually any modern first-world citizen can even dream of. It's just that all of them were educated and skilled, and willing to put that to use. An economic downturn or a disastrous government policy (quite common in Brazil) can take away your job, even cut through your savings, but it can't make you unlearn all that you know. Again I'm not making any moral consideration - if you never received a decent education, never had a proper family to instill you good values and etc, downturns can be truly disastrous. I'm explaining why for me a safety net is not needed.

As for Scandinavia "clearly winning" when you include everybody - maybe. But it's debatable. The HDI numbers seem to suggest otherwise. And it's definitely not for me.

 

[warpus]

I 100% disagree that a social safety net is not needed, but fair enough that your analysis is only for yourself, in your current situation.

 

[aelf]

It most certainly is not. I'm not claiming any moral superiority, nor that my preferences are or should be universal.

It's implied in the language that you used when you say things like:

For people who can't pay their own bills with their own money, Scandinavia is a much better choice.

If you're unemployed, unable to find a decent job, or have more kids than you can support by yourself, Scandinavian countries are far better.

 

[Tahuti]

I 100% disagree that a social safety net is not needed, but fair enough that your analysis is only for yourself, in your current situation.

There are often cultural biases against social welfare as well. Often, conservative rural populations with tight family ties often recourse to family when they are in need of financial help rather than the government. For them, social welfare is not interesting. This is why poor whites from rural areas in the US often end up voting Republican to the baffling of leftists.

 

[Angst]

Are you perhaps aware that it's possible to be "educated and skilled and willing to put that to use" while being protected by your government during hard times?

I mean, saying "a safety net is not needed" is perhaps true. But I can say "a large car is not needed" as well. You seem to value the bigger car. I value that hard times can be softened by a good safety net. I'm not sure why your family's sufferings is in any way an argument in your favor. Why don't you want them to be helped when they suffer? It's just quite possible it's more pleasant to be safe at all times. Educated and skilled people that put that to use can still be unlucky. Do you realize this? Are you indifferent to the very possible suffering your family could have been through if they weren't lucky during hard times? Because I'm not sure you understand what bad luck means. Being stripped of a job is one thing. That's one sort of luck. Being unable to get back on top, regardless of skill, is another entirely. And the Scandinavian system actively seeks to destroy luck from the equation.

Some people slip through of course.

Anyways, the point is... I kind of understand why aelf called Randian.

EDIT: Wow, this was bumped a bit. This message was for you, luiz.

 

[warpus]

In the end if a country doesn't have an adequate social safety net, it will hurt everyone in the country in the long run, not just those who actually end up needing to use it.

 

[luiz]

It's implied in the language that you used when you say things like:

No, those are factually true. Or aren't they? I didn't sugarcoat them, but I wasn't making any moral condemnation either. There's absolutely nothing "Randian" about my posts in this thread, quite the opposite.

Are you perhaps aware that it's possible to be "educated and skilled and willing to put that to use" while being protected by your government during hard times?

I mean, saying "a safety net is not needed" is perhaps true. But I can say "a large car is not needed" as well. You seem to value the bigger car. I value that hard times can be softened by a good safety net. I'm not sure why your family's sufferings is in any way an argument in your favor. Why don't you want them to be helped when they suffer? It's just quite possible it's more pleasant to be safe at all times. Educated and skilled people that put that to use can still be unlucky. Do you realize this? Are you indifferent to the very possible suffering your family could have been through if they weren't lucky during hard times? Because I'm not sure you understand what bad luck means. Being stripped of a job is one thing. That's one sort of luck. Being unable to get back on top, regardless of skill, is another entirely. And the Scandinavian system actively seeks to destroy luck from the equation.

Some people slip through of course.

Anyways, the point is... I kind of understand why aelf called Randian.

EDIT: Wow, this was bumped a bit. This message was for you, luiz.

Yeah, I got it was for me. As I said I'm totally fine if you value a social safety net and the peace of mind it may bring you - personally it doesn't bring me anything as I don't need it.

And I entirely get that sometimes luck can be so bad that not only you lose your job, you're also unable to find something comparable for quite a while. These things do happen, I don't deny. I just don't see at all why that would put me, or a person who had the good fortune of receiving a good education and skillset, in need of anyone's charity, public or private. If for some cataclysmic reason I'm unable to find an engineering job (and I found one pretty easily even during the 2009 economic debacle), I could, I don't know, work as an accountant. I could teach math, physics, computer programming. I could teach Portuguese or French here in the US, or English back in Brazil. I could do a combination of several of those. In short life could certainly be far less abundant than it is today if I get a lot of bad luck, but there is no conceivable scenario in which I wouldn't be able to take care of myself.

 

[Farm Boy]

There are often cultural biases against social welfare as well. Often, conservative rural populations with tight family ties often recourse to family when they are in need of financial help rather than the government. For them, social welfare is not interesting. This is why poor whites from rural areas in the US often end up voting Republican to the baffling of leftists.

It's not so much that they tend to hate that there are benefits available should they need them, but often enough out-of-touch liberals with different self-interests will enact laws they feel control them in inappropriate ways.

 

[Akka]

Now for the last and most annoying point, the self-righteous quip about egoism and greed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked we live in a world where children die of malnutrition. Where people die by the millions of easily preventable diseases. And yet in this very same world the Scandinavian nations, some of the richest out there, spend a vastly bigger share of their national income on luxuries and conspicuous consumption than on foreign aid to those who are literally dying. Give me a break. Every society is egoist. Their solidarity (which is government-mandated and thus of questionable moral worth, but I digress) ends at their artificially-constructed national borders. My solidarity ends at borders I set myself. Personally I feel no moral imperative to have more than half of my hard-earned money confiscated so that an unemployed Scandinavian can afford to eat out and buy ski passes.

It's pretty normal and expected for a nation to care first and foremost for its own citizen. It would actually be absurd to not be the case. Trying to argue "the nation isn't spending more for people outside its jurisdiction than for those which are actually forming the nation, so my selfishness is okay" is one of the more convoluted attempt at self-justifying selfishness I've seen. I guess it's somewhat impressive in an eye-rolling way.

People accuse Americans of blind nationalism but as soon someone suggests that some people might actually prefer the American system to the European one, Europeans go on full blown crusader mode. How tedious! Dude, prefer whatever system you like. Do whatever you want with your own country. See if I care. Just remember different people prefer different things, and don't try to claim any moral superiority until you're actually taking care of everybody, which you're not.

Man, you've the right to prefer a system because you're selfish and short-sighted and such system favours you in your current situation, the rest of the population be damned.
But don't pretend people can't claim moral superiority on you. You're just saying "I'm selfish, but don't call me on that, because reasons". That's ridiculous.

 

[luiz]

It's pretty normal and expected for a nation to care first and foremost for its own citizen. It would actually be absurd to not be the case. Trying to argue "the nation isn't spending more for people outside its jurisdiction than for those which are actually forming the nation, so my selfishness is okay" is one of the more convoluted attempt at self-justifying selfishness I've seen. I guess it's somewhat impressive in an eye-rolling way.

It's also "pretty normal" for people to care more about themselves, their families and friends than about random people they never met who just happen to have the same passport. Being normal is not the same as being right.

You tried to make my position immoral for putting a higher value on spending my money as I choose than on being forced to help my fellow citizens. Well, guess what. Those egalitarian and unselfish Scandinavians have the choice of giving a large share of their income into helping human beings in need, saving countless lives, and still keeping more than enough to survive. But by and large they choose to spend an enormously bigger share of their income on themselves, eating out, skiing, drinking beer. The rest of the world be damned. Just like me. Don't try to claim any moral superiority.

Man, you've the right to prefer a system because you're selfish and short-sighted and such system favours you in your current situation, the rest of the population be damned.
But don't pretend people can't claim moral superiority on you. You're just saying "I'm selfish, but don't call me on that, because reasons". That's ridiculous.

I'm selfish, but so are you. And the Scandinavians. We all set our own borders before which we restrict our solidarity. We all choose to spend money on stuff we don't need over saving starving kids. You do it too. So you are selfish. Go preach to someone else, I'm not about to sanctify you.