The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism.

[Leoreth]

Oh, I didn't support the OP's GDP comparison. I was only reflecting what the OP said.

 

[say1988]

Ethos. Invokes a sense of authority, discipline and strength. An autocrat ideally needs to be a very powerful individual to manage his country, and a military uniform emits the sense of power and ability. Don't mess with the soldier and all.

Being in charge of an army is also helpful when seizing power. You want the army killing the government's supporters, not you.

 

[Leifmk]

Household income vs. per capita income.

But the SSB table for Norway is already "household's disposable income per inhabitant", so never mind that the OP also apparently pulled a number ex ano which doesn't even appear anywhere in the table, he didn't understand the table in the first place.

 

[Leoreth]

Oh, I've trusted him to correctly label his data. Probably not a good idea.

 

[Midgard Eagle]

[edit]

2. Americans enjoy a significantly lower cost of living than do Norwegians (1.00 vs. 1.487).

Not when measured against buying power and the "safety net" we Northerners enjoy. For instance, I pay something like 20 dollars a semester for my college education, and the State gives me a free health insurance plan. Enrolling in college/uni is far more painless for Norwegians than for Americans.
[/edit]

But the SSB table for Norway is already "household's disposable income per inhabitant", so never mind that the OP also apparently pulled a number ex ano which doesn't even appear anywhere in the table, he didn't understand the table in the first place.

Also, as others have pointed out, the level of egalitarianism is incredibly important, too. The Scandinavian nations have large middle classes and little poverty. So not only is there little poverty, but the poor are taken far better care of than in the US, which suffers from an unfortunate combination of relatively widespread poverty and crime and a lacking welfare system.

 

[luiz]

Why do autocrats tend to military uniforms?

Many of them are from the military (Franco and Pinochet, from those pics).

Why non-military autocrats like Mussolini also go for the military dress is indeed probably related, as others said, with non-impressive individuals trying to pass a sense of "strength"

 

[Leoreth]

Also, even if they weren't from a military background, they were usually backed by para-military organizations which used military uniforms.

 

[innonimatu]

Blame that damn poet in Fiume.

 

[Hygro]

You're right, Mouthwash.

You're right that they are more business friendly. You're right that they have less corruption.

These are benefits of when you combine an honest and complete welfare state with a fully functioning democracy. You get a healthy, empowered citizenry able to make independent judgments that create a much better functioning nation. People in those countries are happier, have more leisure time, and are safer even when controlling for population density.

They also have less income inequality which makes me skeptical of income

Furthermore, the US had a major head start in our GDP per capita growth--we were the 2nd to 4th nation, depending on how you calculate, to industrialize and mechanize.

 

[Angst]

Denmark was pretty late to industrialize, I think it was the mid to late 19th century we actually got things rolling.

 

[innonimatu]

Denmark was pretty late to industrialize, I think it was the mid to late 19th century we actually got things rolling.

Hah, you call that late? It was still early compared to most of Europe, never mind the rest of the world!

Now that you mention it, what industries did the nordic countries start developing initially? I'm asking because those countries weren't particularly blessed with resources useful for the first industrial revolution, afaik. Norway at least went to great lengths to get coal, from Svalbard.

 

[Princeps]

I wouldn't say that Scandinavian countries were late to industrialize: their industries might not have been identical to English ones, though.

 

[Angst]

Uh, I don't remember the exact things we industrialized; I merely know of the general tendencies of urbanization and industrialization, following the agricultural reforms in the 18th-19th century.

I have absolutely no idea how Denmark could ever manage an industry as we have so little natural resources.

Currently, most of the raw goods produced in Denmark are food products. But we've had our share of producing specialized parts of machines - today being windmills.

Perhaps clothing was something one could produce in a factory?

It just hit me how little I know about industrial age economy in general.

 

[Leifmk]

Now that you mention it, what industries did the nordic countries start developing initially? I'm asking because those countries weren't particularly blessed with resources useful for the first industrial revolution, afaik. Norway at least went to great lengths to get coal, from Svalbard.

As far as Norway goes, the single most important asset as far as industrialization was concerned was hydro power. Lots of mountains, lots of rain -> abundant "free" power. Water-powered mechanical sawmills and such were already a fairly big deal before hydroelectric power came along and became an even bigger deal.

The other important assets were raw natural resources that could be industrially refined and exported. This also included foodstuffs, in a gradual shift away from local subsistence agriculture and fishing to more specialized and industrialized production. Much of Norway isn't very favourable for growing most types of grain; as an increasing part of the grains we consumed were imported instead of locally grown, dairy production and industrialized fisheries partially aimed at the international market became more important. After the middle of the 19th century, however, our most important exports were timber, then later shipbuilding became very important as well. After the turn of the century with the ascendancy of hydroelectric power, various power-intensive industrial processes became significant -- chief among these being the production of aluminium, and also fertilizer, both of which remain big business here today.

 

[Oerdin]

Really? The only ones I observe calling any European state "Socialist" are right wingers who desperately need to discredit their welfare systems. system doesn't only suck with regards to social equality, it's even outperformed on its home turf of economic freedom by these very same states.

Yes, it is almost exclusively hard right American extremists who call them Socialist mainly because the term polls bad but also because they're so stupid they don't know the term social-democracy.

 

[Samson]

Perhaps clothing was something one could produce in a factory?

I am no expert, but I believe that clothing (or fabric at least) was the first thing that was produced in a factory, what with requireing lots of spinning things to make it (think spinning wheels, and how these lend themselves to industrialisation).

 

[innonimatu]

As far as Norway goes, the single most important asset as far as industrialization was concerned was hydro power. Lots of mountains, lots of rain -> abundant "free" power. Water-powered mechanical sawmills and such were already a fairly big deal before hydroelectric power came along and became an even bigger deal.

Yeah, you're right, Norway really has been lucky with the abundance of resources for hydro power. I was overlooking that And more recently oil and gas, or course.
I believe that you don't even have to burn fossil fuels for electricity?

Denmark made the best of what it had, betting on wind power. Smart investment, imho.

But I think that both had to delay industrialization until they could leverage on new available technology and resources. The "second industrial revolution" of electricity made it possible for countries without their own coal to get into the club if industrialized countries. And lower costs of trade made it feasible to import raw materials and energy and export transformed products.

Going back on topic, has scandinavian "socialism" preceded or followed the biggest bout of industrialization there? Did the state invest directly in supporting or developing industries? And did private businesses and wealthy individuals at some point fled from the countries because of high taxes? I'm asking because some people have created myths about any kind of social-democracy which involve all these aspects.

After the middle of the 19th century, however, our most important exports were timber, then later shipbuilding became very important as well. After the turn of the century with the ascendancy of hydroelectric power, various power-intensive industrial processes became significant -- chief among these being the production of aluminium, and also fertilizer, both of which remain big business here today.

Its interesting. The time frames are variable, depending on how competent are the governments and/or the businessman in each county, but most countries which had the same basic resources have followed follow the same pattern of development. Exporting natural resources, transforming agricultural goods and producing simple consumer goods with easily available resources (textiles, soap, matches, tobacco, furniture, and so on), then shipbuilding (for those on the coast) or railroads, then finally some heavy industry if and when they could get low cost energy. Far from being just a cultural thing (level of education of the population, or stability of government), industrialization depended on having resources or a favorable international situation. And then taking advantage of that, which is where the cultural part comes into play. But only after the physical requirements were satisfied.

 

[caketastydelish]

One thing this article (or whatever it is) fails to mention, is what the gap between the rich and poor is in these "socialist" countries, versus the capitalist countries.

And if you want to know where I stand: the smaller the gap, the better.

 

[WindFish]

One thing this article (or whatever it is) fails to mention, is what the gap between the rich and poor is in these "socialist" countries, versus the capitalist countries.

And if you want to know where I stand: the smaller the gap, the better.

Would that count?

 

[caketastydelish]

Would that count?

Yes indeed, that clears it up for me.