The Nordic countries: The next supermodel

[Angst]

(I remember our conversation on elected officials Angst)

I don't, will you please specify?

I do appreciate the idea of foraging good ideas from across the political spectrum. That seems to be an undervalued skill round these parts as of late.

I think being small and developed has to help. Something big like 'murica or China has room for conservatives to stop progress

The article states that China's top-down management takes inspiration from Norway. I'm not sure what it means though.

To what extent does the relative ethnic homogeneity of Nordic Countries play a role in this? Has that changed in the last decade?

It has nothing to do with anything. Criticizers of eg Danish social stability usually states that our culture/race is so homogenous we will of course experience less crime and murdering and badness. I get the logic (Huntington madness), but according to that logic, America would not only have a higher crime rate compared to us, it would be an abysmal Rwandan supergenocide. I mean, the relative heterogenousness you enjoy compared to us... It's just not a truly feasible argument if you would say it had any inherent consequence to be heterogenous. I'm not claiming you think this, I know you're just asking, but that's just my dumb logic trying to make an assumption.

That said, where I live, we have a lot of Middle Easterners and their numbers are rising. If anything, they contribute to a relatively higher deficit due to being worse than Danes at both English and Danish, having foreign educational backgrounds, having none at all, etc., being forced into the lower class and often being supported by the social network and ending in crime.

Newer generations of immigrants are less prone to this behavior, however, so it's not a race thing; it's mostly a question about basic adaption and language barriers.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't, will you please specify?

It revolved largely around the premise of a government of the everyman as opposed to a government of the technocrat. For all its flaws I still think the power of democratic governance should strive to be more in line with the romanticized ideals of the Cincinnatus mythos.

 

[Dachs]

#WhyIvoteLabour

Not out of fear of the Tories?

 

[Angst]

It revolved largely around the premise of a government of the everyman as opposed to a government of the technocrat. For all its flaws I still think the power of democratic governance should strive to be more in line with the romanticized ideals of the Cincinnatus mythos.

Oh, that. Well, let me tell you, I'm not symptomatic for my country in that regard; not really, at least. Look up Pia Kjærsgaard.

But are more inclined to elect cosmopolitans and educated people, I give you that.

EDIT: "Educated people" came off wrong. You catch my drift.

 

[Farm Boy]

EDIT: "Educated people" came off wrong. You catch my drift.

I read it as technocrat/professional politician, yar. I don't assume that badly of you but clarification is always nice.

I have to admit when I saw the post after mine pop up a minute after I referenced the old Roman man I had a brief moment of "oh WTH, I was sure I hedged that statement hard enough not to get Dachsmacked."

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Not out of fear of the Tories?

Yeah cause they're soooo different now.

 

[Dachs]

Yeah cause they're soooo different now.

I see you haven't followed British politics since the general election.

 

[Angst]

I read it as technocrat/professional politician, yar. I don't assume that badly of you but clarification is always nice.

You are sincerely sweet.

I have to admit when I saw the post after mine pop up a minute after I referenced the old Roman man I had a brief moment of "oh WTH, I was sure I hedged that statement hard enough not to get Dachsmacked."

Haha, yeah. He's like a calm watchman. Always with the eyes.

 

[Hygro]

Terrible article. Way too much pop-discourse narratives and a lot of questionable cause and effects.

The budget deficit point was entirely misleading and gets its cause an effects backward. In addition to "we have a broken economy so we need more spending, whereas they don't, so they don't have more spending" instead of their implication "more balance leads to less recession" (rofl)

Finland is one of the advanced economies on the Euro so it benefits the same way Germany does, at the expense of other European countries.

The other three have their own fiat. But because they are a *lot* less corrupt, they can keep their income-revenue model more neutral and still maintain the right level of private growth via monetary expansion. Additionally, their welfare state means that businesses don't have to pay so many benefits, such as healthcare. Because they let the state run public goods, which is more efficient, they don't have to provide constant corporate deficit-spending stimulus. It's not so much the level of debt that matters, it's the fact they do it so much better and more efficiently that it frees up a lot of human energy to do more productive economic things.

Additionally, their banks are way more regulated and under the wing of the state, so the state can more effectively manage the money supply and money circulation without it pooling into unnecessary and stagnant pools of capital accumulation going to non productive investments. There's another reason for not needing deficits, they don't have to inject as much money into the economy all the time because private banks aren't sucking it out at rent levels.

The Economist then continues to say that their pragmatic welfare state, which is clearly a big reason for their success, is a problem and undermining them in the long run.

It's like "Follow the Nordic lead! For they are best! Oh, but they should change to be more like the rest because we ideologically aren't comfortable with their reasons for success".

I swear, the older I get the more The Economist becomes like a tabloid celebrity gossip mag. At least it's better than the other popular finance-meets-politics publications. Sigh.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I see you haven't followed British politics since the general election.

That is correct.

Terrible article. Way too much pop-discourse narratives and a lot of questionable cause and effects.

Yeah, it's The Economist.

 

[aronnax]

Why do they speak of Singapore in such glowing terms?

Have they actually live here?

 

[Angst]

It was more referring to a past discourse which, according to them, existed a few years ago. They claim it considered Singapore the bona fide economical model.

 

[nerdfighter13]

I thought this was going to be about supermodels, not super models for government.