what americans don't get about nordic countries

[del]

interesting read, imo

the author is a finn who has emigrated to the us



A Nordic person myself, I left my native Finland seven years ago and moved to the U.S. Although I’m now a U.S. citizen, I hear these kinds of comments from Americans all the time—at cocktail parties and at panel discussions, in town hall meetings and on the opinion pages. Nordic countries are the way they are, I’m told, because they are small, homogeneous “nanny states” where everyone looks alike, thinks alike, and belongs to a big extended family. This, in turn, makes Nordic citizens willing to sacrifice their own interests to help their neighbors. Americans don’t feel a similar kinship with other Americans, I’m told, and thus will never sacrifice their own interests for the common good. What this is mostly taken to mean is that Americans will never, ever agree to pay higher taxes to provide universal social services, as the Nordics do. Thus Bernie Sanders, and anyone else in the U.S. who brings up Nordic countries as an example for America, is living in la-la land.
But this vision of homogenous, altruistic Nordic lands is mostly a fantasy. The choices Nordic countries have made have little to do with altruism or kinship. Rather, Nordic people have made their decisions out of self-interest. Nordic nations offer their citizens—all of their citizens, but especially the middle class—high-quality services that save people a lot of money, time, and trouble. This is what Americans fail to understand: My taxes in Finland were used to pay for top-notch services for me.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-nordic-countries/473385/

[Private Pickle]

I think the fundamental difference is the inherent desire for private services to be delivered solely by private organizations.

[Chris]

Right, they used to. First, they were able to do so for two reasons. The Nordic nations built up enormous wealth through capitalism. Because their societies/cultures are fairly homogenous the trust level within each nation is high with regard to work ethic and everyone doing their fair share and not demanding more than their fair share. You knew if you worked and contributed in sickness and old age you would be taken care of. They never turned to socialism per se but used their wealth to create a large welfare system for all. Second, that is changing with joining the EU and meeting EU regulations for open borders leading to an influx of immigrant who are strangers and not trusted likle natives are. So the people are reacting to that by retreating from more liberal ways of welfare to more conservative self reliance.

The author of the OP link left Finland 7 years ago.

[del]

I think the fundamental difference is the inherent desire for private services to be delivered solely by private organizations.

inherent desire?

you mean you were born with a desire to pay for your own health care?

[Chris]

A Swede explains the economic history of the area:

Sorry Leftist Americans, Your Swedish Utopia Does Not Exist (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sorry-leftist-americans-your-swedish-utopia-does-not-exist_1000785.html)


...True, the Scandinavian nations are very successful in many ways. Quality of life is considerably higher there than in most other parts of the world, and equality is a strong social norm. But despite what many in the American left who idealizes Scandinavia might wish, the success was not achieved thanks to the welfare state model, but perhaps despite its existence.

In the new book Scandinavian Unexceptionalism, Swedish author Nima Sanandaji dispels many of the popular conceptions about the Nordic countries. Scandinavia’s success came before the welfare state, not after it. Between 1936 and 2008, when much of the welfare expansion occurred, Sweden’s growth rate dropped to being the 13th highest out of 28 industrialized countries.

During the decades before, between 1870 and 1936, Sweden had enjoyed the highest economic growth in the entire industrialized world. Moreover, in the most intense period of “third-way” policies of market socialism, between the 1970s and 1990s, Sweden’s economic performance was exceptionally low. This period, however, was an exception: for most of its modern history, Sweden has been anything but a socialist mecca. The government has usually pursued free-market policies and free trade. If anything, high taxes and extensive social policies have hindered Scandinavian economic performance, which would most likely have been much higher without them.

Instead, Sanandaji shows, the root of Scandinavian success can largely be found in culture. These countries, and Sweden in particular, have historically had remarkably high levels of social trust, family values, a strong sense of work ethic, and social cohesion. The notion of the “Protestant work ethic” goes back far longer than the modern welfare state. Scholars like Max Weber, Sanandaji shows, long ago noted that the Protestant countries of northern Europe had an overall higher living standard and economic success than most. The often-celebrated equality of Scandinavian countries, too, began well before the welfare state was developed....

[Chris]

Denmark's prime minister says Bernie Sanders is wrong to call his country socialist (http://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9650030/denmark-prime-minister-bernie-sanders)


Bernie Sanders has long referred to himself as a socialist rather than a member of the Democratic Party, which has naturally lead to a lot of questions about what socialism means to him. He consistently references the social models of the Nordic states — and especially Denmark — as his idea of what democratic socialism is all about. But in a speech Friday evening at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said that while he's flattered to see Denmark discussed in a widely-watched US presidential debate he doesn't think the socialist shoe fits.

"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism," he said, "therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

In Rasmussen's view, "the Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."

[Chris]

I agree, btw, with the following highlighted in the OP:


But this vision of homogenous, altruistic Nordic lands is mostly a fantasy. The choices Nordic countries have made have little to do with altruism or kinship. Rather, Nordic people have made their decisions out of self-interest. Nordic nations offer their citizens—all of their citizens, but especially the middle class—high-quality services that save people a lot of money, time, and trouble. This is what Americans fail to understand: My taxes in Finland were used to pay for top-notch services for me.

That however does not negate the effects of homogeneity on making such choices possible..

[MisterVeritis]

Socialists, eventually you will run out of other peoples' money.

What fool would turn over his wealth to faceless government bureaucrats is the idiotic belief that they will know better how to spend it?

[Peter1469]

Most of the middle and upper classes in the US are not going to pay for high quality services for people that they have no bond with. The US is too big for the communal living bit.

[Mister D]

I agree, btw, with the following highlighted in the OP:



That however does not negate the effects of homogeneity on making such choices possible..

But that's precisely what the OP is implying.

Finland is one of if the most homogeneous country in Europe. Around 90% of the country is Finnish with Finnish speaking Swedes and Russians making up most of the remainder.

[Crepitus]

inherent desire?

you mean you were born with a desire to pay for your own health care?
Zing!

[Private Pickle]

inherent desire?

you mean you were born with a desire to pay for your own health care?

Culturally speaking...

[Mister D]

Zing!

Nah this thread was more of a fizzle.

[Crepitus]

Nah this thread was more of a fizzle.
Ah come on, that shit was funny and on point.

[Mister D]

Ah come on, that $#@! was funny and on point.

Well, I'm beginning to understand why del doesn't create more threads. It's sad to say but he just might want to stick with heckling. :smiley:

[kilgram]

Right, they used to. First, they were able to do so for two reasons. The Nordic nations built up enormous wealth through capitalism. Because their societies/cultures are fairly homogenous the trust level within each nation is high with regard to work ethic and everyone doing their fair share and not demanding more than their fair share. You knew if you worked and contributed in sickness and old age you would be taken care of. They never turned to socialism per se but used their wealth to create a large welfare system for all. Second, that is changing with joining the EU and meeting EU regulations for open borders leading to an influx of immigrant who are strangers and not trusted likle natives are. So the people are reacting to that by retreating from more liberal ways of welfare to more conservative self reliance.

The author of the OP link left Finland 7 years ago.
I lived in Finland for a year (not much but enough) 4 years ago. I agree with OP.

I met with conservative people and they won't change what they have. They have top notch services from the state that the private corporations cannot compete with. For example, in education. Almost nobody wants to go to private schools there. They want to receive their public education.

[Peter1469]

I lived in Finland for a year (not much but enough) 4 years ago. I agree with OP.

I met with conservative people and they won't change what they have. They have top notch services from the state that the private corporations cannot compete with. For example, in education. Almost nobody wants to go to private schools there. They want to receive their public education.

Which Finnish university is in the top 100? (http://www.ulinks.com/topuniversities.htm) There is one on the list. #74. The US has 59 universities on the list. And 17 in the top 20.

[Chris]

I lived in Finland for a year (not much but enough) 4 years ago. I agree with OP.

I met with conservative people and they won't change what they have. They have top notch services from the state that the private corporations cannot compete with. For example, in education. Almost nobody wants to go to private schools there. They want to receive their public education.


Finland Used To Have The Best Education System In The World — What Happened? (http://www.chron.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Finland-Used-To-Have-The-Best-Education-System-In-5031341.php)


Since it was reformed 40 years ago, Finland's education system has frequently been held up as one of the best in the world.

Today, that changed. Tbe OECD released its PISA global rankings that showed how students in various countries were doing in reading, science, and math. Finland ranked 12th, just behind Estonia.

That's a big drop. Finland had topped the PISA rankings in 2000, 2003, and 2006, and consistently ranked near the top in other years. This year, however, Finnish students had dropped by 2.8% in mathematics, 1.7% in reading and 3% in science.

"The golden days are over," Finnbay, a Finnish news organization wrote just after the results came out....

That was 2013, a year after you left. What, were you holding your finger in the dyke? Wait, the boy was Dutch not Finish.

[Mister D]

Finland Used To Have The Best Education System In The World — What Happened? (http://www.chron.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Finland-Used-To-Have-The-Best-Education-System-In-5031341.php)



That was 2013, a year after you left. What, were you holding your finger in the dyke? Wait, the boy was Dutch not Finish.

I posted a similar story about Sweden not long ago.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/60175-Swedish-school-performance-hamstrung-by-immigration

This is most likely also due at least in part to recent "demographic change".

[Peter1469]

The current migrant crisis is reminding them that maybe they really were more homogeneous that they thought.

[Mister D]

The current migrant crisis is reminding them that maybe they really were more homogeneous that they thought.

I think most Europeans value the relative homogeneity of their societies. That alone accounts for a significant portion of the migrant crisis. The writer of the OP sounds like he may have quaffed a little too much Americanism during his stay.

[Mister D]

It's amusing that some "progressive" Europeans try to sound like they're New Yorkers.

[donttread]

interesting read, imo

the author is a finn who has emigrated to the us



http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-nordic-countries/473385/

That won't work here because our government cannot manage anything well through the bureocratic haze