Are Nordic countries socialist?

[Blackwolf]

Nordic countries are cool.

[Cratic3947]

@Grassroots

You have shown nothing that indicates the conditions would be better regardless of politics; that’s the point.

South and Central American countries have never been models of prosperity…

You don’t know the history of Venezuela… Yes, because many have been trying to be leftist for decades… They have just as much resources as we have.

[Grassroots]

Not even close, the northern temperate zones have always been superior to the tropics.

[Cratic3947]

@Grassroots

Not even close, the northern temperate zones have always been superior to the tropics.

You think all of south America is tropical? LMAO!

[Grassroots]

Other than the southern third which is less than 1/4 of the landmass?

Yes, 5/6ths of Central and South America are in the tropics… geography is hard.

[Tilly_jow]

@Cratic3947

@Tilly_jow

@Cratic3947

Why can’t they seem to pull off socialism south of the border?

Colonialism.

We were a colony and did just fine? You do remember Venezuela was once a rich country…

Not all colonial heritages are the same.

What’s with this bazaar Venezuela fixation of yours?

How about that thread on Norway.

[TheRedComet]

We were a British colony.

If you look at all the nations around the world the British colonies have tended to fair the best in their post colonial eras.

Spanish colonies by comparison have had it rough. The French colonies slightly less so.

[AngraMainyu]

Well there were the dictatorships in Brazil, Argentina, and Chile that were ok. Unless the free market fascists came to bring you to torture camps.

[AngraMainyu]

Tell us about the golden age of Venezuela. Why did so many people flock to a man that promised to reduce extreme poverty when everyone was so wealthy?

[Hexenbiest]

Ya that frivolous statement often thrown out by the guilt ridden left holds little weight when you look at the facts. Japan had two nuclear bombs dropped on them, was occupied, stripped of their government and now is the no 3 economy in the world.

Germany was bombed to oblivion, lost six million people, and most of their industry and was split into two different countries, half of which was held by the Soviet Union until 1989 and then turns around and becomes the no 4 economy.

[Samson_Corwell]

@AngraMainyu

Well there were the dictatorships in Brazil, Argentina, and Chile that were ok. Unless the free market fascists came to bring you to torture camps.

Yeah, those really stain the free market reforms. While Allende only received a plurality of the vote in the case of Chile, you can say that the free market was imposed on the people in those South American countries.

[Samson_Corwell]

@Cratic3947

@Tilly_jow

@Cratic3947

Why can’t they seem to pull off socialism south of the border?

Colonialism.

We were a colony and did just fine? You do remember Venezuela was once a rich country…

Hey, Cratic, let’s be more like Singapore.

[Samson_Corwell]

@Bill.in.PA

Here is a link to the Heritage evaluation of Singapore:

Singapore Economy: Population, GDP, Inflation, Business, Trade, FDI, Corruption

The economy is based on international trade and banking.

Any response to my points, Bill?

[AngraMainyu]

Imposed is an interesting term in this instance, considering female prisoners were forced to copulate with animals. But Milton Friedman turned those markets around over night! The day after the coup food and necessities suddenly appeared back on grocery store shelves.

[Samson_Corwell]

@AngraMainyu

Imposed is an interesting term in this instance, considering female prisoners were forced to copulate with animals. But Milton Friedman turned those markets around over night! The day after the coup food and necessities suddenly appeared back on grocery store shelves.

Dehumanizing opponents isn’t something that only Nazis and communists do.

[Bill.in.PA]

Economic freedom and political freedom are two different things. China’s economic has grown dramatically since it turned away from Communist ideology and allowed free market reforms, but it is still a Communist dictatorship politically.

Singapore has a free economy in terms of ease of doing business but is more repressive politically and socially. The fact that you can be arrested for chewing gum does not appear to be very important to economic development.

If you dismiss the Heritage Foundation as right-wing propaganda, the World Bank shows similar rankings (second in the world) for Singapore’s ease of doing business:
http://www.doingbusiness.org/en/rankings

[Samson_Corwell]

@Bill.in.PA

Economic freedom and political freedom are two different things.

I don’t believe in that lousy distinction nor do I ever use either of those terms.

[Samson_Corwell]

@Bill.in.PA

Singapore has a free economy in terms of ease of doing business but is more repressive politically and socially. The fact that you can be arrested for chewing gum does not appear to be very important to economic development.

This is funny because I was bringing up the positively “socialist” levels of state ownership in Singapore.

[FreeAndClear]

@Tilly_jow

@Cratic3947

Why can’t they seem to pull off socialism south of the border?

Colonialism.

Gabriel García is that you

[Samson_Corwell]

How Capitalist Is Singapore Really?

The Singaporean state owns 90 percent of the country’s land. Remarkably, this level of ownership was not present from the beginning. In 1949, the state owned just 31 percent of the country’s land. It got up to 90 percent land ownership through decades of forced sales, or what people in the US call eminent domain.

The Singaporean state does not merely own the land. They directly develop it, especially for residential purposes. Over 80 percent of Singapore’s population lives in housing constructed by the country’s public housing agency HDB. The Singaporean government claims that around 90 percent of people living in HDB units “own” their home. But the way it really works is that, when a new HDB unit is built, the government sells a transferable 99-year lease for it. The value of that lease slowly declines as it approaches the 99-year mark, after which point the lease expires and possession of the HDB unit reverts back to the state. Thus, Singapore is a land where almost everyone is a long-term public housing tenant.

Then there are the state-owned enterprises, which they euphemistically call Government-linked Companies (GLCs). Through its sovereign wealth fund Temasek, the Singaporean government owns a large share (20% or more) of 20 companies (2012 figure). Together these companies make up 37% of the market capitalization of the Singaporean stock market. The state also owns a large share of 8 real estate investment trust (REIT) companies (2012 figure), which they call GLREITs. The value of the GLREITs make up 54% of the country’s total REIT market.

Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t generally associate state ownership of the means of production with capitalism. One way to see whether libertarians or conservatives actually think Singapore’s system is uber-capitalistic is to imagine how they would respond to someone who ran a campaign in the US aimed at bringing the country up to the Singaporean ideal.

In this campaign, the candidate would say that the state should expropriate nearly all of the land in the country, build virtually all of the housing in the country, move almost everyone into public housing leaseholds, become the largest shareholder of more than a third of the country’s publicly-traded companies (weighted by market capitalization), and build out a sovereign wealth fund that holds tens of trillions of dollars of corporate assets. Would this campaign meet with a warm libertarian embrace or perhaps be derided as a bit socialistic?