Denmark Is No Proof that Socialism Is Good

Funny how everything you just wrote as being a negative about Denmark and socialism’s ability to work in the US sounds absolutely perfect to me.

Your statement makes no sense. I can’t even tell if you’re for or against socialism. Funny indeed!

Pure capitalism doesn’t work any better than pure socialism.

Mr. Straw man, bring me a dream! You’re arguing against things that I never said or implied. What’s “pure” capitalism and socialism anyway?

America has proven that the best and most successful system is a judiciously applied melding of the two.

So why do some want more and more socialism in America just so that we can be like other systems, since, according to you, America is a good example of the “melding of the two”?

How blind of you to suggest that happiness is to be equated with the accumulation of “stuff”.

Mr. Straw man, bring me a dream… take II!

The “accumulation of stuff” you speak of is the standard of living. And it does not equal happiness, but it’s a significant component of it.

Let’s go for a lower standard of living in the U.S. and see how much more happy people would be, shall we? In fact, why don’t the Democrats announce that all their socialist goodies will come with a lower standard of living (since people would be happy with it anyway) and see how many of them get elected. Most Americans (and I) laugh at your statements in general.

“Standard of Living” is not an accumulation of of stuff. It is a composite of the opportunity available to a person, and how comfortable they are in day to day life.

You probably didn’t mean to, but you’re actually agreeing with my point. Greg was wrongly speaking of “accumulation of stuff.” The correct reference is to the standard of living.

Despite their high taxes, they are happier than people with lower taxes.

This is all speculative nonsense. No one can say that with lower taxes they’d be less happy.

Further more, the amount of skilled young people leaving denmark (who became so skilled through free socialized education) is mainly to to greed.

Nonsense again. It’s about wanting a better living for oneself, which is what nearly all people want, even the non-greedy ones.

What is life about, making money, or being happy?

Money is just paper. But prosperity, a high standard of living, and “stuff”, which money buys are a huge component of happiness.

If you’re so happy having no money, why don’t you give it all up, go live in a cave like they did before this money thing was invented and wait for the mother ship to come and transport you to a better world.

if they are already so happy, why would they seek it elsewhere? the only thing they don’t have enough of is MONEY.

Because they are not “so” happy. Happiness indexes, studies and measures have their limitations. Sweden is also considered a very “happy” nation, yet their suicide rates are among the highest in the world. Go figure. In addition, the range for whatever is considered happiness is not very wide. Even the Danes, supposedly living in the happiest nation is the world are not walking around ecstatic all the time. And the ones who are choosing to leave Denmark are apparently not that happy with living there.

Danes aren’t naturally especially happy people, their happiness depends largely on the society in which they live.

How do we know that? Genetics/inherent personality is another large contributor to happiness. For all we know, this is what gets them over the top, and therefore there’s not much we can take away from the Danes and apply anywhere else in the world.

just like a person living on the beachfront will probably be more happy than someone living in the slums.

Bingo! And living on the beachfront generally takes more money to incorporate into one’s life than living in the slums.

At the very least, it is not preposterous to say that high taxes do NOT make people unhappy, so it is unfair to use high taxes as a scare tactic.

High taxes diminish wealth, a significant contributor to happiness. So holding all other things equal, high taxes are very likely to diminish happiness. And it’s not all about the raw monetary figures here. There is something quite miserable about one’s own hard earned wealth being forcibly taken away. Nearly everybody tries to pay as little taxes as possible themselves, even the bulk of those advocating higher taxes in general. Is that because they don’t mind handing it over?

The “stuff” money buys is NOT a huge component of happiness.

Wealth is not only “stuff money buys”. It facilitates thins such as comfort, economic security, freedom of choice, and ability to personally help others. And you would argue that those things do not contribute to happiness? And yes, even “stuff” money buys contributes to happiness. So overall, wealth is a large contributor to happiness.

After a certain income level, people are no more likely to be happy with more money.

Again, happiness has a restricted upper limit. Nothing is likely to make people ecstatic all the time. Someone can have 100% health, a great family, live on the beachfront, etc. and still not be walking around ecstatic all the time. So of course all the contributing factors to happiness quickly reach diminishing returns, including wealth.

In addition, there are causality issues here. Many people who acquire wealth do so by sacrificing other parts of their lives such as family and recreation time. Therefore, those negative factors cut into any happiness gained by the wealth they acquire. But it’s not the wealth that quits providing happiness. It’s the influence of the other sacrifices people make. So if it were overall made easier to acquire wealth by, say, lowering taxes, we would find that the level at which wealth reaches diminishing returns is pushed higher.

Strangely enough, that income level is not upper class income, but middle class.

And high taxes in Denmark start way before anyone reaches the “upper class.”

Did I say i would be happy with no money? no. I merely said that being happy was more important than money. If money can be one tool help me to that happiness, there’s no problem at all , but if could be happier without it, why wouldn’t i chose that? my point is that the focus should be on whether or not someone is happy, money is secondary.

Money is a tool that lets you gain things that would make you happy. And again by things, I don’t mean just “stuff.” Money can help you have more choice in your life, more freedom, seek companionship, help others, etc. If you think you could be happier without money, then go for it.

This statement is just incorrect and the information is very easily found. The United states has a higher suicide rate. denmark is ranked 39th in terms of suicide. Many, many capitalist countries come come before it. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate).
so much for being unhappy.

I was not talking about Denmark. I was talking about Sweden. Please read my statement… SWEDEN. Sweden seems to be a very happy nation, with a high suicide rate. This proves that the measurement of happiness is very elusive. I guess those who’ve committed suicide or are about to aren’t into answering surveys about happiness.

“High taxes diminish wealth, a significant contributor to happiness. So holding all other things equal, high taxes are very likely to diminish happiness.”

Once again, this is just plain incorrect. why don’t you compare countries with the highest happiness, with the a countries taxes? here, ill even give them to you:

All these studies are nearly useless to argue against my point because they don’t hold other variables constant. Do you know why the countries happier than the United States have higher taxes? Because nearly all countries in the developed world have higher taxes than the U.S. anyway. If there are any other factors that propel a country above the U.S. in happiness, just by random chance alone, it’s sure to have a higher tax burden. The fact that the U.S. is among the happiest nations and with the lowest tax burden makes those statistics much more of a testament to my side than to yours.

Doesn’t seem to get them down, does it? the only thing they don’t have enough of is MONEY. they’re chasing a carrot on a stick when they already have a great meal waiting at the table.

Again, we don’t know. There could be other things keeping them relatively happy. But that tells us nothing about the effects of what would happen if taxes were lowered in Denmark or anywhere else.

you may not know it, but you just agreed with me. Nobody is saying money has this magical powder on it that makes you unhappy (in fact, over 90% of US bills have cocaine on them- quite the opposite :P). It’s what people have to sacrifice to get to the money. Because people are so adamant about earning more money, they forget about what actually makes them happy.

I don’t know about agreeing with you since you seem to miss/ignore my point here.

hmmm, 100% health, great family, and a nice place to live? I guess that’s not the ONLY thing that can make you happy, but it sure helps! good social relations and a feeling of security are the best indicators of happiness. unfortunately, not everyone in the united states has this, because it takes a lot of money. Many people want these things so badly, and are unable to afford them, so they put themselves into debt for life.

Completely irrelevant to anything I said.

and the diminishing returns thing is true- but guess what, the diminishing returns start at middle income, not in the upper echelons.

I already addressed this in the part that you said I agreed with you, but guess what, you’re still ignoring my point.

unfortunately, this is partly true. A certain amount of money is needed to live comfortably, or even to survive at all.

It’s not partially but 100% true.

why is that unfair?

And the rest of what you said is just standard socialist spin opening up what amounts a new topic.

how do I actually put statements in quotation, like our nifty little gray boxes?

Do this: <blockquote>Text goes here.<\blockquote>

I meant to say in the above that “Happiness of a country is measured by what percentage of the population IS happy, not what percentage is suicidal. While interesting to study, it has no bearing on how much of the population IS happy.”

IS THERE A WAY TO EDIT POSTS, so i don’t have to do this?

IS THERE A WAY TO EDIT POSTS, so i don’t have to do this?

Sorry, no there is not. I suggest you compose your comments in a text editor, review and then submit. Also, you can see a preview of the comment below the comment entry box. It’s easy to see formatting errors that way.

Denmark, with a mixed market capitalist economy and a large welfare state,[4] ranks as having the world’s highest level of income equality.

Of course it has income equality. It’s extremely difficult to make any serious money in Denmark, and most of the money anyone makes is taken by the government and redistributed back to the populace. And who decided that income equality is such a positive thing anyway? Should we strive for a society where everybody is mediocre?

Denmark has the best business climate in the world, according to the U.S. business magazine Forbes.

Except for when it comes to keeping one’s money. It would probably be great to have a company in Denmark and live elsewhere.

From 2006 to 2008, surveys[6] ranked Denmark as “the happiest place in the world”, based on standards of health, welfare, and education.

Happiness is a state of mind, therefore it cannot be based on such “standards.”

The 2009 Global Peace Index survey ranks Denmark as the second most peaceful country in the world, after New Zealand.

It’s great to be peaceful when you have had others protect you from nations such as Germany and the Soviet Union in the past, and also when you have a very homogeneous population all with similar values and backgrounds.

Denmark was ranked as being the least corrupt country in the world according to the Corruption Perceptions Index,[8] sharing a top position with Sweden and New Zealand.

It’s a testament to the Danish culture, and has nothing to do with socialism or Denmark’s status as a welfare state. If it weren’t for the Danes’ low tendency for corruption, Denmark would probably be on the brink of collapse already with most of the rest of the welfare states in Europe.

The national language, Danish, is close to Swedish and Norwegian, with which it shares strong cultural and historical ties. 82% of the inhabitants of Denmark and 90.3% of the ethnic Danes are members of the Lutheran state church. As of 2009, 526,000 persons (9.5% of the Danish population) were either immigrants or descendants of recent immigrants. Most of these (54%) have their origins in Scandinavia or elsewhere in Europe, while the remainder originate mainly from a wide range of Asian countries.

This strengthens my argument. Denmark is a very homogeneous white European nation. This is one of the keys to its relative success as a welfare state. Open it up to immigration from the rest of the world and it will quickly fall apart.

“It’s great to be peaceful when you have had others protect you from nations such as Germany and the Soviet Union in the past, and also when you have a very homogeneous population all with similar values and backgrounds.”

What about the present?

“It’s a testament to the Danish culture, and has nothing to do with socialism or Denmark’s status as a welfare state. If it weren’t for the Danes’ low tendency for corruption, Denmark would probably be on the brink of collapse already with most of the rest of the welfare states in Europe.”

So what do you think motivates corruption in the USA? Greed?

“This strengthens my argument. Denmark is a very homogeneous white European nation. This is one of the keys to its relative success as a welfare state. Open it up to immigration from the rest of the world and it will quickly fall apart.”

Not if they had good immigration policies.

I bet you were a big Alex P Keaton fan.Hahaha

I’m a big fan of reality.

Not everybody is motivated by making “serious money”. In fact the majority of Australians (which is where I’m from) seem content to make a regular living and have a normal life. It’s a minority of people who are driven to make “serious money” Also, money isn’t the only thing that motivates people to achieve great things. Look at politicians for example; a lot of them are motivated by the thirst for power or the desire to do public service when they could be making a lot more money in the private sector. Are you going to tell me that getting elected into parliament is a mediocre achievement?

Irrelevant. People don’t need to be motivated by “serious money” to be motivated by money in general. And I never said nor implied that money is the only thing that motivates people. You’re arguing against something I didn’t claim. (A practice which is known as a straw man argument.) The fact that people are motivated by other things does not take away from the fact that people are also motivated by money. And as for those other things people are motivated by, e.g. power, prestige, satisfaction, etc., you can’t tax them and distribute them to the poor.

It’s also irrelevant that only a small minority is motivated by “serious money.” It’s always a small minority that pushes the realm of possibilities for humanity. How many people have made great scientific discoveries? A small minority. How many people created successful corporations? A small minority. So small minorities don’t matter? Of course they do.

A lot of capitalists say that socialism takes away the incentive for people to work hard, but I disagree. If a democratically elected socialist government controlled a nation’s industry and resources obviously they’d want to do a good job, otherwise they’d be voted out. Also, there’s no reason why a government controlled economy couldn’t have a tiered wage system. But there’d need to be a cut off point, so you didn’t end up in situation like you have in the USA, with 10% of the population controlling 70% of the wealth. I don’t see how allowing such a small minority of people to control the wealth is any more beneficial than letting a democratically elected government control it. At least if the government controls it and the people aren’t happy with them then they can be voted out. But allowing a minority of people, who are not held to account at the ballot box, to make decisions that effect the lives of millions of people is a form of fascism.

Wait, it is planet Earth we’re discussing here, right? Or is it some other planet where all this somehow applies? Of course in a place where socialism does not take away any incentive to work, the government is fully capable of using resources better than the free market, politicians only want what’s best for everybody, politicians are great managers of the economy and if they don’t do a good job, they are thrown out of office and capable managers take their place, and an earnings cap does not destroy private business and investment, socialism may have a chance. But none of those things match observable reality on planet Earth.

So Denmark has lower levels of corruption than the USA.

Yes. At least that’s what the perception is. However being that the USA is such a large multicultural society which includes so many recent immigrants from cultures that are far more corrupt, the relative low level of corruption in the USA, beating the average of Europe, is quite a impressive.

But socialism wouldn’t take away the incentive to work if the majority of people were working under a tiered wage system where they still could earn more for working hard and getting a better education than the next bloke. Let’s face it in “this world” the majority of people work to make a living not to make serious, but that doesn’t stop us from trying to be good at whatever is we do.

Socialism won’t take away all incentive to work, but it would take some away. Your suggestion of a “tiered wage system” is an admission that money is a significant motivator for work and success. If it weren’t, why would socialism need a “tiered wage system” (as opposed to just paying everyone exactly the same) in order to not “take away the incentive to work?”

At any rate, a government set “tiered wage system” would be an economic disaster since no individual has a clue what the tiers should be.

“Yeah. But the people who are motivated by those things are capable of running a successful country like…..Denmark!”

It’s much easier when you have a culture with collectivist tendencies, low corruption, that barely lets any strangers in on it. You think Denmak’s case is translatable to other places in the world then? Besides, Denmark is not that much successful. And their socialism comes at a price.

That doesn’t mean they’re the only ones capable of managing a nations industries and resources.

This does not argue against what I previously said.

But a lot of capitalists like bringing unskilled migrants in from other countries, so they can hire cheap labour and undercut the existing workers who refuse to work for unfair wages. As for those migrants who don’t work, the capitalists don’t care because the government supports them. The truth is a lot of Western capitalists are no better than the Chinese government in regards to their attitudes towards workers, because they’d love to have a domestic work force that is as oppressed as the Chinese work force. This is why a lot Western companies take their business offshore for cheap third world labour. I’m surprised you can’t see the hypocrisy. On one hand they criticise the commies but on the other they’re happy to utilise their repressed work force.

Also doesn’t argue against what I previously said but opens up a new can of silliness instead.

I doubt the “capitalists” you speak of care about Chinese domestic policies enough to criticize those. And besides, at the end of the day, everybody does mostly what’s comfortable for themselves. Al Gore rides a private jet. Obama praises China, despite their repressed workforce. And besides, Hypocrisy?

They’d do the me to Western workers if the Liberals and Lefties weren’t around to stop them.

Oh yes, I’m sure that if it weren’t for the Liberals and Lefties, we’d be running slave camps and gulags here. Let me let you in on a little secret, the communists, the ones with the slave labor in China and gulags in the former U.S.S.R., are lefties too. Slave labor is required for the common good you know. How else would a little old nation such as China compete against the mean evil capitalists of the world?

And, no employer is required to pay more than minimum wage, yet nearly all workers get paid more… I wonder why…