Economics Questions

Re: The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

SkepticalMetal — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:11:33 GMT

I know this was posted 3 years back but...thanks, it helps a lot.

Re: The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

impala76 — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:07:13 GMT

My point was that the GDP figures being quoted gave a false picture of the situation, which your figures corroborated.

Okay, PPP does narrow the difference. You're right about that.

I just think that, looking across all developed, non-microstate/taxhaven countries (rather than merely the old "Europe versus America") there doesn't seem to be much relation between government spending and per capita GDP. Inequality and happiness (subjective wellbeing) are different stories.

Re: The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

Aristippus — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:01:14 GMT

Proving you wrong is backing you up?

My point was that the GDP figures being quoted gave a false picture of the situation, which your figures corroborated.

Besides, there are reasons besides current economic policy why the US might be ahead, like its historical lead, language dominance and iron/coal resources.

I actually agree with you. Pointing at current policies only is ridiculous since it ignores the historical context and the time required for capital accumulation/consumption. If Singapore became completely communistic tomorrow, they would still have a relatively high standard of living by world standards on day 1 - thus illustrating the benefits of Communism!

Re: The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

impala76 — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 06:48:21 GMT

*relative currency devaluation

Re: The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

impala76 — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 06:47:41 GMT

Proving you wrong is backing you up? Whatever.

Low PPP implies an undervalued currency, which allows a country's exports to outcompete and siphon off growth from other countries for no reason other than currency evaluation. You have to take PPP and real GDP both into account.

Besides, there are reasons besides current economic policy why the US might be ahead, like its historical lead, language dominance and iron/coal resources.

Re: The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

Aristippus — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 06:42:54 GMT

*Per capita income. I've noticed the stupid buggy forum won't let you edit posts on threads with many pages.

Re: The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

Aristippus — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 06:38:46 GMT

Thanks impala for backing us up. There is only a very small difference between the PPP between Norway and USA, and Norway has a much larger amount of income that is due to natural resources (oil). Sweden and Denmark are signficantly lower on the list (so is, as I thought, Australia).

Re: The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

impala76 — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 05:47:38 GMT

Per capita GDP means nothing if you don't at the very least factor in the cost of living. For example, I've seen people on this forum say that Australia has a high minimum wage at $15 per hour, but $15 will buy you shit all in Australia. You can buy Australian beer in the US for half the price in its country of origin. Most of the USA has a ridiculously low cost of living compared to the parts of the West that have been more socialistic and for longer (the high standard of living in the USA isn't because it isn't relatively socialistic now, but because it had a relatively long period of being relatively free).

Anyway, PPP is meant to equilbriate purchasing powers. And Norway is still richer than the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita

Re: The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

Justin — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 16:57:16 GMT

Haha, that is fantastic! Best laugh I had in a while.

Re: The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

Centrist — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:57:35 GMT

It's better than the libertarian model of Somalia

[view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0]

Re: The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

Justin — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 16:24:04 GMT

I agree completely. Looking at GDP per capita isn't telling at all in the real world. It's the stuff of text books and theory. That is why it drives me nuts when people site things like that trying to argue things like standards of living.

Re: The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

Aristippus — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 07:14:57 GMT

Im calling BS. Norway has a gdp of 100k per capita, while US is under 50k, theres no way US has higher standard of living now matter how you twist the nmbers or cost of living.

Per capita GDP means nothing if you don't at the very least factor in the cost of living. For example, I've seen people on this forum say that Australia has a high minimum wage at $15 per hour, but $15 will buy you shit all in Australia. You can buy Australian beer in the US for half the price in its country of origin. Most of the USA has a ridiculously low cost of living compared to the parts of the West that have been more socialistic and for longer (the high standard of living in the USA isn't because it isn't relatively socialistic now, but because it had a relatively long period of being relatively free).

Re: The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

TheFinest — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 06:59:09 GMT

Don't know why Norway is considered the worst performing Scand. country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

Numero Uno on this, with Sweden all the way at 10.

Re: The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

Caley McKibbin — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 22:18:04 GMT

That is exactly how it should be portrayed. Norway is just a capitalist energy firm monopolizing resources to exploit the rest of humanity. As is Alberta. Like Norway, taxes are essentially low in Alberta because they just suck the royalties out of the energy sector. Even with twice the GDP per capita of Ontario to leech from it still runs a provincial deficit.

Re: The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

EmperorNero — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:41:30 GMT

You have to factor in how tiny Norway is, 5 million people, while the US is over 300 million people. It's not really meaningful to compare those on a per capita basis. Most rich countries are small. In fact, out of 100 people living in a top-10 per capita GDP country, 93 live in the US. That should give you a picture of how tiny those places are. If you have a dozen small countries, some do well and some don't, and you can pick the one that works. But the US is the average of 60 Norways, so there's nowhere to pick from. On average the US has a higher per capita GDP than Europe, and especially than "socialist countries" on average, and there are about a dozen US states with a higher per capita GDP than Norway. So really we're just dealing with a skewed sample here. I certainly never hear socialists mention Mozambique.

Also, it was mentioned a bunch of times in this thread how the US isn't really less socialist measured by government spending and meddling. The difference, the reason that Norway "works", is that it has a bunch of oil revenue to buy goodies from. Basically, Scandinavian countries are resource extraction companies that distribute the profits to their shareholders in the form of government schooling and welfare. These free goodies are often confused with the free lunch of socialism, but economists know that there is no free lunch. You can't copy that model to the rest of the world, if the US wanted to export that much oil per capita, it would have to export a few times the entire world consumption.