Scientific American: Social Democracy Proven A Success

[tonton]

Found this article from about a year ago...

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?SID=mail&articleID=000AF3D5-6DC9-152E-A9F183414B7F0000&chanID=sa006

Are higher taxes and strong social "safety nets" antagonistic to a prosperous market economy? The evidence is now in

It's a short article, but it's one that makes some of the points I've been at with regard to the effectiveness of Eurosocialism in reducing poverty. The chart says it all:

http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/000AF3D5-6DC9-152E-A9F183414B7F0000_chart.gif

Note the ratio of unemployment and poverty between the two groups. There is actually as many poor people who are employed, in terms of percentage, in "English speaking" countries as there are unemployed people in Scandinavian countries.

Expected arguments:

"Yeah but the US is a bigger country and cannot be governed with the same system."

Please explain exactly why you think this is a valid argument. I think it's a red herring.

"But the welfare state stifles productivity because it makes the people lazy."

Look at the last column. As you can see, R&D as a percentage of GDP is nearly doubled in the Nordic states. This makes up for any lack of productivity to the benefit of all citizens.

By the way, if you want to be individually entrepreneurial in Sweden, you still have that opportunity. You're encouraged to go ahead and pull ahead of the pack. And many do.

Let the (stubborn) comments begin!

[segovius]

Why does it just focus on Nordic countries though? Doesn't that skew it?

There are plenty of equivalent democracies such as Spain, France and Germany which surely need factoring in. Why not take Europe as a whole?

And what about the UK and Australia? Do they get included under 'English-speaking' countries?

[tonton]

Why does it just focus on Nordic countries though? Doesn't that skew it?

There are plenty of equivalent democracies such as Spain, France and Germany which surely need factoring in. Why not take Europe as a whole?
I don't know. Perhaps there is another reason to differentiate France and Spain from the Scandinavian system? Like tax rate and investment rate? Actually, looking at the article, maybe France and Spain don't fall into the "High Income, High Taxes" category. Or at least income and taxes aren't as high as the Nordic countries. So it's basically half-assed Social Democracy rather than the real deal?

And what about the UK and Australia? Do they get included under 'English-speaking' countries?
Yes, they are included.

[trumptman]

They used Nordic countries because then you could compare "those who have a massive load of oil to sell at record highs" to "those who are importing oil" or substitute geothermal power or some other natural resource that currently makes them a exporter versus an importer of wealth right now.

What you will find in common with all of them that I feel we should adopt is managed trade versus free trade.

Nick

[BRussell]

That might be the lamest economic study ever published.

[SpamSandwich]

It's hard to believe because "Nordic" sounds similar to "Nerd". :)

[Gon]

That might be the lamest economic study ever published.Certainly the worst I have seen in a long time.

If you know anything about economics, or anything about Scandinavia, you'll start chuckling long before halfway in the article. He's entertainingly shameless really. I foresee use for this as material on a scientific writing course. ;)

[soulcrusher]

what about india? it's an english-speaking country.