[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: scandinavian-countries.png (327 KB, 1320x1102)
327 KB
327 KB PNG
When did they embrace social democracy and become the nations most known for having their shit together? Why have so few other nations followed in their path? Why did social democracy never take off in the USA?
>>
Non are as homogenous and altruistic (Jantelaw) as they used to be
>>
>>11591538
>Why have so few other nations followed in their path? Why did social democracy never take off in the USA?
From what I've read about it, it is because it bares a great deal on pressure on the large middle classes, which for a while generally sustained the lower classes. However, this has led to the middle class shrinking, and the lower class artificially growing, as it relies on subsidies from the government. This hasn't harmed business much due to the relatively low corporate tax, once used to incentivise businesses in the region, but slowly they are relocating or not paying their correct tax. Government corruption is also less observable in these nations.
Compare it to a case of social democracy which failed. Greece. After the fall of the Colonel's Regime in the 70s, PASOK took power and built a welfare state, however Greece never had a large middle class, and so corporate tax was higher, which disincentivized investment, leading the nation to rely on foreign currency to maintain its structure and eventually collapse. The reason it hasn't collapsed yet in Scandinavia is because their middle class was quite large when compared to other cases of failed social democracy, and we are only now beginning to see its strains. Norway is a special case also as the government reinvests the profit of its primary industry to sustain their programs, like the Gulf States.
Social democracy never took off in the states because they value the individualism of the entrepreneurial middle class over the plight of the day-labouring working class. In any case, the upper class doesn't care because they can afford to use loopholes only accessible to them.
>>
>>11591538
The nordic system only existed because these countries are weak, and were right on the border of the Soviet Union. Now that the threat is gone, it's slowly being dismantled.
>>
>>11592468
>Oh no they're not white so their ideology failed
You know Russia has always been 15% muslim and America has always been only 75 or less % white?
>>
>>11592562
>Russia has always been 15% muslim
Not in Moscow.
>>
>>11591538
Because they’re small, white, high IQ, high trust, homogenous countries. America isn’t.
>>
>>11592562
America was around 90% white 50 years ago
>>
>>11592562
Source for both of those claims?
>>
>>11592931
Not really. Blacks have always been 14%
>>
>>11592932
>>11592931
>>11592921
Triggered nazis. You've never been white.
>>
>>11592931
That's not homogeneous. Does it invalidate capitalism then?
Russia was never homogeneous but put up a fight for nearly 50 years.
Is homogeneous racism, the criteria for what a successful economic ideology looks like?
Does social democracy get invalidated because denmark is now 96% white instead of 99%? Meanwhile america has never been white.
>>
>>11591538

>Sitting on top of a trillion dollar nationalized oil reserve

No clue desu
>>
>>11591538
social democracy only works when your country is filled with hard working white people
now it is crumbling because of all the immigrants
>>
>>11593069
Only Norway, and they were the wealthiest country in Europe long before they discovered oil.
>>
>Sweden
Was already pretty much regional power with developed ecenomy prior social-democrats.
Btw, leftists policies lead to crisis in 80s, so they were forced to become more liberal on ecenomy.
>Norway
It's simple really, it is oil and steel rich country with low population, so it can affort "gib me dat" policy
>Denmark
I have little info on it.
>>
>>11593210
Filtered
>>
>>11593062
leftists truly do lie as they breathe
dilate
>>
>>11592925
You don't see social democracy in white parts of the US either.
>>
>>11591538
Only works when natives want to work hard and get lower pay but have greater public services.
When people get fed up with the system because their public services are getting worse, then it no longer works and causes a feedback effect on public view of their government. Causing less trust in taxes and so on.
>>
>>11593319
That's because America is fundamentally diverse so people's trust has been halved. Establishing a welfare state requires high levels of trust. This is why you never see countries like the US, Brazil, South Africa, India or Indonesia making a welfare state but unified countries like Sweden, Germany or Japan pull it off.
>>
>>11593296
>if a country is no longer 99% white it has failed at its IDEOLOGY
Lmao retard. You'll never be human.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.