usually the happiest country title bounces between the nordics so not always the oil financing things
And when Finland or Denmark were the happiest countries, Norway's oil wasn't really that much of a factor.
Finding oil tends to fuck up a nation, making the nation's other industries unable to compete due to the currency being too strong.
That Norway succeed in remaining a stable state after finding oil is a bit amazing, seeing as oil nations tend to become ruled by oligarchies.
I.e., the guy you're responding to makes no sense. Having oil usually means that you become an undemocratic hell hole.
I'm sure this is a stupid simple take, but could a nation like Norway avoid this (at least for a while) by selling oil in other currencies and maintaining their investments in other currencies?
•
What currency the selling is done in probably doesn't matter but yes Norway maintains one of the largest sovereign wealth funds.
The issue is in undemocratic countries there's usually a preverse incentive to not educate people to maintain control of the country. Non resource rich countries have to educate their population to improve productive output.
They spending is capped at 3% of the fund. A large number for sure, but the investments are meant to be long term so when the oil is gone, they can keep going.
Social democrats want to pretend they can have their cake and eat it too.
EDIT unf downvote me harder Lemmy libs! It only makes me harder!
Oil barons get the fucking wall in Minecraft.
Pay no attention to the legacy of colonialism and slave trade, and certainly not modern imperialist extraction from the third world.
Yes, Finland (which didn't exist as an independent state until 1917) definitely has a long history of colonialism and slave trade in the last *checks notes* 106 years.
Finland, Iceland, and Greenland are certainly different from their cultural contemporaries. They are, historically, victims of colonialism instead of perpetrators like Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands. That's worth recognizing!
They still benefit from modern imperialist extraction like every other Western State.
"If you are not rich because you were lucky, you are rich because you took it."
Gotcha. So, what does social democracy have to do with it again?
Social democracy is a way for capitalism to mask its cruelty by fully exporting all of the suffering it generates. It's totally unsustainable without other countries to steal from or wrecking the environment, because at the end of the day it's still capitalism and everything that entails.
We don't need to tax the rich. We need to do something else to them. 😘
Would you say that the average citizen of a developed nation is one of these rich or is benefiting from the rich? They probably make up the most of these statistics about happiness.
I would say that social democracy is better at distributing the superprofits from imperialism among its citizens. I'm even somewhat cynical about it, and believe Norwegians have a legitimate interest in opposing international socialism because they benefit more from imperialism than they would if they were forced into equality with the rest of the world (at least until international socialism uplifted the rest of the world)
I also don't think it is sustainable. Blowback is inevitable.
Please show me how slave trade and colonialism played any part whatsoever in Scandinavia. I'll wait.
Exploitation of cheap labor and resources in the global south, which create artificially cheap commodities to subsidize their lifestyles.
Exporting environmentally destructive resource extraction and production to the global south, allowing them to reap the benefits of plastics and meat without suffering the costs of massive amounts of pollution and hyper-exploitation of local workers.
Being welcomed under the umbrella of America/NATO protection instead of being labeled as one of its enemies.
Like, come on.
Exploitation of cheap labor and resources in the global south, which create artificially cheap commodities to subsidize their lifestyles.
Exporting environmentally destructive resource extraction and production to the global south, allowing them to reap the benefits of plastics and meat without suffering the costs of massive amounts of pollution and hyper-exploitation of local workers.
So, like every developed country in the world? Even post-soviet countries that never even existed before 1991 are imperialistic? Who would've thunk.
Being welcomed under the umbrella of America/NATO protection instead of being labeled as one of its enemies.
You do realize that countries technically speaking Sweden is not even in the NATO yet and a year ago neither Sweden or Finland were in NATO and had no intention to join NATO until Russia threatened them? They achieved their welfare states before they decided to join NATO. Does that retroactively turn them imperialistic?
Like, come on.
Yeah, come on. Use your brain for once and don't just spew tankie bullshit.
So, like every developed country in the world? Even post-soviet countries that never even existed before 1991 are imperialistic? Who would’ve thunk.
Every first world country in the world. The second world (post-soviet countries) aren't really allowed to benefit from imperialism.
Surely you've noticed how much worse off they are? Do you think that's just because the USSR ruined them and they still haven't recovered? Do you not realize how much better things were before the West's so-called "shock therapy" destroyed all of their social programs?
You do realize that countries technically speaking Sweden is not even in the NATO yet and a year ago neither Sweden or Finland were in NATO and had no intention to join NATO until Russia threatened them? They achieved their welfare states before they decided to join NATO. Does that retroactively turn them imperialistic?
Sweden still fell under the umbrella of protection! Do you really think if Russia invaded Sweden a year ago that the US would allow it?
Use your brain.
How do they pic the image that is served with the news? Not only that a globe does not seem very relevant, Norway isn't even visible on the globe.
There is a reason for the phrase socialfascism. Corporativism is the backbone , doesn't have much about democracy to do , democracy always halt at the factory gates.
A lot of "loud" generalisations here or whatever here, ignoring the finer bits. I am a bit drunk, but I will tell the story as I've been told.
After WWII, the labour party in Norway took dominance. Their origin were communist-ish, and their sentiment, in broad strokes, were like that: the people should "seize" control, seize the means of production, and use it to create a society which used is resources to benefit the people. Later, the party turned its back on these roots, and turned to a more moderate way: Bernstein, a german thinker, argued that capitalism didn't "collapse", or eat it self up or something like that, as Marx predicted (?), but rather just worked, in a way. So Bernstein, and others, proposed that rather than overthrow the order, (by force) they should try to moderate, and control it, be reform. From that-ish, social democracy was born. The workers should seize power and control the market and society, to better society for all. I mean, why not (it seems self-evident)?
So, the labour party nationalized the oil (when they discovered it, US companies was at the door, and all natural resources, saying it belonged to the people, and thus could never be sold. They wrote it into the constitution. Again, why not? The workers took political power, and used it to control the "flow" and development of society. They set the term, squeezed the capital owners, but just so much that it would still be attractive to do business. And, in addition, we had oil, and fish... well, everyone wanted it - so why give it away? Why not control it to our benefit? If we have "gold", why give it away?
Plus, from our roots, the population was not divided, of one culture, and the communist emerged from the war as saviours and heroes. Even today most people have backgrounds, and remember, their small towns, and their background of families with simple means: People were frugal, from farming background, homespun and all that, so perhaps thay was why no mafia or anything emerged here, when unions and such developed. Everone knows everbody, it's that kind of vibe, a bit exaggerated. Even today the trust in society, and to the state etc., is sky high. I don't even bother to check my tax returns, I trust the civil servants to do it probably. If I pay too much, I even get interest on the stuff I'm owed.
Fast forwaed, the same-ish principle stands. The labour party rules to share and create wealth for everone, equally. Even if they don't have power: Even the "right wing" parties here are for the same thing (if someone proposed otherwise, e.g. "leave the poor to die", they would be seen be all as pariah, like animals, and shunned by all. It's unheard of, such atrocious attitude would make you appear worse then the worst. the right wingers just want to make it happen through private sector, while the leftists are for doing it through public sector, broadly speakers. Could have said more, for example about the three part collaboration etc., but let's leave it at that. Take it all with a few pints worth of salt, it's enough for a start.
But, I would emphasize, us having such a homogenous population, a kind of stable culture were everone shared the same principles, background etc. - I think that played a big part. Even today, most people believe the integrity of politicans etc. to a high degree. Even if we bicker, it's more like family arguing. Heck, even the children of the crown prince attended public school; the king himself rode the tram when oil was in shortage (a very iconic moment in norwegian history - even if he probably rode with his chaffeur 98% of the time, the principle still stands).
inb4 oil bla bla bla, Sweden has the same welfare level (even though, here my knowledge is more very luck limited).
Thanks for reading, it rocks here (economically speaking; socially, it's as dry as bones, we are probably worse than the finns). Love you all, Cheers!
"Nearly a month paid vacation time by law"
I've always thought about our 5 work weeks of vacation as over a month, but I just realised 25 days is indeed less than a month.
Remember; sad people off themselves in Norway too. Finland and Norway are very similar in so many ways. Visiting people in Finland and it's just like visiting people in Norway. Even their coffee tastes the same, which means it's light roasted coffee made in a Moccamaster and drunk from Moomin mugs with cake on the side. Imo Finns are just Norwegians with a cooler language.
I'm Norwegian with Finnish relatives and I don't see much difference imo. Finland has better candy though, and they have easier access to the sauna. Norway have plenty of mountains and bad weather, and Norwegians are probably more conservative than Finns, atleast that's my impression knowing both sides.
From my understanding its like Austria, Lichtenstein, Switzerland and Germany up there. They are pretty much the same but if you say that they kill you.
It is very much the same and we know it. Still though we're quite elitist and Norwegians will obviously think we're better than the Finns (and everyone else for that matter). And likewise with a Finn, they know that they're the best there is.
The secret is having free hydro energy supply, while 50% of their gdp is fossil exports. But also includes making those smart decisions with these riches. Norway should stop selling carbon tho.
Always wondered how it works. Anyone know what is the difference between social democracy and classic capitalism aside good social programs and taxes?
But in both cases capitalists run the government. Why with social democracy they still have good social programs while in capitalism they tend to reduce them? I doubt that with social democracy they have more generous capitalist, it's should be something else.
Social Democratic countries tend to take a lot of money from taxes and invest into public services and infrastructure. If you want to look at it in an optimistic light it's a middle term to reach true socialism. I agree with it's problems, I don't identify as a social Democrate mostly because I feel it's an ideology with the mere goal of trying to slow capitalism and that's a goal too small for my liking.
That's how I understand it, but why rich people may want to pay huge taxes?
Usually they try to avoid them as much as possible. I mean if capitalists run the country they could reduce them.
I think that's part of the issue. Social democracies tend to be far more run by the people. They tend to be highly influenced by capital power but not directly and that's a huge difference. Most countries where this exists don't have a gigantic money moving machine from corporations to politicians like the USA it's subtle by way of capital flight.
The secret is using your natural reaources to responsibly build a sovereign wealth fund rather than fritter it away for short term political gain.
Read "Riding the wave: Sweden's integration into the imperialist world system" which broadly follows the same story as Norway.
How the great have fallen, Kyle kulinski.
:(
Edit: removed link and added meme pic direct
The guy may have been ironic, but a country where all the people are doing TOO well (to a level, where Norway may not be yet), usually produces more apathic people.
That's not a source, that's just a new baseless claim. Give statistics on "every philosopher who wrote about the concept of happiness" or sit down.
Alright here's a list, since I don't feel like compiling one myself. This is specifically about wealth, but all the other things mentioned in the post are closely releated to that.
But also I really think there has been some misunderstanding: I didn't say the stuff mentioned doesn't make some bad things go away. It does, it actually solves some of the most burning problems we currently have. But it also makes a society that will sooner or later feel unhappy in a different way. It's a pessimistic view on world, but I can really relate to it.
That's a good link, the author has a bachelor's in philosophy, so that gives it some credibility, and he is providing a nuanced summary of some philosophers' views on individual wealth. Schopenhauer is the only one to come close to what you're saying, and he's famously the most depressed/depressing guy to ever have walked the earth, not that that means he should be discredited of course. As a list this in no way backs up your point about wealth on a societal level. Just because you identify with an idea that does not make it true.
Here's an actual research paper with statistics touching on this subject. The authors argue that local wealth coupled with large inequality may cause many people to borrow above their means, causing unhappiness.