The Nordic Model

RedEyedAbyss

From Wikipedia, asked to a Volvo employee:

"Why don't you leave (Sweden)? Certainly, you would pay a lot lower taxes and probably also have a higher salary in the U.S."

"Yes, of course, I would have a lot more money in my pocket. But I would also almost never get home before 7 o'clock and I certainly would not have the vacations everyone has a right to here... and you know what else, I would have to spend a lot more money on insurance, college for my kids, and travel back home to my family. In the end, I'm not really sure I would be any better off."

Considering that the Nordic Model results in a more equal distribution of wealth, greater opportunity due to basic social needs being better covered, greater relative gender equality, and still manages to be quite competitive, it makes you wonder: why can't this be implemented elsewhere? The most perplexing thing is that editorials in the U.S. and U.K. seem determined to see it undermined or at least pigeonholed into neoliberal dogma. (and the idea that an economic system not conforming to a certain ideology is automatically wrong regardless of whether it actually works is an IJBM in itself. In fact, it's the reason I am wary of economics)

Then again, I suppose there is a cultural factor to consider. The question and answer quite tellingly illustrate the different values between nations.

MadassAlex

I guess the short answer is that the people with power like it, and a more even distribution of wealth sits poorly with those people.

That answer doesn't sit well with me. Not specific enough, and it relies too heavily on an ambiguous "they". Although it's essentially true and valid, it's 3:30 in the morning where I am and I'm not sure I'm up for politics; I don't even have my coat.

vandro

Even if I agree with the thought that the nordic model is better for the people. There is an extra concern though. The nordic don't have to deal with war as much as other countries.

MadassAlex

To be fair, I believe most Scandinavian countries have compulsory military training, with a very short (year-long or so, I believe) term of service. Or perhaps just one of them does. I forget. In any case, the Nordic model is compatible with military strength. Good position, too; defended by Germany to the south and the UK to the west.

The USA is geographically remote from any enemies, as are Canada and Australia, putting them in prime positions to partake of such a system. Given that the West is militarily and socially unified to quite an extent, no particular Western nation can be significantly threatened by a military power.

vandro

See which words did I use: deal with.

I didn't say they are threatened. I said they have to deal with war, making incursions in the middle east and stuff, It's not their war, but they have a need to act as a police force for the world, for good or bad.

No nation wants to appear weak either, I am almost sure the US doesn't need its big military budget for war but because it has grown so large that they don't want to accept it is overblown.

MadassAlex

NATO forces are under no such obligation; since those were invasive actions, the solution to such "duty" is not to perform it. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars were poorly justified. We got our men, but it took a lot of expenditure and bloodshed to pull it off. If such a military plight were to be truly necessary, the Nordic model would still allow it, but in equal partnership with other countries.

What we got was the USA strongarming its allies into a war none of them wanted. What we should have had, assuming war was necessary, was a mutual conclusion that it was a good course of action. Remember that the Nordic model is essentially the most socialistic form of capitalism possible, and socialism seeks to shorten the walls between nations.

Essentially, I am advocating a militarily unified by a common, Western democracy to make up for the shortcomings that might come to light if the Nordic model was used elsewhere. This shouldn't be an issue, given that the Nordic model requires a shift in perspective already.