faffi wrote on 07/08/18 at 14:38:20:

About Norway: ..."

You mention: “…”typical” politician in Scandinavia, where virtually everyone having a socialistic platform,…”

Not really news, everybody knows that.
Yet what will, ‘Scandinavia’, and many in Europe, do, when they run out of other peoples money ?

What is different between the socialistic governments, like U.S.S.R., Venezuela, Cuba, (just to name 3), which have failed or close to failing. And Norway, Denmark, Sweden, who have not yet failed ?

Also I don’t understand: “…the state still pay 78% of everything they spend….”
I have learned,  the, ’state’, cannot pay a single thing, until it has money.
So for the, ’state’ to get money, the, ’state’ has to run a business, that makes money. And/or, collect Taxes.  

Is that,  the way your, ’state’, get’s it’s money ?

MnSpring wrote on 07/08/18 at 16:43:00:


The states you mention are communistic, or has that background, which isn't the same as socialistic.

The state pays the expenses indirectly because there is nothing to tax until you have profit.

I will claim that overall, our system does not cost more than the American system. It is not something I have tried to document, but if you included everything related to how the countries are run, we have some real benefits like far, far less crime (cost money), far less cost for prisons, better general education and better, cheaper (to run) health care, better economy overall (and so does Denmark, for instance, which have very little oil) with not only national money on the bank, but the average standard of life is higher. Few are poor and few are filthy rich compared to for instance USA.

Socialism is quite similar to a capitalism, the major difference is that everybody is required to pay for the common good in order to get free health care, free education, national police and fire squads, national road service and more. Also, to take care of the poor and unemployed. The system is still driven by money and profit, however.

Do people take advantage of a generous welfare system? Most definitely. But name a system where some aren't trying to gain an unfair advantage. There are none. The "beneficiaries" (a.k.a. scum) in our system, though, are likely not the same people that utilize the system in USA for an unfair advantage, or what you want to call it. There my be more trying to cheat on our system, though, although I am only speculating.

All my life I have read how many Americans believe socialism is the same as communism, but they have virtually nothing in common, be that in theory or particularly in practical execution.

Socialism is a system with full freedom for the individual and based on profit and technical development. The main difference is somewhat higher taxes to keep a higher degree of equality among people. This not only leads to happier people less likely to become criminal, but it also means that even poor people can quite easily afford to go to university, even if they are not among the brightest in the world. So more opportunities for more people.

Communism is in theory about everybody doing as well as they can, but also that everybody gets exactly the same. So let's say you are strong and energetic and produce 100 tons of corn, while another is weak and has low energy and only produce 10 tons of corn, you will both make the same amount of money.

Now, if everybody actually worked to the best of their abilities, this system would be fair. In my opinion, at least. But humans does not work that way. The the strong and energetic take a look at the one next door and think "why should I produce all this extra when it doesn't benefit me in any way?" So in real life you end up with a bunch of people performing at a rather low level. Pointing a gun at them, literally or mentally, can help a little, but you never get much in the form of excellence.

To make matters worse, the leaders/elite will sit on massive fortunes taken from the (comparatively) hard working and definitely poor masses, making them even poorer. People are generally miserable, poor and not well educated. Not because of communism as a system, but how it is put to use.

But again, there are virtually no similarities between communism and socialism. If you can, talk to Americans who have lived for a longer spell in Scandinavia and hear what opinions they have.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 07/10/18 at 13:34:30:



So what in your opinion would be fair?

You didn't answer the question, and the situation is much different. If you want to make it a race, it would be that the 10 would have to work as a group. Now, should the ribbon be split equally between the members, or individually? What do you reckon should be the criteria for the latter, if that is your opinion?

And what if, going back to my original scenario, the weak performer is really clever and can take advantage of the strong performer - who is a bit light in the mental department - to do the workload for both, what would be fair now?

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 07/11/18 at 15:47:34:


That was clever  

You are free to hire whoever you want, be that for a private or public position, but for a public position you may have to prove you chose the most skilled one. What you cannot do is search for a man or a woman specifically to fill a position, nor are you allowed to ask about religion, political and sexual preferences. In theory, you are not allowed to discriminate based on age, sex, religion or political issues.

There are incentives, though, to employ those with (expected) lower productivity. That could be a handicap, illness, mental issues, limited understanding of the language etc. The state can then pay some or all of the salary for up to 6 months while you try them out to see if they will work for your business.