“First, it is worth noting that the Nordic counties were economic successes before they built their welfare states.
Second, as evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws. Workers are paid what they are worth, not based on government’s perception of what is fair.
A third example of Nordic commitment to free markets can be found in Sweden which has complete school choice. The government provides families with vouchers for each child. These vouchers can be used to attend regular public schools, government-run charter schools, or private, for-profit schools. Clearly, the use of government funds to pay for private, for-profit schools is the opposite of socialism.
We can also confirm these isolated facts by looking at a comprehensive measure of capitalism relative to socialism. The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based, pro-free market, think tank, compiles a worldwide ranking of countries called the economic freedom index. Its website explains that its ranking “is an effort to identify how closely the institutions and policies of a country correspond with a limited government ideal, where the government protects property rights and arranges for the provision of a limited set of “public goods” such as national defense and access to money of sound value, but little beyond these core functions.” Clearly, a socialist country should perform poorly in any ranking based on these principles.
What we find, however, is the Nordic countries rank quite high on this index of economic freedom. In fact, while Hong Kong and Singapore top the list and the U.S. ranks 12th, we can find the Nordic countries in quite respectable rankings. Denmark ranks 15, Finland 17, Norway 25, and Sweden 27. In terms of numerical scores, Sweden is only 5% lower than the U.S. For further comparison, South Korea and Japan, both considered fairly pro-free market, rank 32 and 39, respectively.”
“Today the third and fourth generation funeral director just want the money and prestige and minimal work.”
How do you know how hard they work? The rest of your post is a claim that the funeral home made poor business decisions. Equating poor business decisions with not working hard is faulty. The market rewards competence and punishes incompetence, except, of course, where government steps in and bails out failed businesses. Even that supposed enemy of big business Bernie Sanders voted to bail out General Motors.
“BTW, Venezuela’s economic failures are due, in big part, to Washington’s trade embargo. (It hasn’t done much for Cuba either…)”
It’s so funny to see a leftist claim that a country’s prosperity is dependent on trade with the “evil capitalist U.S.”. It’s wrong, of course.
“Nicolás Maduro’s recent visit to China has been highly criticized because it was done in the worst of the Venezuela’s crisis. Almost 4 million people have left this country in recent years — a country that is ranked on the 2018 Misery Index as the most miserable country of the world. Hyperinflation is destroying the hope of millions of Venezuelans that for many reasons continue living there and suffering the misery that socialism has achieved.
Maduro’s visit to China is understandable. China has given Venezuela around 65 billion dollars in loans, cash, and investments.” The funny thing is that leftists love to bleat about reducing dependence on foreign oil, except, apparently, when it comes from a socialist country.
“Insisting that state subsidies for big business aren’t capitalism is another example of that “No true Scotsman” fallacy”
Faulty logic on your part. Capitalism is based on voluntary transactions that do not involve the State, which is coercive in nature. State subsidies are inherently coercive in nature, since they come from the State which used its power to tax to take money from one group to give it to another. To claim that “taxes = capitalism” is like saying “price controls = the free market”. It’s nonsensical.
“John D. Rockefeller didn’t need government subsidies because he fixed the markets through criminal conspiracy!”
There was nothing “criminal” about Standard Oil’s practices. There was no fraud and no theft. I quote:
“In contrast to the predatory harm to consumers alleged against Standard Oil, what actually happened?The mechanism of predatory exploitation of consumers requires substantial monopoly power that is used to increase prices, thereby reducing the outputs sold. But Standard Oil had no initial market power, with only about 4 percent of the market in 1870. Its output and market share grew as its superior efficiency dramatically lowered its refining costs (by 1897, they were less than one-tenth of their level in 1869), and it passed on the efficiency savings in sharply reduced prices for refined oil (which fell from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869, to 10 cents in 1874, to 8 cents in 1885, and to 5.9 cents in 1897). It never achieved a monopoly (in 1911, the year of the Supreme Court decision, Standard Oil had roughly 150 competitors, including Texaco and Gulf) that would enable it to monopolistically boost consumer prices. So it can hardly be argued seriously that Rockefeller pursued a predatory strategy involving massive losses for decades without achieving the alleged monopoly payoff, which was the source of supposed consumer harm.”
“Every single person you mentioned had a plethora of people under them.”
People who were paid for the work they did, pay that was voluntarily agreed to.
“the peons made the pie that the wealthy received a piece from.”
The claim that only “labor” creates the pie is false. Labor doesn’t know what to make or how to make it. Management directs that.
“the people you mentioned make money during the night, home in sick bed and yes even on a cruise to bora bora.”They didn’t build the company and provide jobs for people by sleeping or going on a cruise. They WORKED to do that.
“if someone chooses only to work 40 hours a week, are they lazy and should only get subsistence “wages?
Who said working 40 hours is being lazy? Plenty of people work 40 hours and make much more than “subsistence wages”. I was responding to the false claim that the rich don’t work. They do, often VERY hard.
“First, it is worth noting that the Nordic counties were economic successes before they built their welfare states.
Second, as evidence of the lack of government interference in business affairs, there is the fact that none of these countries have minimum wage laws. Workers are paid what they are worth, not based on government’s perception of what is fair.
A third example of Nordic commitment to free markets can be found in Sweden which has complete school choice. The government provides families with vouchers for each child. These vouchers can be used to attend regular public schools, government-run charter schools, or private, for-profit schools. Clearly, the use of government funds to pay for private, for-profit schools is the opposite of socialism.
We can also confirm these isolated facts by looking at a comprehensive measure of capitalism relative to socialism. The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based, pro-free market, think tank, compiles a worldwide ranking of countries called the economic freedom index. Its website explains that its ranking “is an effort to identify how closely the institutions and policies of a country correspond with a limited government ideal, where the government protects property rights and arranges for the provision of a limited set of “public goods” such as national defense and access to money of sound value, but little beyond these core functions.” Clearly, a socialist country should perform poorly in any ranking based on these principles.
What we find, however, is the Nordic countries rank quite high on this index of economic freedom. In fact, while Hong Kong and Singapore top the list and the U.S. ranks 12th, we can find the Nordic countries in quite respectable rankings. Denmark ranks 15, Finland 17, Norway 25, and Sweden 27. In terms of numerical scores, Sweden is only 5% lower than the U.S. For further comparison, South Korea and Japan, both considered fairly pro-free market, rank 32 and 39, respectively.”