The next supermodel

**larvidchr** · 03-02-2013, 11:15 AM

Looks like some of the big guys could learn something yet according to the Economist, the success of economic reform and society in the Nordic region is said to be an example to follow, it is not rampant socialism as some would call it, but good common sense, a balance between giving business a good base and incentives to invest, and thus creating good job opportunities for the people, with a pay you can actually live comfortably on!!, and through general taxation levels that are high enough to actually cover the Governments expenditure so society can provide tax-funded "free" social security, top notch health-care and education for everyone.

The Nordic countries have avoided most of Suthern Europe's economic problems, but more importantly to me they have avoided the "extreme inequality" that we see in America and not quite as bad yet in England and France, complete with unrest, riots and other desperate acts as consequence.

The obvious results is people being happy to live and work there as shown in numerous surveys over time, people are even relatively happy to pay some of the highest taxes in the world, because they know they are getting their moneys worth in return.

"Getting to Denmark" is the new term by which development theorists describe successful modernization

Vikings rule yet again

only in a slightly more boring way that the good old times

The Nordic countries: The next supermodel | The Economist
The Nordic countries

The next supermodel

Politicians from both right and left could learn from the Nordic countries

Feb 2nd 2013 |From the print edition

SMALLISH countries are often in the vanguard when it comes to reforming government. In the 1980s Britain was out in the lead, thanks to Thatcherism and privatisation. Tiny Singapore has long been a role model for many reformers. Now the Nordic countries are likely to assume a similar role.
That is partly because the four main Nordics—Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland—are doing rather well. If you had to be reborn anywhere in the world as a person with average talents and income, you would want to be a Viking. The Nordics cluster at the top of league tables of everything from economic competitiveness to social health to happiness. They have avoided both southern Europe’s economic sclerosis and America’s extreme inequality. Development theorists have taken to calling successful modernisation “getting to Denmark”. Meanwhile a region that was once synonymous with do-it-yourself furniture and Abba has even become a cultural haven, home to “The Killing”, Noma and “Angry Birds”.

As our special report this week explains, some of this is down to lucky timing: the Nordics cleverly managed to have their debt crisis in the 1990s. But the second reason why the Nordic model is in vogue is more interesting. To politicians around the world—especially in the debt-ridden West—they offer a blueprint of how to reform the public sector, making the state far more efficient and responsive.

From Pippi Longstocking to private schools
The idea of lean Nordic government will come as a shock both to French leftists who dream of socialist Scandinavia and to American conservatives who fear that Barack Obama is bent on “Swedenisation”. They are out of date. In the 1970s and 1980s the Nordics were indeed tax-and-spend countries. Sweden’s public spending reached 67% of GDP in 1993. Astrid Lindgren, the inventor of Pippi Longstocking, was forced to pay more than 100% of her income in taxes. But tax-and-spend did not work: Sweden fell from being the fourth-richest country in the world in 1970 to the 14th in 1993.

Since then the Nordics have changed course—mainly to the right. Government’s share of GDP in Sweden, which has dropped by around 18 percentage points, is lower than France’s and could soon be lower than Britain’s. Taxes have been cut: the corporate rate is 22%, far lower than America’s. The Nordics have focused on balancing the books. While Mr Obama and Congress dither over entitlement reform, Sweden has reformed its pension system (see Free exchange). Its budget deficit is 0.3% of GDP; America’s is 7%.

On public services the Nordics have been similarly pragmatic. So long as public services work, they do not mind who provides them. Denmark and Norway allow private firms to run public hospitals. Sweden has a universal system of school vouchers, with private for-profit schools competing with public schools. Denmark also has vouchers—but ones that you can top up. When it comes to choice, Milton Friedman would be more at home in Stockholm than in Washington, DC.

All Western politicians claim to promote transparency and technology. The Nordics can do so with more justification than most. The performance of all schools and hospitals is measured. Governments are forced to operate in the harsh light of day: Sweden gives everyone access to official records. Politicians are vilified if they get off their bicycles and into official limousines. The home of Skype and Spotify is also a leader in e-government: you can pay your taxes with an SMS message.

This may sound like enhanced Thatcherism, but the Nordics also offer something for the progressive left by proving that it is possible to combine competitive capitalism with a large state: they employ 30% of their workforce in the public sector, compared with an OECD average of 15%. They are stout free-traders who resist the temptation to intervene even to protect iconic companies: Sweden let Saab go bankrupt and Volvo is now owned by China’s Geeley. But they also focus on the long term—most obviously through Norway’s $600 billion sovereign-wealth fund—and they look for ways to temper capitalism’s harsher effects. Denmark, for instance, has a system of “flexicurity” that makes it easier for employers to sack people but provides support and training for the unemployed, and Finland organises venture-capital networks.

The sour part of the smorgasbord
The new Nordic model is not perfect. Public spending as a proportion of GDP in these countries is still higher than this newspaper would like, or indeed than will be sustainable. Their levels of taxation still encourage entrepreneurs to move abroad: London is full of clever young Swedes. Too many people—especially immigrants—live off benefits. The pressures that have forced their governments to cut spending, such as growing global competition, will force more change. The Nordics are bloated compared with Singapore, and they have not focused enough on means-testing benefits.

All the same, ever more countries should look to the Nordics. Western countries will hit the limits of big government, as Sweden did. When Angela Merkel worries that the European Union has 7% of the world’s population but half of its social spending, the Nordics are part of the answer. They also show that EU countries can be genuine economic successes. And as the Asians introduce welfare states they too will look to the Nordics: Norway is a particular focus of the Chinese.

The main lesson to learn from the Nordics is not ideological but practical. The state is popular not because it is big but because it works. A Swede pays tax more willingly than a Californian because he gets decent schools and free health care. The Nordics have pushed far-reaching reforms past unions and business lobbies. The proof is there. You can inject market mechanisms into the welfare state to sharpen its performance. You can put entitlement programmes on sound foundations to avoid beggaring future generations. But you need to be willing to root out corruption and vested interests. And you must be ready to abandon tired orthodoxies of the left and right and forage for good ideas across the political spectrum. The world will be studying the Nordic model for years to come.

From the print edition: Leaders

**Marmite the Dog** · 03-02-2013, 11:59 AM

Nearly as good as the UK before Labour fucked everything up (again).

**Toby451** · 03-02-2013, 12:00 PM

looks like a good article, I'll give it a read and get back to you.

but of course, we must remember that the Scand. countries have way lower populations, so surely easier to maintain socialist-type policies.

these may not work so well in UK or US

**Norton** · 03-02-2013, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by larvidchr

SMALLISH countries are often in the vanguard when it comes to reforming government.

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Tiny Singapore has long been a role model for many reformers. Now the Nordic countries are likely to assume a similar role.

By any measure Nordic countries have done well and provide a high standard of living for their citizens. Must admit, I don't tune into the politics of Scandinavian countries but if Singapore is the template, I know a fair bit. I believe it is to a great degree because of many factors. Being "smallish" makes getting consensus for government programs easier. Recognition by government there is a problem needing fixed and then moving quickly to put in place programs/laws to fix. There are some political, cultural and ethnic divides but not near those in many countries such as US. And last, a ruling party which has the longevity to carry out programs over many years.

The absence of the same characteristics in many other developed countries is the reason they are in debt, divided and unable to do what is good for the majority of citizens. Unfortunately not expecting things to change.

**larvidchr** · 03-02-2013, 12:18 PM

I agree that there is an element of size, but not that much, many things is relatively easy just to multiply in size according to population, in fact there could be an element of saving in it for bigger players, since taking on more for a computer-system don't necessarily equate directly to equally increased costs etc.

I think there is cultural differences in play, but also the federal contra State issues makes it much more complicated in the US, and Both US and England has given Government power away to financial players in for soceity unhealthy proportions, to believe that private finance and Soceity/Government have equal interests in all peoples and the Country's well-being is just not right, financial big players and business owners are first and foremost self-serving no matter what and profit for shareholders and bonuses for executives is God. There need to be balance and a stronger element of Government/(for US federal control) and independence from lobbyists and their economic contributions.

**Mid** · 03-02-2013, 05:23 PM

Comparisons to Singapore are useless .

The country is unique , it has a small malleable population , draconian laws and a pressure cooker society .

Topped with a survival mentality from being ejected from Malaysia .

**Rural Surin** · 03-02-2013, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by Mid

Comparisons to Singapore are useless .

The country is unique , it has a small malleable population , draconian laws and a pressure cooker society .

Topped with a survival mentality from being ejected from Malaysia .

And diplomacy.
Being quite dependent on most everything from the outside creates odd bedfellows.

**draco888** · 03-02-2013, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by Mid

Comparisons to Singapore are useless .

The country is unique , it has a small malleable population , draconian laws and a pressure cooker society .

Topped with a survival mentality from being ejected from Malaysia .

ejected? are you sure?

**sabang** · 04-02-2013, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by larvidchr

So long as public services work, they do not mind who provides them.

A piece of pragmatism that Americans would do well to copy. For some strange reason, many Americans decry a government reformed health care system, while paying well over double what most of us are paying for health care- but in their case incomplete and riddled with holes. This in a country where most personal bankruptcies are due, or at least partially due, to medical expenses. Weird.

**Rural Surin** · 04-02-2013, 07:33 AM

I believe this model of civilisation throughtout the Scandanavian countries [more or less] has always been looked upon as exceptional and premier.

Always seem to remain stable reflective of their social/civil/political infrastructures, which offer livable lifestyles and conditions.

Amazingly enough, in contemporary times and influx of ethnic immigration - they have dealt with these social extensions handedly.

**sabang** · 04-02-2013, 07:38 AM

But you need to be willing to root out corruption and vested interests

Precisely what is holding the US model of governance back. Vested interests take care of their own selfish interest, to the detriment of greater society- and within an institutionalised system in which they are allowed to do so. That is policy corruption, defined.

**benbaaa** · 04-02-2013, 07:42 AM

Those weird Scandinavians seem to have the strange idea that governments are there to look after people. If fact, we Brits and Yanks know better. The job of governments is to make things easy for huge corporations, and a small band of super-rich individuals, while lining their own pockets.

**Rural Surin** · 04-02-2013, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by benbaaa

Those weird Scandinavians seem to have the strange idea that governments are there to look after people. If fact, we Brits and Yanks know better. The job of governments is to make things easy for huge corporations, and a small band of super-rich individuals, while lining their own pockets.

Yep. Government is in business.

**Toby451** · 04-02-2013, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Mid

Comparisons to Singapore are useless .

The country is unique , it has a small malleable population , draconian laws and a pressure cooker society .

Topped with a survival mentality from being ejected from Malaysia .

I agree, Singapore is nothing better than a Hitleresque little Chink pit!

who wants to be like little fuckers anyway...

**Mid** · 04-02-2013, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by draco888

ejected? are you sure?

Force or throw (something) out, typically in a violent or sudden way:

Google

yep I'm sure.

**Zooheekock** · 04-02-2013, 03:23 PM

Like pretty much everything in The Economist, it's a bit of a mixed article. Clearly, these countries have a lot to teach us and they've avoided making many of the idiotic mistakes of (especially) the Anglo-Saxon world. Instead of spunking North Sea revenue on electoral bribes (in the the manner of the Tories), Norway had the good sense to build up a vast sovereign wealth fund. Rather than engaging in a a wildly misjudged multi-decadal war on the state, they understand that an active, purposeful state is crucially important. High and progressive taxes have helped keep in check the pernicious consequences of growing wealth inequalities, etc. etc.

But where is Iceland in an article on Nordic economies? That was a spectacular fuck up so how come it passes by without mention? And these countries, whilst certainly better in many ways than their Anglo-Saxon cousins, are hardly without fault. Denmark has one of the (or possibly the very) highest ratios of private debt to income in the world and some of these countries are still massively reliant on energy exports (just over a fifth of the Norwegian economy is based on hydro-carbons). And culturally, these countries aren't exactly setting the world on fire, so it's best not to get too starry-eyed about them.

**Butterfly** · 04-02-2013, 05:30 PM

The Nordic system is a modern socialist system, and it works

it should be the new standard for the world,

**draco888** · 04-02-2013, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

The Nordic system is a modern socialist system, and it works

it should be the new standard for the world,

Nothing like a good sweeping statement huh? One size fits all

**Rural Surin** · 04-02-2013, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

The Nordic system is a modern socialist system, and it works

it should be the new standard for the world,

For a Western existence, perhaps.

Have to remember that one size doesn't fit all.

Societies/cultures are completely differing and complex [worldwide] from the next.

**Butterfly** · 04-02-2013, 10:45 PM

I guess in Asia it should be a dictatorship and a landlord system, seems to work better for the locals

**Rural Surin** · 04-02-2013, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

I guess in Asia it should be a dictatorship and a landlord system, seems to work better for the locals

Yes, of course...

The old standard text and illusion of the Oriental Despot.

Largely driven by Eurocentric conditioned historiography and conditioned as so.

**larvidchr** · 05-02-2013, 01:15 AM

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

Like pretty much everything in The Economist, it's a bit of a mixed article. Clearly, these countries have a lot to teach us and they've avoided making many of the idiotic mistakes of (especially) the Anglo-Saxon world. Instead of spunking North Sea revenue on electoral bribes (in the the manner of the Tories), Norway had the good sense to build up a vast sovereign wealth fund. Rather than engaging in a a wildly misjudged multi-decadal war on the state, they understand that an active, purposeful state is crucially important. High and progressive taxes have helped keep in check the pernicious consequences of growing wealth inequalities, etc. etc.

But where is Iceland in an article on Nordic economies? That was a spectacular fuck up so how come it passes by without mention? And these countries, whilst certainly better in many ways than their Anglo-Saxon cousins, are hardly without fault. Denmark has one of the (or possibly the very) highest ratios of private debt to income in the world and some of these countries are still massively reliant on energy exports (just over a fifth of the Norwegian economy is based on hydro-carbons). And culturally, these countries aren't exactly setting the world on fire, so it's best not to get too starry-eyed about them.

Iceland is a very small player with specific unique issues that went wrong, and has as such no relevance to the overall picture of the whole large Nordic region, but I believe they are doing much better now.

The Danish DTI is not nearly the disaster it looks like at a casual glance, it is offset by large assets through for-instance the widespread use of labour-market pensions.

Over 50% of the family gross debt is held by the 20% of families with the highest incomes after tax, in the end it comes down to that Danes as a whole also have the income to comfortably service the debt.

If you take pension wealth into account less than one out of 4 families has net debt, the large gross debt of Danish families just indicate they are frequent users (not abusers) of the financial system for many reasons, since the debt is generally offset by even more substantial assets.

And I believe it is generally considered an asset for a country to be a net exporter of energy and making money, rather than being reliant on expensive import you have little control over.

**swampfox1001** · 10-02-2013, 05:22 PM

There is no extreme inequity in the US. Our poor have cars, color TVs, smart phones, dish washers, Internet, movie channels...... And many of them are fat to boot. Lots of lazy ones are content to live off government assistance rather then get work and pay taxes. Almost fifty percent of Americans pay no federal income taxes. And no, most people don't think they are getting good value for the taxes they pay.

**david44** · 28-11-2015, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by Toby451

Originally Posted by Mid

Comparisons to Singapore are useless .

The country is unique , it has a small malleable population , draconian laws and a pressure cooker society .

Topped with a survival mentality from being ejected from Malaysia .

I agree, Singapore is nothing better than a Hitleresque little Chink pit!

who wants to be like little fuckers anyway...

so any change?

Thread: The next supermodel

Thread Tools

Display

The next supermodel

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions