Redo the whole justification and analysis based on network effects and utility to payor instead of from each according to his ability to each according to his need and this statement would become a lot more practically believable
The point is that leveraging some subtle disparities in EV* would what'd be necessary for something like the above "ideologies" to "work" over time (although so far the politicians on the whole don't think like this)
*usually supported by better data and models, which is what governments that don't piss the people off with taxes are good at
Perhaps true regarding requiring the change to payor expected value to work, however, if you made that change you would no longer have social democracy, socialism, Marxism, or communism because payor expected value is the opposite of the basis of all those ideologies. All of those ideologies have taking as much as possible from the payor under the false assumption that transferring to other individuals directly or spending indirectly through growing government is a net positive, when it is not strictly (or even likely) to be so.
1986 but supports your general point (Swiss federals do not have a deficit AIUI, public spending is stable). Such governmental competence is indeed rare but exists-- and the public infrastructure is far better than their "socialist" brothers up north.
We're branching pretty far from the original point but the above is true because the people paying the taxes tend to want what is best for the country (It's more complicated than this but if there is some unifying characteristic that defines the country it is more likely to be true because that unifying characteristic makes the guys who are competent care more about everyone else. That characteristic can be racial (I.E Japanese or Korean) or it can be ideological in some instances (I.E. what has held America together in the past). You basically benefit if you have nationalism but not too much nationalism. It's all a complex mess with many, many feedback loops operating. The only thing that is certain is the socialists are wrong about how the world works and so lead to ruin, while having good intentions. The basics of the correct model of reality that leads to good outcomes is around reinforcing mechanism to encourage individuals to care about their community in a way that defines community large enough to reasonably avoid local tribal community violence. The reason why it works is it encourages the 5-15% of the population that is highly capable and can actually get stuff done to get stuff done in a way that enriches the community and themselves rather than just themselves. This often leads to strong checks and balances across competent institutions enforcing the rules and providing services that the competent people determine are both cheapest to provide via government and in their interest to provide because of network effects (I.e. some level of healthcare makes sure workers can work in their factories because they are healthier more, some level of transport does the same, etc.)
The other crap doesn't work because it tends to devolve into dictatorship of the few and/or paralyzed committees if the dictatorship of the few isn't casting its gaze on that aspect of the government. This happens because the model of good and evil in each of these ideologies isn't internal, it's the competent people who made it are bad and everyone else is good and would be better if they just had some of the bad guys money. They tend to build hierarchies instead of intermixed/interregulating groups and they are always surprised when they are usurped and turned into a dictatorship of the one/few by someone operating in their own interest because good and evil are not external, it's an internal battle within all of us (good and evil is convenient, could be framed as selflessness/selfishness or any number of other dichotomies.)
Thank you, that was much more comprehensive than typical HN responses so I'd need a bit of time to add further nuance or tie back to the "point"
>The lesson which Swiss social insurance administrators
have learned from the insurance business generally is that client
behavior usually changes in response to administrative actions--and
that benefit levels should be structured to account for these changes.
From the linked pdf, but of course being a direct democracy with sustainable cross-tribal communal traditions probably helps.
Partially towards your point: the swiss (municipal) governments have strong yet uniquely mutually beneficial ties* to the private sector--that often result in "corruption" in other democracies--
As mentioned, would need to think further with special regards as to how one should persuade "crap-artists" towards more rational "world-models". the idea of internality seems productive for that.
*personnel and knowledge and competency exchange without uh "mission exchange"
(Tangentially: the Swiss take of pan-Germanic "spiessig" ("karen") probably suggests that they are not conservative in the normal sense of that word)
>The lesson which Swiss social insurance administrators have learned from the insurance business generally is that client behavior usually changes in response to administrative actions--and that benefit levels should be structured to account for these changes.
This isn't what I am talking about as a problem with the socialism/communism/etc, it's a basic feature of repeated models with intelligent agents (of which life is a passable example of) If you keep a system the same people will maximize their own benefit over time within it. I think it's a big part of why systems with lots of checks and balances work so well over strong hierarchies. They are inherently unstable (and in the best case unstable in a way that destroys socially sub optimal behaviour like market power abuse). The dynamism prevents the worst of the power concentration that happens in hierarchies.
I personally don't think you can convince many of the crap-artists from believing their crap because it has a bunch of religious qualities to it so is very hard to deprogram. It would be nice if we stopped letting these people anywhere near children with this crap so as to avoid the worst of the brain cancer spreading but that's probably the extent of what we can do. The idea that there is some bad rich guy causing all your personal problems and all one has to do to fix your problems is steal more from that rich guy is alluring because the alternative of fixing yourself is hard and people seem to have a myriad of mechanisms to other problems to be able to endure them.
> Instead, following and citing the Marxist sociologist Erik Olin Wright who argued much the same, Dragsted proposes that societies are hybrids, frequently containing noncapitalist elements — cooperatives, public institutions, solidaristic welfare systems — even under capitalism.
That depends. Are there literal seas of oil money available in a modern democracy, allowing to do all these programs and things without requiring free or very cheap labor from socialists?
If the answer is no, then it's very controversial.
1) Norway oil + mining, which finance a large service sector that "is the bulk of the economy" (except not really: it would be 90% smaller without the resources)
2) Sweden mining + chemicals, which finance a large service sector around that
3) Finland mining + forestry, a large chemicals sector, which finance a large service sector around them like in Norway
They all do large scale resource extraction, which then supports the economy on top of them.
They all have oil money. Frankly the closest country to them that doesn't have a large resource base is Belgium, and they only have a service sector because they used to have a large resource extraction base recently that is dying (still not quite dead). Now they're ... well, pretty much their business is becoming government (they have a lot of huge governments and large international organisations on their territory. EU, NATO, SWIFT, Benelux, at least 10 Belgian govenerments, ...)
This is what people don't seem to realize. This is how it works. The question, of course, is how to make it work without resources. Even the Ottoman arabs were doing fine in economy until the west conquered them and decided Jesus demands we force them to stop the resource they were exploiting on a large scale (black slaves, not that they didn't exploit European, Indian or even Chinese slaves, but in much smaller numbers)
As you mention, one can also make it not work even with resources, as in some places outside Europe. (Ottomans were Turks & would get upside that you put them on the same footing as Arabs, Turkiye has a diversified econ today, was never properly invaded etc)
It's not really about services, is my understanding..
Music, Merchandise and the third M I can't recall.(Not movies, they are too uh context-dependent-- not precisely centralized because Hollywood processes are far from that)
Since financial or even governancial services can be thought of as extractive, what a country needs are cross-class meaning-agnostic exports that foreclose getting cynical about "creating value"
Ah.. got it! Meals
Sorry programmers!
Sweden is considered a socdem >> benelux+rest of nordics thanks to ABBA & IKEA meatballs, even though the reality is flipped.. UK is going down the toilet because her last "comparative advantage" of music production has been
.. braindrained
Denmark of TFA has created a new category M Medical research
Ottomans were not Turkic. Well, somewhat, sure. But, only after the many genocides that spread after the collapse of the Ottoman empire did Turkey become majority Turkic.
The real thing you can learn from Nordic Socialism: big government programs are easy with oil revenues, where you get goods and services from foreigners with very little effort on the part of your own citizens.
At that point then everyone takes credit for how well that all works.
This is like pointing out that Bill Gates' household proves how communism works on a small scale.
Only norway has significant oil revenue - sweden and denmark specifically are primarily economies driven by a highly educated workforce and well regulated job markets - Lego, Novo, Maersk are all exemples of this kinds of companies depending on those socalled big government programmes to produce highly educated and specialised workers.
For Norwegian situation, I can recommend the book "The country that got too rich" which in fact is very accurate. Socialism works to a point but if it continues to spiral into more aggressive socialism you will end up in a much worse place for everyone, this is where Norway is heading the moment unfortunately even though we are a social democracy on paper.
The book has some valid points when it states that the government has too much money and does not need to make the hard prioritizations.
It has however been heavily criticized. It seems like he had a point to prove and found numbers that fit with his view, and not a neutral description. He also seems to ignore that the trends he points to, also exists in other countries.
That said, he does raise some valid concerns. The number of employees in the public sector grows, even under conservative governments. Part of the reason is that Norway can afford it at the moment. Another reason is that the number of rules and regulations increases, and the government needs more people to enforce them.
The latter is mostly a political issue, and something that also happens in countries that are not wealthy. The author's solution is to reduce taxes and cut public spending.
The socialists’ rallying cry has long been, “Finally, it’s ordinary people’s time.”
But in reality, ordinary people have seen their wealth steadily decline, while the state has only grown fatter and richer.
The slogan should be more honest: “It’s the state’s time now.”
Now the state has more employees and will continue growing to attain more power, and thereby more voters. Having worse public services than 10 years ago while the spending has increased drastically is a bad sign.
That being said, it'll have to get drastically worse before ordinary people realize where their money went, and then it might shift
Socialism works on paper and maybe the first couple of years, but we who are living with it now can clearly see the downsides. I would prefer capitalism over socialism and communism and to be honest I now believe socialism is the road that leads to communism in the end, it just take longer time to get there. If you want to see how we have progressed over time time please watch the debate between Olof Pamle and Thorbjörn Fälldin from 1982 and compare that to any "modern" debate. Same topics, same "solutions".
The examples given are from Sweden, so I guess that's where they're from. I live in Sweden and this is absolutely not a socialist country. Capitalism is very strong here, you're mostly free to invest capital in whatever you want with many ways to avoid taxes, just like in the USA, for example. There's higher taxes for the average, salaried person (though it's not at the highest levels compared with similar OECD countries[1]), but for investors, it's not so bad.
Also, salaries vary wildly between professions, lots of things, like rail lines, which are usually thought of as government concerns are privatized, neighbourhoods are more and more unequal (in Stockholm, you can go from a place where the humblest dettached house costs above 12 million SEK - around 1.3 million USD) to another where the starting price is more like 3 million SEK without travelling very far). It's definitely not "the same" everywhere (segregation based on ethnicity is crazy high, but that's another story).
So, I find it hard to consider Sweden to be anything like what you would associate with socialism (the only "socialist" thing in my opinion is the sales of alcohol - which is monopolized by the Government - but even that started opening up recently as they allow producers to started selling directly to the public from their production locations - like breweries).
as opposed to the "workers control the means of production" idea of Marx, Lenin and such. You tax individuals and businesses and use those provide certain services. There's also the idea that you have legislation to protect workers (minimum wage, 40 hour week), consumers (air bags in cars) and the environment (no lead in gas.) Other than that you let capitalists do what they do best.
What I can't get is that so many people get so angry at the idea that poor people, or at least poor people younger than 65, could have access to health care in the US.
> There's also the idea that you have legislation to protect workers (minimum wage, 40 hour week)
Just an addendum that most Nordic countries don't have that, those are set on collective agreements between employers and employees, typically through an union.
and that's a function of the regulatory environment. In the US it's tough for private sector unions but quite the opposite for public sector unions and for certain private sector contractors.
Right now we have a lot of huge houses with massive master bedroom suites in Arizona and very little high speed rail but if there was union labor to build those houses and non-union to build the rail it would be the other way around. As it is we have a "labor aristocracy" that fought efforts to establish universal health care for 40 years because good health benefits are a reason to take a union job.
> What I can't get is that so many people get so angry at the idea that poor people, or at least poor people younger than 65, could have access to health care in the US.
That's a pretty glib dismissal for real pain. Before Obamacare, in the nearest major city I could make an appointment with a gastroenterologist on a Thursday and see him on the following Tuesday. Now it is over six months for an appointment, and then for every subsequent appointment ... to see a nurse, not a doctor. There used to be five doctors in my rural county, now there are zero. While insurance premiums have skyrocketed. From my point of view healthcare has crumped. You then summarize my dismay as anger at the idea of poor people getting access to healthcare, like what else could it be other than class bigotry?
On the flip-side, before Obamacare, my parents had a hell of a time finding an insurance that would accept us because of my pre-existing condition (childhood cancer). Definitely had its tradeoffs.
After steeping in Fischel's tract on the proximate cause of housing inflation (linked to from Klein)..
I gather that the main (meta-)issue, as you are kind of insinuating here, is that, for healthcare, there is a conflation of inflationary and deflationary processes..
(Sorry to go on what might seem to be a reductive tangent here, as I often do when pressed. I have further takes on Klein vs Shapiro for later)
My roughshod framing of (one) solution is that there has to be sustained deflationary pockets in a mildly inflationary phase
Probably mirrored by such proposals for housing as
There are lotsa issues in healthcare, not least that the medical association practices "birth control" for doctors. Plus the residency process to get board certified is absolutely grueling [1], I knew more than one doc who quit when they got their MD and got into startup land because it's an easier life!
It does seem that, against all odds, Obamacare really did "bend the cost curve" and slow down the growth in health care costs. After a rough patch decade or so when we didn't get new "blockbuster" drugs we are now getting drugs like Wegovy and Cobenfy which cost a lot but promise savings elsewhere.
[1] that said, a doctor really should know what to do when somebody with a rare condition that they'll only see once in their career and working a 996 schedule at a university medical center does give the experience for that.
Right, this take would be "zoning rules for MDs" with the caveat that healthcare outside of pharm can never be as uh industrialized as construction.
Things seem to get muddled with global pipelines (your breakthru drugs come from Nordic R&D) but I'd argue that therein (Obamacare-type bipartisan stewardship) lies the real argument for a "inputs-first" post-fossil Abundance
Forgot to mention that Denmark of TFA is today (culturally*, already) much more socialist than Sweden-- if you are open to that transient but indeed ontopic (state-driven) Nordisk connection
Capitalism work on paper too, lots of competition everyone wins but i now believe is the road that leads oligarchy in the end, it just take longer time to get there.
