this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
842 points (99.9% liked)
Memes
45575 readers
1439 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Also oil to pay for all og this.
usually the happiest country title bounces between the nordics so not always the oil financing things
Oil exports are like 20% of Norway's economy.
And when Finland or Denmark were the happiest countries, Norway's oil wasn't really that much of a factor.
Finding oil tends to fuck up a nation, making the nation's other industries unable to compete due to the currency being too strong.
That Norway succeed in remaining a stable state after finding oil is a bit amazing, seeing as oil nations tend to become ruled by oligarchies.
I.e., the guy you're responding to makes no sense. Having oil usually means that you become an undemocratic hell hole.
I'm sure this is a stupid simple take, but could a nation like Norway avoid this (at least for a while) by selling oil in other currencies and maintaining their investments in other currencies?
What currency the selling is done in probably doesn't matter but yes Norway maintains one of the largest sovereign wealth funds.
The issue is in undemocratic countries there's usually a preverse incentive to not educate people to maintain control of the country. Non resource rich countries have to educate their population to improve productive output.
Financung-fu
Social democrats want to pretend they can have their cake and eat it too.
EDIT unf downvote me harder Lemmy libs! It only makes me harder!
Oil barons get the fucking wall in Minecraft.
The rest of the nordic countries have the cake and eat it too without oil money.
Pay no attention to the legacy of colonialism and slave trade, and certainly not modern imperialist extraction from the third world.
Yes, Finland (which didn't exist as an independent state until 1917) definitely has a long history of colonialism and slave trade in the last *checks notes* 106 years.
Finland, Iceland, and Greenland are certainly different from their cultural contemporaries. They are, historically, victims of colonialism instead of perpetrators like Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands. That's worth recognizing!
They still benefit from modern imperialist extraction like every other Western State.
"If you are not rich because you were lucky, you are rich because you took it."
Gotcha. So, what does social democracy have to do with it again?
Social democracy is a way for capitalism to mask its cruelty by fully exporting all of the suffering it generates. It's totally unsustainable without other countries to steal from or wrecking the environment, because at the end of the day it's still capitalism and everything that entails.
We don't need to tax the rich. We need to do something else to them. 😘
Would you say that the average citizen of a developed nation is one of these rich or is benefiting from the rich? They probably make up the most of these statistics about happiness.
I would say that social democracy is better at distributing the superprofits from imperialism among its citizens. I'm even somewhat cynical about it, and believe Norwegians have a legitimate interest in opposing international socialism because they benefit more from imperialism than they would if they were forced into equality with the rest of the world (at least until international socialism uplifted the rest of the world)
I also don't think it is sustainable. Blowback is inevitable.
Please show me how slave trade and colonialism played any part whatsoever in Scandinavia. I'll wait.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_colonialism
In what way has any of their imperialistic actions benefited them?
Exploitation of cheap labor and resources in the global south, which create artificially cheap commodities to subsidize their lifestyles.
Exporting environmentally destructive resource extraction and production to the global south, allowing them to reap the benefits of plastics and meat without suffering the costs of massive amounts of pollution and hyper-exploitation of local workers.
Being welcomed under the umbrella of America/NATO protection instead of being labeled as one of its enemies.
Like, come on.
So, like every developed country in the world? Even post-soviet countries that never even existed before 1991 are imperialistic? Who would've thunk.
You do realize that countries technically speaking Sweden is not even in the NATO yet and a year ago neither Sweden or Finland were in NATO and had no intention to join NATO until Russia threatened them? They achieved their welfare states before they decided to join NATO. Does that retroactively turn them imperialistic?
Yeah, come on. Use your brain for once and don't just spew tankie bullshit.
Every first world country in the world. The second world (post-soviet countries) aren't really allowed to benefit from imperialism.
Surely you've noticed how much worse off they are? Do you think that's just because the USSR ruined them and they still haven't recovered? Do you not realize how much better things were before the West's so-called "shock therapy" destroyed all of their social programs?
Sweden still fell under the umbrella of protection! Do you really think if Russia invaded Sweden a year ago that the US would allow it?
Use your brain.
Lol, what? Do you think the products made from the resources from southern countries don't end up in post-soviet countries? Do you think they still drive Ladas there? Those countries ABSOLUTELY have cheap commodities imported in to subsidize their developed country lifestyles. Not to the same extent as the big players, but we'll get to why that is.
Are they? They are worse, but depending on the region not by much. Take a look yourself, The same report that puts Nordic countries at the top has Czechia (formerly a part of Czechoslovakia) just a smidge below US and UK and actually above Belgium and France. Now you can argue "that's a satellite state and not an actual USSR aligned country" but it's not like Estonia is that far behind and according to the CCCP Estonia was hardcore in the CCCP, you know ECCP.
Well, kinda. Most of those countries have issues with a Russian minority who refuse to integrate into the local culture. It creates tensions in their societies which then hinders their progress. It's going to take at least another generation or two before that issue essentially "solves itself". And remember, that's an issue only because the CCCP did deliberate mass deportation of locals into foreign lands. You can still find some Baltic people in Siberia, not because they want to be there but because they were forced to be there.
Unlike you I actually know how thing were before and things were pretty shit before the collapse, it's literally one of the reasons the Soviet union collapsed. Sure things right after the collapse were worse but guess what, in less than 10 years it was already better than the end of union. The "shock therapy" didn't destroy all social programs, it restarted the economy and social programs got rebuilt. Overall a net positive.
The fuck kind of a stupid question is this? Obviously US wouldn't allow it, but it's not like the EU would allow it either. And it's a stupid question because Sweden (and most neighbors of Russia) wouldn't even need the umbrella of protection if Russia wasn't such a fucking asshole towards its neighbors. Just to prove that point Finland and Russia had normal relations, until Putin decided to threaten them out of nowhere and now Finland is in NATO because Russia acted like an asshole. The umbrella of protection point has literally nothing to do with how well Nordic countries are doing. You could argue that the umbrella would mean they don't have to spend that much on defense, but guess what else would make them spend less on defense? If Russia wasn't such a fucking prick. Regardless they're still doing well.
I think they don't benefit from it. Products made from the resources from southern countries end up in southern countries too! That's not the point.
The benefit of superexploitation is being able to make commodities artificially cheap in the imperial core relative to wages in the imperial core. In post-soviet countries these products aren't actually cheap relative to their own incomes, they have to pay a significant portion of their wages to afford them.
I'm working my way through Red Hangover, and that really doesn't seem to be the case. Maybe 1 in 10 people living in the post-soviet sphere have benefitted. Neoliberalism is nightmare.
So there you go. Sweden benefits from Western militarism.
Have you lived there? Because it sure as shit talk about it like you have, except you clealy haven't because if you did you'd know how disingenuous your point is. Obviously post-soviet countries don't have the buying power of countries that generally have existed for more than a century. Like you should be aware, post-soviet countries had to restart their economy following the collapse of the union. You're rubbing in the fact that people had to live through the collapse. But it doesn't mean you couldn't afford those cheap products. I was able to buy Coke and Mars back in 1994 despite the economy being probably in its worst state ever and most people probably could until the start of this year. The looming recession is killing buying power right now, so this year really isn't a good comparison on how big part of the wage goes into actually living.
I guess my parents, me, my friends and most people I know just happen to live in some magical bubble where we're the 1 in 10? I know not everyone is well off, but it's not like everyone in the Nordic countries are well off either. It's definitely not 1 in 10 who have benefited.
Maybe the only statement we mostly agree upon. I wouldn't call it a nightmare but I agree that we could do better. However soviet era socialism is definitely not better.
And this is where you go off the deep end. At no point was western militarism even a point of discussion. The discussion was the welfare state of Nordic countries and western militarism has nothing to do with that.
lol wtf is this how you measure prosperity? Mexico drinks 7 times more Coke than the rest of the world, would you call them prosperous? I think I remember something about Coke being more readily available than baby formula there?
Only 1 in 10 saw improvement from before, and specifically in ways unrelated to technological development.
Is your water cleaner? Are you healthier? Do you have more free time? Maybe! Not most people, though.
It has a lot to do with it! It's easier to spend money on welfare when you don't have to spend it on defense.
Germans still pay solidarity tax lil bro... USSR was one of the most talented entities in fucking up entire countries for decades to come, politburo was producing most vile, scheming and backstabbing ruling class ever to imagine. The very same people were running privatization and scraping all the social security programs in place, your boys from the West in Yeltsin's team were simply lacking and couldn't keep up.
I'm sure the Cold War has nothing to do with that lol
The fuck did you call me, btw?
They spending is capped at 3% of the fund. A large number for sure, but the investments are meant to be long term so when the oil is gone, they can keep going.