I think it's a common misunderstanding. It's not the first time I hear from the right wing, that Sweden is not socialist. This is not a good argument, for multiple reasons.
1. Sweden is socialist by any international comparision, from many perspectives. One can find a few statistics, that say otherwise. But when something looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and tastes like a duck, then the fact it doesn't sound like a duck doesn't ensure, it isn't a (cooked) duck.
2. This doesn't explain the other Scandivanian countries, invalidating any further arguments down this line.
3. What most people care about is not who pays for it. But the free education, free healthcare, years of unemployment benefits, maternity and paternity leave, financial equality (and good life quality) among people, etc. Right wing usually phrases it as being "socialism", regardless of the official definition and statistics.
4. Most, if not all of the current Scandinavian welfare solutions - even if they are private companies now - came from privatization of public departments. So should Scandinavia have a fully right wing history, they wouldn't have these setup today and the most desirable solutions (especially for poor people again) would not exist today.

So for me, this argument doesn't really cut it, when it comes to left and right wing people discussing Sweden. Among right wing people sure, it can be an easy way to explain it. But leftists (who want to believe in this ideal) won't be convinced, as it's easy to come up with any of these 3 points (#1 and #3 are related) by 2 minutes of research.

This doesn't mean, Scandinavian countries can be copied by others. They are in a very special position. While the system they have is one, that could not be replaced by anything better, it is not reproducible at other countries. However this suggests, that there is no one size fits all solution (neither is libertarianism a solution - in Scandinavia it would bring pretty much misery to people, compared to what they have today). My preference of this ideology is purely due to the fact, that I think what Scandinavia has is not the norm, neither is it sustainable.

Sweden Isn't Socialist
In international economic-freedom comparisons, Sweden often earns a higher ranking than the U.S.

For years, I've heard American leftists say Sweden is proof that socialism works, that it doesn't have to turn out as badly as the Soviet Union or Cuba or Venezuela did.

But that's not what Swedish historian Johan Norberg says in a new documentary and Stossel TV video.

"Sweden is not socialist—because the government doesn't own the means of production. To see that, you have to go to Venezuela or Cuba or North Korea," says Norberg.


"We did have a period in the 1970s and 1980s when we had something that resembled socialism: a big government that taxed and spent heavily. And that's the period in Swedish history when our economy was going south."

Per capita GDP fell. Sweden's growth fell behind other countries. Inflation increased.

Even socialistic Swedes complained about the high taxes.

Astrid Lindgren, author of the popular Pippi Longstocking children's books, discovered that she was losing money by being popular. She had to pay a tax of 102 percent on any new book she sold.

"She wrote this angry essay about a witch who was mean and vicious—but not as vicious as the Swedish tax authorities," says Norberg.

Yet even those high taxes did not bring in enough money to fund Sweden's big welfare state.

"People couldn't get the pension that they thought they depended on for the future," recounts Norberg. "At that point the Swedish population just said, enough, we can't do this."

Sweden then reduced government's role.

They cut public spending, privatized the national rail network, abolished certain government monopolies, eliminated inheritance taxes, and sold state-owned businesses like the maker of Absolut vodka.

They also reduced pension promises "so that it wasn't as unsustainable," adds Norberg.

As a result, says Norberg, his "impoverished peasant nation developed into one of the world's richest countries."

He acknowledges that Sweden, in some areas, has a big government: "We do have a bigger welfare state than the U.S., higher taxes than the U.S., but in other areas, when it comes to free markets, when it comes to competition, when it comes to free trade, Sweden is actually more free market."

Sweden's free market is not burdened by the U.S.'s excessive regulations, special-interest subsidies, and crony bailouts. That allows it to fund Sweden's big welfare programs.

"Today our taxes pay for pensions—you (in the U.S.) call it Social Security—for 18-month paid parental leave, government-paid childcare for working families," says Norberg.

But Sweden's government doesn't run all those programs. "Having the government manage all of these things didn't work well."

So they privatized.

"We realized in Sweden that with these government monopolies, we don't get the innovation that we get when we have competition," says Norberg.

Sweden switched to a school voucher system. That allows parents to pick their kids' school and forced schools to compete for the voucher money.
https://reason.com/2019/01/02/sweden-...

Not sure what to say other than what I already wrote. Thanks for your message, and I hope you have a nice day. :-)

So initially I thought it was better that Trump was elected. It not just proved, that the US is different from other countries in that even a president can't push his stupid ideas through, but prevented Hillary from getting into the office for good. And man, she is the real deal, when it comes to career politician. I mean who else could have managed entering so many wars and losing so many of them with the worlds strongest army, while creating an amazing opportunity for China to take over the leading role in the world at the same time? This is quite an accomplishment to be honest. And then she managed to announce in the middle of campaign, that she already won, and won't continue the campaign.

Now I see it a bit differently (not about Hillary). Trump managed to make the markets trust the US economy saying, he does understand business. And he does. But at a time for correction, this just imploded the bubble all the more. Noone else would have been able to manage this. But while it's good for the US economy today, the next recession (probably because of covid, probably the next one, after the economy bounces back post virus) will be all the worse. And I can't quite see, how this would not end up with the democrats getting back in office again, with even more power. Unless Biden is elected now and can't clarify, why the next recession will be so much worse - which he doesn't seem to understand either, so there might be a slight chance for a republican president after that.

The problem is, Biden has done nothing as part of his campaign, but losing votes. And that's usually not the sign of a winning strategy.

Altogether though despite Biden expressing, that the solution for all problem is more government (surprise), Trump didn't decrease public spendings either, even pre covid. So eh. Another election, two sides of the very same coin again as far as I see it.

In the US' case though "control freak"-ness is part of the job description for a president. I mean you need to be one in order to become the head of the strongest army in the world. Not surprisingly, this also happens in other big countries. Even more so actually. In the US at least there is a limit on how many times one can be elected.

Also, for socialism... Yes, I more than agree on being communism lite. Though it needs to be explained to people. Many only see the Scandinavian countries and how well people live there in socialism. For them, it's a proof that this can work. And it is way better for the working class (how convenient, that even the poor ones have good finances). Having moved here and seeing how the economy works in details was an interesting experience for me too. I could never experience such a setup before, though it absolutely makes sense here. For the Scandinavic countries, it's a miracle they didn't end up with straight off communism. This also needs to be understood, before arguing with people like Bernie Sanders, who just say "other, smaller countries could also do this". After all, most people (and especially poor ones) want to live better, not supporting an ideology. If they see that an ism makes their life better, they will vote for that (understandibly).

You are correct when you have stated you don’t know enough to comment. Our con-gross granted faceplant and other tech giants protection against lawsuits if they did not act as an editor. They are acting as an editor by blocking or canceling accounts that post views not held by their biased arbiters (SLPC).
Your Cute replies,suggest to me you will not be around here long.

Me dino like civil people I'm not agreeing with. Bye for now.

Greybear,
First of all, welcome. You will find a wide range of opinions here, and that's a good thing. Foremost we're enjoying intelligent, open discourse here, which you don't get on many, many other venues.
On your comments about this appearing to be a conservative group ("straight off right wing politics opinions"), somewhat *or maybe a lot) true, but I remember a graphic somewhere that demonstrated that Libertarians are more socially liberal but fiscally conservative. The other extreme, socially conservative but fiscally liberal, approaches Commie/Nazi beliefs. On one side calling the other Commie while the other side calls the Nazi, remember that the Nazis were the German Nationalist Socialist Party. You, more often than not, get disparate radical socialist groups calling each other out rather than agreeing on anything. It's a power thing. The less radical ones are harder to tell, one from another. I like to say that in the US, we have many Demoblicans and Republicrats, lawyer-politicians who do not think out or adhere to defined beliefs, because their goal is largely not to do good for the country, but to get themselves re-elected. The red-state ones of these are commonly referred t as Rinos, Republicans in Name Only.
I believe that, although he doesn't seem to be particularly Libertarian, Trump is the best thing to happen to the US in a hundred years, ~precisely~ because he's not one of them. The Democrats say that he's unstable and dangerous. He is very, very dangerous - to the stability and continuation of Socialist policies and programs they have fostered for decades. I think that's a good thing.
My personal beliefs fall somewhere between Libertarian and Conservative, primarily because I am opposed to letting the US influence diminish in foreign countries and letting Islam go unchecked. I believe that, in the long term, Islam is at least as dangerous to world peace as Communism. We saw Russia endure 75 years of Communism and then we saw the collapse of the USSR. Communism appears to be inherently unstable in the long term, at least on a less-than-global scale, but it is a long-lasting form of despotism which should be avoided. Socialism is 'Communism lite' and sounds good until, as Margaret Thatcher said, "you run out of other people's money". In my view, the biggest danger ~anywhere~ is, and will always be, simply, 'control freaks' in whatever form they take. What I get from this forum is, how to identify them, how to determine the ramifications of their goals and policies, and how best to defeat them.
Please note these are ONLY my personal opinions and beliefs, and I welcome hearing any and all others.

It seems we reached the point, where we agree we don't agree. :-)

You think it depends on the election, I don't. As we couldn't convince each other and reached full circle, I just want to thank you for your thoughts. It was great having this discussion in this civil manner. :-)

I think the economy won't change due to the election, regardless of who gets voted (though I agree, that Trump has the upper hand). And there are well functioning countries with and without the mentality of hissing about everything. France can't go two days in a row without a strike and they have great democracy. While I don't even know, if Iceland had at least a decent strike after the financial crisis getting their economy bankrupt. So democracy and general mood of citizens are independent of it too.

I'm not afraid of the US' two party system disappearing either. One way or another, whoever gets elected next time will just mess it up at a certain point. Even if it's Trump (resilient against any political correctness debate), there might be a point, where it becomes too much for the majority of people. And for Biden... Actually I think he already lost black votes as a democrat. I mean there is not much below this.

That depends on what happens Nov. 3 along with expected Marxist Democrat dirty tricks.

"If this is the end of the USA as we know it, I expect this board along with freedom of speech to come to an end perhaps within a couple of years."
I replied to this part. I clarified my point on the importance of any election in my other comments earlier, sorry for skipping that part (though I admit, it should have been addressed as the major part of your message - my only excuse is the amount of messages I tried to answer all at once).

On a government level I can't see any censorship, especially considering, that the president himself is republican at the moment. So I don't see any level of censorship and don't expect this site to go down (at least not because of censorship - I have no idea, how it works financially).

Youre correct that both parties are paddling the same canoe, although, the democrat party in the last decade or so have been overrun with the radicals of the 60s, with the goal of rendering the Constitution null and void. The native Americans have a claim, but not a very strong one, as the stronger tribes took land and slaves from the weaker ones, by slaughtering and torturing them. Trump will be re elected and that will touch off some serious problems, but, it is my belief that the vast majority of Americans will stand up at that point and support rule of law being enforced. I also believe the democrat party will be very much diminished after November, as they have now publicly shown just who and what they are - and what they intend to do.

?? Your response does not pertain to what I wrote.

Sounds great, but I don't want to mislead you. I already got so many books in my backlog, that I likely won't read this in the near future. I might need to start a written backlog I guess, especially if this goes on. Great to find a forum, where I can get reading material recommendations (though we'll see, how good these books are eventually ;-)). Thanks for the recommendation anyway, I'll try to squeeze them in after the basic pieces.

This is actually a super interesting post. It assumes, that government and profit oriented companies can be allies. So logically, even though you could walk away from Facebook, this would only result in another bailout, which you are paying for, with your tax.

Of course from a libertarian point of view, the bailout is the core issue here (actually I think from any point of view). Though so far I thought, this is only a major issue, that should not happen. Based on what you wrote I think it would make more sense to forbid any form of bailout on a constitutional level even.

I guess the only reason for not including it could have been that it seemed too surrealistic at the time - if it wasn't included, that is.

My concern about heated debate still remains, as what the democrats messed up, the republicans further deepened (the market would have long corrected if not for Wall Street trusting Trump). But I definitely see, how such a seemingly small event can go all the way to flip the table. Great point, thanks for it. :-)

Actually it's not known, how good the market would be without the introduced barriers. There was a technological jump naturally resulting from the improved computational possibilities and as a result of hackers figuring out how to connect their computers to the telephone.

My guess is, AT&T would be struggling now, or would have collapsed during the financial crisis, due to startups sucking up the air around getting monopolistic in niche markets. But honestly I don't see the disadvantage there.

Yes, the market doesn't react immediately. But as above seen, even just a small change could flip it completely. So there is a possibility, that this step just prevented a super successful startup from appearing and creating competition on its own. Then now the US would have one more of those major corporations, that could potentially come up with their more innovative solutions. I guess we'll never know this part.

I think it's still very different, if freedom of speech is prevented by profit oriented companies. Because let's be honest, they do factually close their eyes and accept other opinions, if not doing so would affect their business (ahem, China vs NBA). So the fact, that some people want to define boundaries around their own products and platforms does not imply any level of censorship to me. It's their right to do so, also to lose customers and money with it. Nobody is forced to live on Facebook. Though all Americans are forced to live in America (they can of course move to another country, but countries have the options to close their borders - ask North Koreans. Facebook can't close its borders).

If by incorporation you mean the limited liability companies, I think that's fair. But only if personal bankruptcy is also introduced. I think these are good things, increasing the willingness to take risk. If you mean the bailouts, the "too big to fail", that's just pure robbery covered by bullshit, I agree.

My point was only, that the election shouldn't be faith determining, when both parties want to take away individual rights and property rights. If a third option was realistic, I would understand it. This way I don't. But again. It's just my two cents.

I don't think it's dependent on the side. The US had a number of republican presidents too throughout its history. But for me it's weird to say, that the faith of the nation will be decided in the US, because otherwise the bad party will destroy the country with open borders. As an outsider it seems, the US has always had a problem with imigration. Just ask the native americans. As far as I see, nobody except for them have the logic right to debate for closed borders. And then the continent would be quite empty, khmm.

I don't want to tell anyone what to think. Though I sure believe, I have the right to have my own opinion. As I wrote, I am here to answer the messages at this point solely. I'm doing it, as I think it's good manners to do so. Of course it's not possible to answer everything over a certain amount, but I'm trying to keep up with the messages for now. And obviously, I can only answer based on my own thoughts.

There are things I find not only factually wrong in what you wrote, but straightaway offending. I don't want to address them, simply because it can't be argued whether it's acceptable to write them. It's not. Debating in a civil way is acceptable in almost all cases. The only exception is when the wolf, the fox, and the rabbit discusses in a civil tone, which one of them should be the dinner, then they vote. No matter how civil the conversation is there, it's still not acceptable considering, they are equally valued as living creatures.

The only part I think we can discuss is whether Zuckerberg can decide, what can be said. My argument is simple. It's his platform, his rules. If you don't like it, go to the competitor. It's a profit oriented company. They will either adapt, or die.

And there are a number of competitors already. Though you can go to fiverr and ask an Indian guy to develop a facebook clone for you for $50. Then it's up to you to do the marketing, etc. and make it popular. Just like this forum. You are free to discuss any opinions. The best Facebook can do is offering an incredibly huge amount of money to the owners.

If they don't accept even that sum, the site will continue to exist - so that you can share your thoughts. This is free speech. Not a right to scream into everybody's faces, that they are secondary citizens only, due to their religion, sex, age, or color, while they have to listen.

To simplify it: if you come to me and say the same things you wrote in your comment to my face, I have the option to call the policy (civil), or punch you in the face (not civil). On the internet I can report it to the admins (civil), or bully and spam you with a few friends, that are similarly keyboard warriors (uncivil).

I think it's better, that there is police and there are admins. Otherwise it would be pure violence everywhere. And while I can protect myself, I also have a wife, a daughter, a mom, and a dad, who I'm glad don't need to be raped, bullied, robbed, or beaten up just because they are old, young, or just weak.

For me the same stands for Facebook. And it's always the platform owner's word, that matters. It has been like this, since the beginning of civilization. Hence the armies and police departments in all the countries.

There is politics in the Gulch which is inevitable due to the Covid-19 and the political firestorm of the upcoming election. Fear is running rampant in many parts of the USA, Firearm ownership has soared and where I live in Arizona prepping has become a big business resulting in empty store shelves of various merchandise.
We have from time to time written our version of a Gulch in the current world with debate ensuing.
Read Robert Gores' essays from "Straight Line Logic" which he publishes on the Gulch, they are excellent reads.

It's hard for an objectivist to avoid discussion of politics because it hovers over every aspect of life. If there truly was such a thing as a real free market, operating without interference from governments, then the real value of capitalism would become obvious. Unfortunately, that ideal vision of a true free market does not exist.

Nixon gambled that if the people of China could experience the results of capitalism, then their communist government would expire, swept away by people eager for personal well being. As a result, our government twisted the rules to encourage our own successful corporations to invest in China to make a capitalist system work there. The idea of extremely low wages making it possible to offer incredibly low prices made it possible for some companies to exterminate U.S.-based competition. The last U.S. television manufacturer, Zenith, couldn't compete with companies making use of lower cost labor and disappeared.

What Nixon didn't think possible, that the Chinese could manage to create a special version of a government with the personal constraints and government authoritarianism that could still exercise a special form of capitalism, happened, giving us the market we have today, where nearly all of U.S. manufacturing other than domestic vehicle and aircraft manufacturing has left our shores to low labor countries.

If it was simply the cost of labor that shifted the location of who provided goods for a worldwide market it wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately governments couldn't keep their fingers off the scales, and used tariffs and incredibly difficult bureaucratic barriers to deny some countries access to their domestic markets. The U.S. is no innocent in this, denying Namibia access to the U.S. peanut market to protect American peanut growers, as one example. U.S. big sugar companies are one of the most corrupt agencies on the planet, using political connections to control the world sugar market. Their corrupt practices go back to the 19th century, causing the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy to put the islands essentially under the control of the sugar companies. Ironically, those sugar growers are now abandoning Hawaii for countries that now offer cheaper labor and less environmental restrictions.

Objectivists in America are Constitutionalists, who believe that a government formulated on the original principles expressed in our founding document are the best form of government. Unfortunately, that concept didn't even last to the end of the century of our creation, with John Adams trying to exercise the powers of a tyrant, constrained only by our Supreme Court.

The big companies have become part of a government-company partnership, and so it seems reasonable that excessive power, from whatever source, needs to be constrained to prevent it from crushing personal natural rights. It's the same idea behind rules that put barriers on monopolies and trusts. even when those monopolies and trusts provide good value to the consumer. When AT&T's telephone monopoly was broken up, chaos happened, for a while, to eventually be replaced with a very competitive market for communication services that has become a driver for technology advancement. It's about as close to a real free market that can exist in the U.S. today.

So you see, everyday life, business, and government have become so entwined for American objectivists it's difficult to discuss one without the others. That is what you're witnessing as a fresh outside observer, and we hope that your independent views bring fresh inspiration to those of us somewhat fatigued by current domestic squabbles.

Welcome to The Gulch and you are welcome to discuss and read whatever you want.
Me dino is deeply concerned about politics because Nov. 3, 2020 may well be the most important election in our lifetimes.
America is on the verge of deciding whether or not it wants to politically destroy itself.
If this is the end of the USA as we know it, I expect this board along with freedom of speech to come to an end perhaps within a couple of years.

I also believe that once we started "incorporating" businesses is when capitalism started to die. Incorporating took the onus of responsibility off of the business owner. They became untouchable. Ayn Rand showed her distaste of the corporate board in Atlas Shrugged. She would have nothing to do with them in all of their games and shiftness. She left that to Jim.

Welcome to our site! Politics, to me, shows a person's value system to some degree. Ayn Rand was all about the hierarchy of ones values. That is why it is so important. Especially now that we see that politics is dramatically changing this country's basic foundation and principals. Many are trying to take away individual rights and property rights.