Norway: A Socialist Paradise? | America Uncovered

“Do you think the US should try socialism?” “No.” “Yes.” “No.” “Yes.” “No.” “Mmm…Yeah?” Socialism! It’s something more and more Americans seem
to be embracing, according to a recent Gallup poll. Okay, at least about half. Which sounds about right, based on a sample
size of Times Square. But socialism is going to be a hot topic in
the 2020 presidential elections. And we already know how some of the candidates
feel about it. “Here in the United States we are alarmed by the new calls to adopt socialism in our
country.” And clearly Bernie Sanders does not agree. “My view of Democratic Socialism builds
on the success of many other countries around the world.” Countries like Norway. Norway, along with Sweden and Denmark, follow what’s sometimes called the Nordic
Model. So I flew to Norway to sit down with Norwegian economist Eirik
Løkke to talk about how Norway became a socialist
paradise. Hey, is that H&M? Thanks for joining us today, Erik. My pleasure. So, I know in the United States there’s a
lot of people like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who talk about
how great socialism is. And, when they’re talking about socialism
they’re not, obviously, talking about Venezuelan socialism. They say they look to Norway and Sweden as
models. Is the Nordic model socialist? In my view, definitely not. Again, it kind of depends on how you define
socialism, doesn’t it? I mean, traditionally we define socialism
as planned economy and let the government have all the means
to kind of organize the economy like they did in the Soviet Union, the old
communist states. In that sense, Norway, Sweden and Denmark
has never been socialist country. I think they mix it up with the fact that
we have a fairly large redistribution. Which, we arguably do, but socialism, in terms
of an economic system, they probably should look more to the disaster
in Venezuela, Cuba, than the Nordic countries. In fact, the Nordic countries, when you rank economic freedom and you can
go to think tanks like Cato, Heritage Foundation, World Economic
Forum, The World Bank, all of them rank the Nordic countries very
high, just measuring economic freedom, the exact
opposite of socialism. Really? How does that compare to the United States? Well, the United States also tend to be high
up, so- I’m just curious, is Norway higher or- Well, it- Lower? In many of the different rankings it kind
of depends on which kind of indicators you use. Obviously Norway has a bit more regulated
labor force than the U.S., but, generally speaking, U.S. also come up
very high in those rankings. But, Nordic countries come up, I would think
if you have like an average of all the rankings, higher than the U.S. in terms of economic
freedom. Really? Is it democratic socialism? Is that something different? Well, democratic socialism is something different
than communism and following the debate very closely I would
say that Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for the most part, are within a democratic
system. They want to use democratic means to expand
the government’s role in the economy. And, in some way you could say that democratic
socialism is fairly close to social democratic policy as we normally have
it in Europe and the Nordic countries. Yeah, I would say that it makes a lot of sense
to separate old school socialism and communism as you
see in Cuba and Venezuela. Which is not democratic in separation to more, well I would disagree that Norway has a very
democratic socialism. Even though, again, we have fairly large redistribution. But, while there is probably some nuances
here but again, I wouldn’t call the Nordic model socialist
in any way. So do you think some of the policies they’re
proposing are similar to the system in Norway? Well, in some ways and I think for American
viewers it’s very important to understand that very
often when you talk about socialism in the U.S., I mean some, even on the conservative side
like to think that Obama was some kind of socialist, which I
find ridiculous. I once found a book that was called “Comrade
Obama.” Right, I think it’s ridiculous. I think that Obama, if you would put him in
like a Nordic sense he would be more like center-right. But, the point is that in the Nordic countries we have what you call in the U.S. socialized
medicine or a single payer system. And, I think every time you hear about you
wanting to go from a different model in the U.S. the more like a mix between private and public
you have in the U.S. with Medicare and Medicaid system. But, the insurance systems to where it’s what
you have government finances you have most in over that’s kind of communism. It kind of stops all discussion. But, I mean, you can have a single payer system like you do in the U.K. and like you do in
the Nordic countries without like turning socialism at the same time. That’s certainly my view. Okay, how would you define the Nordic model,
then, if you’re not calling it socialism? I would say that it is a compromise between
center-right and center-left in terms of that you have a very open economy. It’s based on free trade. It’s based on private enterprises, very productive, well functioning capitalism with a high level
of redistribution. I mean, higher social spending is not equivalent
with socialism. So, when Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders or
more left leaning politicians in the U.S. propose increasing social spending
and attribute that to Nordic and European countries, I wouldn’t call that communist or socialist
policies. I would just call that higher social spending,
but you have to separate those things, I think. And when you say greater redistribution, you
mean through taxes? Exactly. Through taxation. Exactly. So these social services are funded by the
taxpayers. What does your average Norwegian citizen get
that an American does not? A lot of things. Healthcare is one very, which is often discussed
in the U.S. where you can see a really big difference
between European countries, Nordic countries, and the U.S. countries and
even between U.S. and Canada. So, healthcare, I would say, is the most obvious
example. But, also in terms of kindergarten, childcare
and typically— I have an 18 month old daughter, she goes
to kindergarten each week, every day, and I pay around 3000 Norwegian kroners. That’s around $300 a month. And that, also, is a very good way of making
sure that you can have both parents working. I know that in most states, if not all states
in the U.S., I don’t have all the details but certainly
kindergarten and the way of childcare in the U.S. is much
more expensive. You hear the stories of when European researchers
or Europeans come to work in the U.S. they have a totally
different system in terms of kindergarten. So, that would be two obvious examples where
we have a lot, where we receive services in the Nordic countries
what you don’t get in the U.S. While the U.S. has a slightly lower tax rate
but again, is expected to pay for these services themselves. So, Norway didn’t always have the Nordic model. How has implementing this high taxation and
social services, how has that affected the economy? Well, that’s a big question. If you look from the 19th century, 20th century, Norway actually had, in many ways, lower tax
than the U.S. After Second World War, which probably was
what you could call what resembling democratic socialism the most
with social democratic party, labor party totally dominating politics and
the government in Norway for almost 30 years. Where we had a lot more planned economy, much more regulations and also the tax rate
and the government share of GDP rose steadily. But, in the 70s you started to get, what do
you call, stagnation all over Europe. You also had some instances of this also in
Norway, so you had a small crisis because ever-increasing
social spending and more regulation seemed to come to a halt. So, while you had the Thatcher and Reagan
revolution in the U.K. and the U.S., you got a micro version of it in Norway with
the conservative party doing their best elections in the late 70s
and early 80s and dominated much of the politics and government
in Norway through the 80s. But, even more important, remember when Margaret
Thatcher called Tony Blair her greatest success? You could see the resemblance to Norway when
the fact that the social democratic party, both in the U.K. and most of the Nordic countries
started drifting away from the old regulation social spending. With Tony Blair the foremost example in the
U.K., in Germany and you also had this in the Nordic
countries where the center-left started adopting more like
the third way. Introducing more competition market policy. So, I would think it’s a kind of mixed bag
this. And, also, remember that internationally there
weren’t that many people in academia or wherever talking
about the Nordic model before the 1980s. But, what happened in the 80s was a lot of
liberalizations away from regulation. They were cutting a lot of red tapes, even
though you didn’t cut down taxes. You did a lot of other things, which made
the Nordic countries more competitive. To offer free markets. Exactly, free trade, free markets, less regulation, introduce competitions in different sectors
in the tele-sector, in postal services. The housing market in Norway is extremely
liberal. Much more liberal and less regulated than
most parts of the U.S. So, you have a lot of areas that has less
regulation and more competition. And, also an important feature in the Norwegian
case was that we had important tax reform in 1992, which simplified the tax code, broadened the
base and lowered the taxes. Especially on the corporations and on martial
taxes. Interesting, because that is not something
I could imagine Bernie Sanders suggesting. But, Bernie Sanders in many ways are living
in the Nordic countries of the 70s. I mean, and he’s not the only one. I’m remembering Marco Rubio got a question
about Bernie Sanders from a Swedish journalist and he just said, “Oh, you’re from Sweden, well Bernie Sanders
should be prime minister of Sweden.” But, he would be far too left leaning to be
prime minister in even Norway and Sweden, in my view. Because he’s stuck in the 70s. There was a lot of reforms made from the late
70s, early 80s. Again, the Thatcher, Reagan revolution had
us. Well, the people on the left would say the
neo-liberal era, call it what you want, there’s some truth in it in terms of market
efficiency, less regulation also got attention through
the social democratic parties. So, sort of what you’re saying is the Nordic
countries backed off from what you would describe as
pure socialism, freed up the markets, allowed for- Less regulation. Less regulation. So backing off from socialism is what actually improved the economy to get
it to where it is today? Yeah, in my view, and I think most economists
would agree on that. You get slightly nuanced how high the tax
levels should be, of course. But, the broad consensus, I would say, in Norway and the Nordic countries is that
free trade, open economy, efficient competition, well functioning capitalism, to say it in one sentence, is a very important
key feature of the Nordic model. And, on the other side, the center-right and
conservatives have accepted a high level of social spending to a large
extent in Norway. And, that’s very important. If you compare Norway to Sweden and Denmark, Norway has oil, which Sweden and Denmark do
not have. There’s a lot to say about we have handled
our oil wells. In many ways we have done it extremely well
in terms of building up a sovereign wealth fund. And politicians have made kind of a general
rule not to use all the oil money too fast and
are generally sticking to it. But, the fact is, that because of the oil
wells we are able to have lower taxes and higher
social spending than what else would have. Like, you in the U.S. you have to just keep
a higher, what do you call, a higher debt. Debt keeps rising in the U.S. because you
don’t want to do anything with Social Security and don’t want
to raise taxes. So, while we have oil money in reserves that’s
also how we solved the financial crisis in 2008. We did exactly what most other countries did. Cower, cycle, pinch in politics but we had
money in reserve so we didn’t have to- From the oil. From the oil, from the oil reserves. So, we didn’t have to go through the kind
of austerity that many other countries did. So, that’s very important to bear in mind
when you compare Norway to Sweden and Denmark. Okay, and just one other point I want to make
sure I’m clear on, you’re saying that a lot of the policies being
pushed by some politicians in the U.S., I don’t want to hammer on Bernie Sanders, but some of the policies that are being pushed
are actually further left I guess, than you would say is
what, the system in Norway and Sweden and Denmark
is? Most definitely, most definitely. Very interesting. So I guess the question is, the system of
higher taxation and social services, is that something that’s sustainable, is there
a debate about, is this the best way or if it’s the best way
for the system to work? There’s definitely an ongoing debate in Norway. But, for the moment, as I mentioned earlier, we have oil wealth and the demographics in terms that many more people is going to
retire in about, yeah the baby boomers, 10-15 years. Which meaning that the social spending, which
are non-discretionary, is going to get even higher. So, you need to finance it some way. In the short period time we have enough oil
money to kind of add up but in the long run there
has been a… every four years we have a so-called, not
a so-called, a government committee which see the forecast for the next 50, 60 years in terms of sustainable
economics. And, what that tells us is that moving forward
to 2050, 2060 it’s not sustainable, if the development continues. If we’re going to make sure that it’s enough
income to match the expenditure we need to raise
the taxes or we need to lower quality or just cut back on social spending. So, there’s definitely an ongoing debate, but I would say that it’s kind of crippled
because of the oil money. It’s like when you don’t have to do anything. And, politicians normally have four years,
four years for their politics. They’re not too interested in moving forward
with reforms before it’s absolutely necessary. Oh, so you’re saying that because of the oil the system is crippled from implementing any
kind of change that will adapt to the situation? It’s not any kind, certainly, the most important
things. We had successfully, in my view, been able
to have reforms in terms of pensions, which makes it more
lucrative to work more. We need to do even more in this area to make sure that we have enough people working
to pay for social expenditure and the growing population
in years to come. But, both the political system and the political
debate is very much, how should you put it, crippled by oil money. Everybody seems to recognize and admit and
understand that in the long run we have to do something but
it’s not the long run yet. That this might not be sustainable, but we’re
not there yet. Exactly. Because I can imagine why it’s very dangerous to rely on the oil because Venezuela relied
heavily on the nationalized oil system and that went south and had tremendous ramifications
for the Venezuelan economy. Now, they had a different system than Norway in terms of like the politics, but that is an example of relying on nationalized
oil to provide these social services that then when it disappears
what happens next. Exactly, I mean there’s so many differences
between Venezuela and Norway. So, I mean the comparison holds in many ways. But, what is absolutely true, we have an enormous
challenge in terms of making ourselves and our country
less dependent on oil. Around 20% of expenditure comes from the oil
today. This is how much we use every year in our
national budget. But, we have a sovereign wealth fund, which
is six, seven times as much as the national budget
in reserves. Wow. So, we have handled our oil policy fairly
well. We have almost a general principle within
the politics which is across the aisle, both center-right and center-left has accepted that we have to save for later. So, in many ways that is impressive for Norwegian
politicians. But, we need to do much more in terms to make
sure that we have a sustainable development in
the years to come. Okay, so 20 years from now, when there’s more
of an elderly population, if the oil isn’t providing the income it is,
what will happen? Well, there it depends on the choices we make
now and then. But, the choices we face is quite clearly
either we raise taxes, well taxes on the rich and actually most people,
you can’t only tax the rich. That has or certainly can have negative consequences
in terms of making us less productive. They might leave the country. Exactly. So, we might lose tax revenues. So, it is an ongoing debate, of course, within
the economics, how much effect does taxes really have on
growth and so on. I mean, there are some nuances to it but very
few would debate that if you raises taxes too much at
one point there is consequences in terms of less productive,
less eagerness to work and so on. You even have, in Norway, the discussion in
terms of climate change and environmentalism, where we have more people demanding that we
close down our oil production long before it runs out naturally. So we also have, if not a paradox, you have
a certain press from the climate movement, the environmental movement. But, what those people don’t answer, is how are we going to pay for our social
expenditures. The kindergartens, the schools, everything the taxes are paying for in terms
of the services in Norway. So, again, to come back to your question,
what will happen? Well, either we need to raise taxes or we
have to cut down of social expenditure. I mean, that’s the choice we face. Some people say that we can solve this with
enormous productive growth, economic growth. But, I mean, I don’t think it’s wise to forecast
that. I mean, politicians can’t legislate economic
growth. You have to create economic growth. And, most economists would say that it’s a bit of a myth to just expect that you can
raise taxes, get rid of the oil and just somehow magically
the economic growth will continue. And, we can’t expect that the government can
manufacture economic growth because, as you said, the government controlled, the
state-led economic model is what didn’t work, what actually was bad
for the economy. Right, right. So, what is the economic model that makes
everyone rich, happy and comfortable? I’m not sure such a model exists. I think there always is trade-offs, isn’t
it? But, in many ways what you want to do is find the right incentives to make sure that you
produce more wealth. Obviously you have to balance this towards
people like to have spare time, do other things than just work, certainly
that’s what we like to do in Norway. As a New Yorker I don’t understand that. Exactly, exactly. In many ways we have introduced more spare
time in Norway than ever before. So, I’m not sure that can continue, but you have to find the right balance. But, what America, again I just need to say
that America is almost a continent with almost 350 million
people. You have 50 different states, it’s a federal
system. Norway is like one-third of New York, we’re five million, so every comparison you
have to remember is just in sheer size a bit difficult. Well, I was going to ask- Yeah. Can the Nordic model work in the United States? Well, I mean one thing we haven’t mentioned which is a key feature in the Nordic countries, is high levels of social trust. But, there have been some research saying
that Norwegians in the U.S., that is Americans who have Norwegian ancestors
and Nordic ancestors, have just as high a social trust as Norwegians,
Swedes and Danish. But, as you well know, America is a continent
with so many different cultures, so many different ethnicities, political beliefs, so probably the Nordic model would function
better in Massachusetts, Minnesota, Wisconsin, better than in Alabama or Florida or Texas. So, I mean, the federal system in the U.S.
makes it very difficult to implement. I’m not a believer in implementing any system like just to see what it would do here, let’s do it exactly like that in another way. I mean, some people turned with the economic
crisis in Greece, if you were to implement the Nordic model
in Greece it would have been a total catastrophe because like the lack of social trust is absolutely
a key feature, we’re talking about here. But, I think you can, in almost every state, and this is especially to the conservative
movement, as I mentioned earlier, the fact that we have
social expenditures in kindergartens, in childcare and so on. I think that would work very with the ideas
that the government has some role to play for those
who are not absolutely libertarians. But, the conservative movement thinks that
you should back up the family. I think the way the childcare works in the
Nordic countries is something, especially the conservative
movement should look to. Maybe there should be some higher social expenditure, making sure that no child or every child gets
minimum of opportunities. There will always be differences, there will
always, I mean, it was William Buckley, who famously
said that “freedom breeds inequality.” I think it’s absolutely true. But, if you can minimize the difficulties
for the worst off in terms of having a more efficient social
expenditure, I think that is probably the most important
thing you can learn from the Nordic countries. To make sure that you back up families and
spend a bit more making sure that they have access to kindergarten or childcare
or whatever. Well, thank you for joining me today, Erik. That was absolutely fascinating. My pleasure.

100 thoughts on “Norway: A Socialist Paradise? | America Uncovered

  1. You left out Finland! Also, a Nordic country that follows the Nordic model whit very good results. The happiest country in the world two times in a row according to Word Happiness Report, also rate high in Social progress index, has low materan&infant mortality ratios, high life expectancy, basically free healthcare and education.

  2. All Nordic countries have a long social democratic history, strong work unions etc. The strong work unions have given the workforce good rights, salaries, free vacation days etc.


    " Under pressure from a radical labour movement, which arose after 1848 under the leadership of Marcus Thrane, and from the later mounting tension in the relationship with Sweden, many farmers turned to the middle classes and the minor civil servants. ""The coalition was organized as the Venstre (Left) political party in 1884."

    "From the 1880s, therefore, there was an increasing demand for an independent Norwegian foreign minister. In 1891 Venstre won a convincing majority at the polls with this question, among other things, on its program. "

    "By 1906 three-fourths of all developed waterpower in Norway was owned by foreign concerns. Venstre and the growing Norwegian Labour Party (DNA) pressed for legislation to protect the natural resources of the country. "

    "The DNA had been founded in 1887, and universal suffrage was one of the principal points in the party program. In the 1890s Venstre likewise adopted this policy, and in 1898 universal male suffrage was introduced"

    "One consequence of industrialization and the introduction of universal suffrage was the growing influence of the DNA. A number of social reforms were enacted: a factory act, which included protection for women and children; accident insurance for seafaring men; health insurance; a 10-hour working day (in 1915); and a 48-hour workweek (1919). A 40-hour workweek was introduced in 1977."

    "The general election in the autumn of 1945 gave the DNA a decisive majority, and a purely Labour government was formed with Gerhardsen as prime minister.

    "The Norwegian Labour Party (Det Norske Arbeiderparti; DNA), the ruling party from before World War II until the mid-1960s, advocates a moderate form of socialism. "

    "The Labour governments continued the social policies initiated in the 1930s. From 1957 old-age pensions were made universal, and in 1967 a compulsory earnings-related national supplementary pension plan came into effect. The old “poor law” was replaced by a law on national welfare assistance in 1964. The election of 1965 resulted in a clear majority for the four centre and right-wing parties, which formed a coalition government under the leadership of Per Borten. In 1971 the coalition government split, and the DNA again came to power, headed by Trygve Bratteli."

    "The Conservative Party (Høyre), which traditionally has been the major alternative to the DNA, accepts the welfare state and approves of the extensive transfers of income and of government control of the economy. ""Between 1945 and 1961 the government was formed by the DNA, which won clear majorities in the Storting. After 1961, however, no single party was able to obtain a majority in the legislature, and Norway was governed by a succession of coalitions and minority governments. "


    "Swedish Social Democratic Party (SAP), byname of Swedish Social Democratic Workers’ Party, Swedish Sveriges Socialdemokratiska Arbetarepartiet, socialist political party in Sweden, the country’s oldest existing political party. From its founding in 1889, the SAP has been committed to the creation of an egalitarian society. It has led Sweden’s government for most of the period since 1932."

    Swedish social democratic party is not the only Swedish left party as do other Nordic countries.


    "Through the first decade of Finnish independence the Social Democratic Party remained the largest party in the Parliament. In the early 1920s the leftist wing of the Social Democrats separated from the party to preach Communism and succeeded in winning 27 seats in the 1922 election. "

    "After the armistice, the new Finnish Communist Party held a strong position, which it retained in the subsequent government. When in the spring of 1948 it was alleged that the party had planned a coup, Parliament forced the Communist minister of the interior to resign"

    " Governments changed rapidly and consisted of various party coalitions during the 1950s, in most cases under the leadership of the Agrarian Party or the Social Democrats. "

    "Communist Party influence diminished after the 1970s, and after the party’s split in the mid-1980s the Communists suffered severe losses in the 1987 election. The Conservatives gained a long-desired victory, and, with a compromise aided by President Koivisto, the Social Democrats and Conservatives, together with some smaller parties, formed a coalition government under Conservative Prime Minister Harri Holkeri. "


    "Two coalitions had remained in power for extensive periods without interruption: one formed by the Independence Party and the more leftist Social Democratic Party that ruled from 1959 to 1971 "


    "In 1846 the farmers’ case received further support when a group of liberal reformers led by Anton Frederik Tscherning founded the Society of the Friends of the Farmer (Bondevennernes Selskab), which later developed into the Liberal Party (Venstre; “Left”)."

    "To counter Højre, several groups that represented farmers combined in 1870 to form the United Left (Forenede Venstre), which in 1872 secured a majority in the Folketing."

    "The Left Reform government that came to power under the Change of System in 1901 went swiftly to work on a number of reforms. "

    "In 1905 a radical faction broke away to become the Radical Left Party (Radikale Venstre), the most important members of which were Peter Rochegune Munch and Ove Rode.

    Between 1913 and 1920 the Radicals, supported by the Social Democrats, were in power. "

    "In 1924 the Social Democrats, under Thorvald Stauning, formed a minority government with support from the Radicals. This was the first working-class government in Denmark."

    "The general election of 1935 showed broad support for the Social Democrats’ program, and they stayed in power. After the elections to the Landsting in 1936, the government coalition of Social Democrats and Radicals held the majority in both the Folketing and the Landsting for the first time since the inception of democracy. "

    "Once the Social Democrats, under the leadership of Hans Hedtoft, returned to power in 1947,"

    "The postwar political scene was dominated by the so-called “old” parties: the Conservative People’s Party (Konservative Folkeparti), the Left (known after 1964 as the Liberal Party), the Radical Left, and the Social Democratic Party"

    "The Social Democratic Party was the leading party of the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s. From 1953 to 1968 it was in power, either alone or in coalition with the Radicals and, for a short period, the Justice Party (Retsforbundet; a party based on the ideas of the economist Henry George), and always with a Social Democrat as prime minister. T"

    "in 1979 Jørgensen was again forced to resign. After the election in October, however, he formed a Social Democratic minority government, "

    "The Conservatives remained in power through the 1980s and into the 1990s. "

  3. Hold up! Norway isnt socialist, far from it! We have a mixed economy with a mix of capitalism and state intervention. Definetly not socialist, never has been, and is most likely not moving in that direction.

  4. Socialism or not, if America has to learn from our Norwegian system is realising the strength of a society.
    The strength of a society for the purposes of maximising production and wealth is

    1. Making sure that the American population is healthy!
    A sick man cannot work, or be productive.
    With a population of 350million souls, American 50 states have an average of 7 million souls in all of the 50 states which on average gives a population that is slightly greator than the Norwegian but also slightly less than Sweden's 8.something. You need that single payer as a provision of production. But that is not adequate!! Which takes me to my number two..

    2. Access to education is a key factor of maximising economy. High literacy levels in any society will bring properity through an industrious population that that is innovative but also a population that can meet the demands in the dynamic technological trends which are imperative in maximising innovation and production.
    Now, it costs an arm an a leg for a youngster to get high education in America, this is also another thing America needs to embrace.

    3. Your legal system is stuck in a time warp. Criminalising a segment of your population when they are at the peak of their strength!
    When a nation stops looking at it's population through the lenses of production, you negate that populations humanity and self worth. In that regard you need to reacess your judicial system which is detrimental to your efforts of maximising your overall economic production.

    That is enough for this segment.

  5. Ja vi elsker dette landet, som det stiger frem! 🇳🇴😎 there's no socialism here guys.. the thing is we're a small country and people here have a general sense of "neighbourly productivity".. like we're all in it togheter and everyone needs to chip in to make the wheels go around.. And more immigration is actually crippling our economy because I'd say most of the immigrants that are here they don't share that idea of "this is my country and my people and we all need to work to togheter here.." they come here and expect something from nothing and those who come from general Muslim countries they don't even like our country or our people or our culture.. so alot of them don't get any jobs when they come here they rather bleed out our welfare state even more than what it already is. And that's the simple fact of life, it's not racist it's not hateful to say that. It's simple facts.

  6. Fake media please tell us how good it will all be when we are all slaves of the state. They call us deplorable pandering for our votes. Sounds like they would take such good care of us.
    You have shit for brains.hows your imigration policies islam has been great for your countries they rape your women by fire light as your countrys burn

  7. I don't disagree with what this guy says, but he represents the centre-right think tank Civita, and it would be interesting to contrast his version of the Nordic model with someone from the centre-left think tank Agenda.

  8. Americans,
    the only people on earth who are incapable of differentiating communism, socialism and social democracies.
    Scandinavia and Germany are social democracies. Capitalist societies with high taxes and strong funding of social programs.
    Please stop calling us socialists.
    Regards, a Norwegian.

  9. Not exactly a neutral economist you got yourself there. Civita is the think-tank branch of the conservative party, and frequently engage in teary-eyed wishful thinking regarding Thatcher/Reagan policies that have been proven to be absolutely false. Privatization of state-owned companies, trickle-down economics and radical deregulation. That worked great in the US and UK, didn't it?
    Even now the conservative government is selling off productive and profitable government-owned companies so they can get short-term income to fund their tax cuts, instead of using the long-term profits of the companies to fund building a better society.

    The forecast he mentions is also worrysome. All the parties agree that the current model isn't sustainable in the long run. It has to be financed, and the sovereign wealth fund can only do so much. The problem is that the current right-wing government uses underhanded tactics to be able to use more of the oil fund than regulations allow, when what they should be doing is saving even more. Yes, their wealthy donors would have to do without some of the massive tax breaks they've gotten in this period, but it would be a lot better for everyone in the long run,

  10. We already have socialism in America. It's socialism for the rich. Government expenditure going towards tax cuts and incentives for the wealthy and corporations. Which they turn around and spend on stock buybacks, thus artificially inflating the stock market. Or they invest that free money from our taxes into automation, making more and more jobs disappear.
    Or they simply just hoard the money because they already have so much of it, so they choose not to spend any of it.

    We need Democratic Socialism like Bernie Sanders is pushing for. Redistribute wealth to the people in need and they will spend that money in ways that benefit the economy, unlike the mega rich doing stock buybacks that create no real wealth or just hoarding that wealth in offshore bank accounts, or automating jobs away. The rich will not be hurt by this redistribution. They'll still have millions and billions. They won't cry and leave the country, trust me. As it is they currently have SO MUCH WEALTH that they choose to just hoard it, which is NOT good for the economy.

  11. They think norway is so great, first they tax you 30% of your income, then you drive your car to work, and you have to pay crazy prices in auto tolls, then you're gonna buy more gass for your car, but when you buy gass u pay 20% for the actual gass, and the rest is taxes

  12. Christ this guy is a poor communicator and is being manipulated by the interviewer. Actually its shite. Venezuela has been throttled by the USA who wants its oil. Actually the debate should be about Lucifarism in the American elite and their control of everything. Including this video.

  13. Norway is 30x smaller than the USA and has the population of only one US state. Norway is NOT in the TOP 5 military powers and IS NOT a Super Power. Norway is 83.2% White meaning nearly only 1 race. This is the difference between a country that depends on others to defend it and a Super Power that Protects the Planet.

  14. I think Bernie Sanders should’ve called himself a Social Democrat since he doesn’t want to abolish capitalism.

  15. Norway is good on the paiper but it dont work..hospitals and things like that are going to hell..the problem is not how the country is governed

    but who is in charge

  16. "Backed off from socialism is what actually improved the economy to get it to where it is today?"
    "Yeah, in my view, and I think most economists would agree on that."

    I rest my case.

  17. Political systems are all u clearly defined.
    1. There are as many democracies as the number of countries practicing or claim to be practicing it.
    2. China Dictatorship is different than North Korea dictatorship.
    3. A police state can be a democracy

  18. Before delving into this, Norway isn’t socialist, neither is Sweden, socialism is closer to Venezuela and the СССР. They’re just a semi command economy.

  19. it works in Scandinavia we because we are not many in numbers and our cultural heritage is strong. The US have 300 million + and is multicultural. it will never work.

  20. Norway is a heavily taxed capitalist economy with a welfare program that exceed other countries state budget. Dont fall in the trap.

  21. such polarizing bs!!! Norway is so far right that we are nearly having brownshirts marching our street as it was 1937…. Never forget when us europeans and asians , got slaughtered in the name of govermental modernization from 1915-1945…

  22. One thing US is different from the northern wealthy country is these countries have very homogenous populations. They have a lot in common. They can see eye to eye and agree on a lot things easily than the massive diversified US population.

  23. So funny: Like a slave owner Trump fatherly warns his slaves about the curse of the calamities of general health care, payed vacation, payed, sick leaves, maternity leave, and so forth. But after all he is a stabile genius.

  24. Strong definitions of socialism is high taxes, strong government, strong welfare. Norway definitely has all of these elements but I would rather put Norway in a social-liberal society as they have economical freedom which radical socialist countries don't.

    Venezuela/Cuba/Soviet are more radical examples of socialism where the government is so strong that there is no room for democracy, taxes are incredibly high and if the dictator would be a decent one he'd provide great welfare/healthcare/education/free transport etc for the insane amount of tax money he gets.

    An as radical liberal society (per definition) would have no taxes what so ever, weak or no government, no welfare (but every individuals responsibility to survive on his/her own).

  25. We are not socialist, we have a mixed economy. (Blandingsøkonomi), although we do have some noticeable socialism.
    Also, I think we are ignorant about USA, just as much as they are ignorant of us. 🇳🇴🇺🇸

  26. I think the “social democracy” in Scandinavian countries work great because the population is mostly one race, white. Try introducing 15% blacks in those countries, where they had slavery for 200 years about 200 years ago. Would Norway force whites and blacks to go to school with each other? And then you have the complication of many other races. Believe it or not, it makes a big difference. Norway doesn’t have to contend with race. So it all works. No one talks about that and I suspect I’ll get NO replies to this, but oh well. I am sort of alone in this world. Also, Norway, for example, only has 5 million people. Just the state (in the USA) I live in, we have TWICE that many people. So I think that makes things a LOT easier and makes a Norwegian way more rare than an American. See how it works?

  27. Why do you ask CIVITA, a Right Wing Think Thank, of cause if you want to get the answers you are looking for .
    You are on the right place.

  28. USA PAYS 1/2 Tax $$ income on Major weapons manufacturers like Boeing, Ratheon, and that place in San Diego.. THiS IS CALLED FASCISM! Also no bid contracts to sell BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TAX PAID FUNDED SALE OF WEAPONS?
    This is no different than USA government buying up huge plots of farm land to and using 1/3 of tax payers for their own business making agenda.. AMERICANS JUST HAVE TO ASK FOR THE BREAK DOWN OF THEIR TAX DOLLARS… ASK THEMSELVES WHY PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD ARE MUCH SAFER FROM TERRORISM WHEN WE ALREADY HAD 200+ bases around the world

  29. ☀     
    norwegians are the most gullible people on the earth    
    they are so well programmed that they even celebrate their slavery    
    most of them suffer severely from the stockholm-syndrome    
    they are like bio-robots, just following orders from any/all authority outside them    
    and their ability to think for themselves is totally absent

  30. Americans should know that Norway in all practicality is broke.. When the oil runs out (50% of our exports are oil/gas) and people get elder there will be 1.5 workers for each person on public financed retirement. Also keep in mind there are 1.5 million private jobs (about 300000 in the oil field) and also 800 000 working for the government today.. Our oil wealth / oil fund are already used up – we are actually lacking 1bn NOK.
    So. The nordic model works. But only for right now, in 10-30 years from now we are in deep trouble.

  31. Also norway has goverment funded student loans and university. Basicly we have open markets, and dont let greedy people control things like welfare.

  32. Socialism could work in smaller communities. But for the United States god no. We are to big and we have to many problems caused by our government. These countries have much smaller populations and don’t allow very much immigration. The only feasible way to have socialism is to split the country into multiple countries. But even then it would be a disaster. We have a population that will rebel if socialism is put in place.

  33. Noone wants socialism… most people who say they do, don't actually know what that means.
    Having socialist aspects is not the same.
    And the thing is that most countries are simply not ready for what those northern-european countries have, especially not the US. The US is just too diverse for that.. you really can't force on them models that work on european countries. It's not an insult, eastern-europeans can't do it either, most western-european countries can't do it. What the scandis have up there is very unique and fortunate, and somehow it seems to work, but most countries are just not ready for that.

  34. The nordic economic system is not democratic socialism – it's a social democracy. I don't know why Bernie Sanders corrects himself because that just hurts him. 🤷‍♂️

  35. Everyone should work 24 hours per day, and simultaneously online shop stuff they don’t really need, and the economy would boom like never before!

  36. The question "Do you think the US should try socialism?", should be followed up with "Do you know what socialism is?".

  37. So, there, 'merica… social democracy is not the same as democratic socialism and Europe/UK is not a comm'nist incarnation of the antichrist.

    (Please bear in mind that the UK hasn't elected Jeremy Corbyn, a democratic socialist, at the time of the typing of this comment)

  38. TWO things
    First: social trust , in Greece? LMFAO! If you had the misfortune to meet any of our local politicians, my sincere apologies.
    Second : Historically speaking , what government was destitute relying on trade and taxes to function?
    I am curious where you found the precedent for the destitute , rob the citizenry, model.
    Without independent wealth , every government becomes a thief.
    Free markets are all well and good but,the nation has to have some wealth generating scheme for its interior ,that is not dependent on the whims of foreign powers.

  39. Well so far this democratic socialism thing has worked on small countries. Would this work on a larger country like the US or will there be something interesting going on? As for me, I'm fine with anything as long as it works.

  40. Ok people. Read for once.

    Democratic Socialism

    Social Democracy

    These are two VERY DIFFERENT terms, that for some reason, have been used interchangeably in modern politics.

    Democratic socialism –> A planned economy, virtually the same as communism

    Social Democracy –> A capitalist mixed market economy with social interventions (i.e. Free or partially state funded Education, healthcare, job security etc.)

    Now, the Nordics are the latter of the two. They are NOT SOCIALIST, but SOCIAL democracies.

    Even the US is partially a social democracy. There is public education up to high school, some people do receive unemployment benefits. This is what a Social democracy is. A democracy, that has education, healthcare etc. that is partially subsidized. That is. No scary communist or socialists are involved.

  41. I find it very funny that no american to date has the education or knowledge to actually define socialism…………LOL!
    I would argue that among the close to 400 million americans, not ONE has the educaction or knowledge to actually define socailim, and is why we in europ laugh of the US

  42. 8:55 Total Domination of Social Democrats for 30 years until the 1970 (everywhere in the West), which were the most prosperous years and are remembered as the Golden Age of Capitalism.
    The Liberalizations in the 70’s and 80’s exploded the since decades stagnating State Debts and slowed down the Demand in the market, wich is why we have slower growth than in the Keynesian era or “the planned economy era” wich again are called the Golden Age of Capitalism. The irony thou.

  43. From what Bernie's been saying, it seems he's referring to social democracy, not democratic socialism. My guess is he's referring to his policies by the way republicans keep labeling them: socialist.

  44. Norway is socialistic country with some elements of open market, they're not as far to the left as for example Venezuela, but are nowhere near what I would call being capitalistic. The rest about their economy being based on oil was already said in the video. I may add that they also have a lot of wealth accumulated when their country wasn't so much to the left spectrum, so they have some money to burn.

  45. As a British citizen I find it very strange how America is happy to spend billions of $$$ keeping terrorist alive in prisons, but is not willing to spend money helping its own citizens, strange to think if your a law abiding citizen the government is willing to watch you suffer and go with out a home, food, medical care, but if your a terrorist or criminal the government will pay all the above.

  46. You might have wanted to bring up with the minister how much of an enormous deficit the United States would run into based on the policies that are proposed by the left which would then open to State control all production and taxation at levels of 110% of income…

    …So you flew to Norway, and boy did your arms get tired!

  47. Chris you are an old time reporter like I grew up with, I love your channels. You tube is turning into a place for actual information. keep Honk Kong free.

  48. Do you wanna know the truth? People in western countries are getting dumber and lazy. Thats why so many people embraces socialism these days.

  49. omg what an idiot.. obviously a right wing leaning guy.

    I'm from Norway, and also well read up on thing, and also politically active… This guy just spews out his own biased views. Yes. a lot of what he says is correct. but he's obviously biased.

  50. Let's just be honest here. Norway can do this because they don't have nearly as many immigrants and minorities as the United States.

  51. This just confirms MORE that Norway is indeed Socialist. Why? Because Socialism is when the public have control over the economy. Now, your economist on this video himself said that whether or not Norway is Socialist depends on how you define Socialism, and he said that his definition of Socialism is a completely publicly owned and controlled "planned" economy. While this is not the case in Norway, this still doesn't mean Norway isn't Socialist upto a certain level. This is because while the public doesn't have FULL control and ownership over the economy, it still has MORE control over the economy than in America, through the nationalisation of Healthcare, much of Education, Transport, and their redistribution mechanisms.
    Thus in Conclusion, while Norway isn't totally Socialist, it is MORE SOCIALIST THAN the United States of America.

  52. We Americans are just too brain dead to grasp newer perspectives. We treat politics like sport. We pick sides, ignore our side’s flaws and high every niche mistake and shortcoming of the latter.

  53. What about military spending we pay for thier security, they don’t meet nato spending goals of 2% of GDP, they don’t protect Europe or carry the financial burden that that entails, they don’t have commitments the world over which allows for the world stagily, which then allows for all most no spending on R&D or military preparedness. They don’t have any real threat to their own security because of the US.

  54. It depends on how you define socialism.
    Bernie and aoc want an economy more like the Nordic models. Period.
    The conservatives weaponize subtle nuances against Bernie to scare stupid people!

  55. Civita…🤣 right-wing intersting organization.. verry liberal.. please inform about that to people.. Civita is not a voice who the normal people in norway listning to.. normaly it is big company right-wing parties voice and interest..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *