[jernfrost]

I don't think the welfare state is just about taxes. National maternity leave in Norway e.g. was introduced in early 1900s, something which still doesn't exist at a national level in the US. The problem is that people conflate welfare states with socialism. Nordic countries have been very pro market and free trade focuses from early on, but that has always been combined with more active government policies towards the ills of society than what has been found in the anglo-saxon world.

Even back in the 1500s Scandinavian countries were markedly milder towards criminals than e.g. Britain which always had a much harder stance towards crime. So just like design, the philosophies that underly the welfare state has been there a long time.

It is just that in later years, especially in e.g. Norway with its oil wealth, the welfare state system has become a lot more visible, due to the amount of money available to expand it.

[esbranson]

Please compare US states to EU states. If we're going to compare US vs. EU or Norway versus Montana, the EU and Scandinavia don't stack up so nicely. Constitutional differences make sociopolitical and cultural comparisons difficult enough.

While it's true that paid maternity leave doesn't exist at the US level, it does exist at the state level. California, population 39 million (versus 26 million for all EU and non-EU Nordic states) offers maternity & paternity leave since circa 2002.

And yes, states with criminal jury trials have traditionally been much harder on crime than Scandinavia. The US population growth rate has been incomparable to Scandinavia's, and the immigrants have by and large not been homogeneous in culture nor orderly. And when you're judged by such peers (as versus the king's nepotistic and political appointments, as in Scandinavia), the judgement can be quite harsh.

[aguy50]

I don't want to be rude and I didn't post it. I'm just posting this here so you can get a reply.

Your comment was placed on /r/shitamericanssay

> https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitAmericansSay/comments/4c6xpr/ha...

[esbranson]

Is the discussion in English?

But on a serious note, that my comments make it onto what I assume would be an anti-US (anti-"American") subreddit is ... meh. This is the Internet. It is to be expected.

[cmrdporcupine]

Everywhere where social democracy took strong hold it was as a bulwark against Communism. It seems to me on reflection that the places it was strongest was the places that had a strong industrial working class but had the USSR as their immediate neighbour. Placating the trade unions and preventing the population from turning to the far left was seen as extremely important after WWII.

With the weakening of the USSR in the late 70s and 80s and its collapse in the early 90s, social democracy has gone into a tailspin crisis, with its strength and focus undermined (losses to Thatcherism, the turn to Blairism, etc.)

[useerup]

> With the weakening of the USSR in the late 70s and 80s and its collapse in the early 90s, social democracy has gone into a tailspin crisis

Tailspin crisis? Did you read the article? The Scandinavian countries weathered the financial crisis quite well.

Also read this: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/978...

The Scandinavian countries fared much better throughout the crisis than neoliberal countries elsewhere in the EU.

[cmrdporcupine]

I was speaking of social democracy as a movement, not the how economy of Scandinavian countries faired the economic crisis. Social democratic parties world wide have either lost power or moved to the centre, or both. Yes they have held power more strongly in Scandinavia vs elsewhere, but policy wise many of the traditional planks of social democracy, which included nationalizing certain industries for example, have 'moderated' significantly, dropping those policies from their platforms.

The social democrats in Sweden were out of power from 2006-2014, BTW. So whether any specific social democratic policy had anything to do with weathering the financial crisis is debatable...

[jakub_h]

All this sounds very comforting, considering that the oil is going to run out (* ). The north being inspirational to us, I hope, will continue into the future.

((* ) And by "run out", I mean "become unprofitable to pump considering the market price", of course.)

[useerup]

The "financed by oil" is exclusive to Norway. No other Scandinavian/Nordic country enjoys similar fortune.

But it may highlight another point that could be made: Instead of corrupting the country similar to the oil-rich arab states, the norwegians have managed the richness with a typical Scandinavian common-sense (Lutheran?) approach: Define the oil richness as a common good and make sure to invest profits for future generations rather than burn it all on the current generation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01/11/oil-fund-norway-mill...

But, as I said - that is a luxury only Norway has enjoyed.

[noselasd]

> with a typical Scandinavian common-sense (Lutheran?)

In fairness, the model used for managing the oil in Norway was created by an Iraqi immigrant. (http://web.archive.org/web/20090831100821/http://www.ft.com/...)