[ynfnehf]

> I'm still sceptical if there even exists a successful welfare state that does not rely on natural resources, or the aftermath of some war.

I was referring to this. Both Denmark and Finland were to a large extent involved in WW2, and neither have natural resources of the same kind as Norway.

Or is your opinion that they are not successful welfare states?

[jseban]

I'm not sure to be honest, but for sure they were not involved in WW2 as much as other allies, and also I'm certain that the middle class in Denmark and Finland have very humble incomes/lives compared to for example the UK or US.

[CRConrad]

You're awfully certain of stuff that isn't so.

[jseban]

Finish people emigrated to sweden after WW2 to find jobs...

[ynfnehf]

Sure, which means that they were greatly affected by the war. Thus, according to you, they should not have been able to create a successful welfare state.

[jseban]

Of course if you include the option of fleeing to another country where there are more jobs and opportunity, it's real easy to create a successful welfare state. This is always how leftist politics work, there's always some external funding or circumstance that plays the biggest part of the success, but attribute the success to how perfectly they can divide the profits, ignoring where they actually came from. But when you have to cover all your expenses by robbing collective pete, it doesn't really add up anymore.

Sooner or later you run out of other people's money, and then you have to create more incentives for people to work, to take advantage of your own strong people to create the value, and that comes with more "inequality", and requires you to compromise on the welfare.

I'm convinced that a country that cannot attract hard working highly educated people will struggle to be successful in the global economy, and the way forward is to educate people to become more self sufficient and independent, and not to continue with patronising welfare politics that were made for a post war booming economy.