Is the Nordic model replicable in other countries or is it tied to the unique historical circumstances in Scandinavia?

It doesn't work here because:

1. The US is too big and has too many people
2. The political system is too strongly rooted in federalism and states' rights
3. The Nordic model of social cooperation doesn't work here since we're not a single ethnicity and not all American sub-populations value hard work and education as much as others.
4. Politicians have always been corrupt idiots
5. American culture in general is too individualistic for it

In south Italy it is hard to trust people over in the next town over. Countries with high-trust large networks (bigger than local or regional ties) tend to have a tradition of guildism. Hanseatic League had it, Italian merchant republics had it, London had it (though it didn't spread to the rest of the UK, corporations still vote in admnistration of the City). Unionism is a culture that is cultivated it doesn't succeed by decree.

>then the state puts that into a sovereign wealth fund which they spend on the people.
This is a really cool savings scheme. Would never work here in a decade: rather than sticking to re-investing and distributing the capital gains (dividends from the investments) each party would dig as much as possible into the fund during their term, cancel out the growth, and blame the next guys for austerity when there is no more money to spend.

yes it has worked perfectly in finland, even though finland is a mongolian country

Bernie Sanders has never quite grasped that what works for his tiny, wealthy, 90% white state doesn't work elsewhere.

When England found oil, they didn't do this. Thatcher sold that shit to the markets and gave them a temporary boost. We have oil left for a century, but still we are investing in research, technology, looking for new fields to explore. We use only 2% (!) of our Revenue of the oil funds investments to make our gears go around every year. If we used 10 we would be like a war economy tier. And we have still even not touched what we are saving up yet.

>1799
Nice.

That being said, the Nordic Model is rather recent. Prior to it Scandinavia had a more """Anglo-Saxon""" model (which is just free market capitalism), which saw most of its economic growth and rise to prosperity. In short, the Nordic Model is great if you ARE rich but it's shit to GET rich.

If you want to see the problems you run into when you try to use the Nordic Model to GET rich, look at Macron's problems.

Social democracy is a really wide label, but the Nordic Model is defined by a very off-hand approach to business and high taxes on workers rather than corporations. Again, what Macron is trying to do. But because France isn't already rich (it's trying to GET rich), the workers getting taxed while companies get tax breaks is met with resentment. To really step into Scandinavia's footsteps, France would have to dismantle its social democracy altogether and then slowly move towards the Nordic model as the economy improves.

>Countries with high-trust large networks (bigger than local or regional ties) tend to have a tradition of guildism
Interesting proposition. Got any articles that go into that?

True. In turn, Hitler's brand of NatSoc is basically the free market with some socialist elements (after the actual national socialists like the Strasserists were purged during the Night of the Long Knives).

International socialism only works if the whole world is united under on ideology. American socialism could work only if it was autocratic, so basically fascist. National Socialism is when the people is united as one ethnic group of people, a tribe that works together.

>1. The US is too big and has too many people
Mo pippo mo tax-payas.
>2. The political system is too strongly rooted in federalism and states' rights
Unions in Scandinavia are very active at local, regional, company, and sector levels. It doesn't need national-wide top-down control.
>3. The Nordic model of social cooperation doesn't work here since we're not a single ethnicity and not all American sub-populations value hard work and education as much as others.
Immigrants are an heterogenous bunch and they are disproportionately responsible for starting new businesses and doing menial work - I don't think their differences are getting in the way of their productivity.
4. Politicians have always been corrupt idiots.
Same in my cunt, actually...
>5. American culture in general is too individualistic for it
Scandinavians are much more individualistic than us southern europeans - it actually works best for them because cronyism isn't as big a problem there - not much in the way of special favours for partisans, friends and relatives.

Very clever.

>the Nordic Model is defined by a very off-hand approach to business and high taxes on workers rather than corporations.
In the 70s some talked about abolishing all taxes, make the people wealthy and become a little Qatar. Our taxes is not even about a third of our govt budget every year. With all that revenue you could for instance tax the foreign businesses, encourage local markets and make the population wealthy as fuck.

>historical circumstances in Scandinavia?
Yes you have to be a resource rich country white country European country during the cold war.

>Mo pippo mo tax-payas.
That would have to assume everyone is of the same economic value or pays the same amount into the system. Unfortunately this is not the case.
>Unions in Scandinavia are very active at local, regional, company, and sector levels.
Unions in this country meanwhile have always been horribly corrupt and often associated with organized crime.
>Immigrants are an heterogenous bunch and they are disproportionately responsible for starting new businesses
Yes I will grant you MS-13 members do start many new drug-dealing operations.

to be fair, Norway is an exceptional outlier even among the Nordic countries because of your Jew oil. Sweden, Denmark and Finland (and even the Netherlands, which can economically be called "Nordic") don't have that.

I also doubt that Qatar plan would work out well to be completely honest. Outside of creating huge dependency on oil (which never ends well), taxing foreign companies into oblivion also smells of protectionism (which also generally doesn't end well).

Maybe not in the initial phase, but eventually we may very well go protectionist. The dream is to make Scandinavia into a federal state and work together on the global scene.

>dream
No one in Norway dreams about that you silly ass.

Social democracy (as it's implemented in nordic countries) is great, but unfortunately it can't compete on the global market against pure capitalism. I hope America will start adopting some socialist ideas soon but I'm doubtful because americans tend to see everything as very black and white, sadly. If you take in any socialism you're guaranteed to go full socialism and communism period, no nuance

>Social democracy (as it's implemented in nordic countries) is great, but unfortunately it can't compete on the global market against pure capitalism. I hope America will start adopting some socialist ideas soon
So rather than other countries improving, you hope America drags itself down to even the playing field? That's not how competition works.

>I hope America will start adopting some socialist ideas soon
Already had them since the 1930s.

No, it only works because they have natural resources and like 5 people live there.

>iceland
>sweden
>denmark
>finland
What natural resources do they have that other European countries don't?

>iceland
fish is enough for the 3 people and 2 polar bears that live there.
>sweden
land, strong services sector
>finland
strong services sector
>denmark
autism

>Yes I will grant you MS-13 members do start many new drug-dealing operations.
Hi Drumpf

>service sector
>natural resources

>fish and timber makes your country wealthy

>tfw our market is officially more free and open than americas

Services are valuable as fuck, m8. Look at spotify.

I know.

I asked him what natural resources did these countries have. Natural resources don't include services, they are the stuff taken from nature, the stuff that would still be there without people.