Because social welfare makes people dependant and unproductive. High taxes doesn't create wealth, only shift recourses often from more productive to the less productive ones.
@@johnybravo5667 That can be true for some people. However, there are definitely cases where social welfare helps people to become more productive. An example of this is if you get injured or sick and you are unable to work because of it. If you can't afford to pay for the healthcare, you're then basically screwed. If the public provides cheap or free healthcare, then you'll have the opportunity to get back to working in a few months or however long it takes to get well. I live in a nordic country and have personally experienced how helpful such a healthcare system can be.
What is the difference between other european social market economics and the Nordic model? Because the nordic model sounds very simular to the German social market economy.
In Norway it's about cooperation between workers and employers, and the government. It keeps a lid on salaries and makes sure low paid workers gets a salary they can live on, while Engineers etc doesn't earn as much. It's about solidarity.
philosophy behind it is probably the biggest, I'm sure if you look long enough you'll be able to scrounge up something that can be said to be somewhat similar.
The writing on this video is quite good, but I feel like you're super slow speaking along with the lack of slide/graphic variation makes it feel kinda dull, i had to watch it at 2xspeed. I know english must be your second language but i dunno - it might be just me! sometimes i can hardly understand some english dialects and sometimes i just wish they would talk faster. idk, just the perspective of a silly southern yank
Yes thats why the ethnic and racially homogenous countries in eastern Europe are the most economically and politically advanced in the region. The Nordic states have some of the higher rates of immigration in Europe, try again fascist.
@@ephraimduke Eastern Europe was the main battleground for the largest conflict in human history… not sure if you remember. Also, the increase in immigration is a fairly recent event. The relaxed immigration policies were in response to the refugee crisis. Before then and even still now, most Nordic countries are about 90-95% European. Try again, brainlet.
@@mpc7440 Absolutely moronic take. I see the goal post went from being homogenous to being “European”. Your idiotic hypothesis is not backed by any facts but rather the simplistic racist rhetoric of low IQ individual who subscribes to a failed ideology like falangism. You were wrong then you’re wrong now.Stick to trying to finish nursing school kid and leave the political commentary to people who know what they’re talking about. .
@@jro7815 Not 100% homogeneous but all +90% European White... some around 95%... As homogeneous as you can get in this era. Racially, all Nordic countries are homogeneous. Ethnically, I'm sure there are ethnic Danes in Sweden or vice-versa, but I'd venture to say it's still largely ethnically homogeneous as well. If you want to prove my frickin' "ignorance" and "flat out stupidity," I'd like to hear your counter-argument... Id est, if you actually have one besides hurling insults that just make you seem pathetic.
@@scientistx5717 Yeah, the 1.6 birth rate is very sustainable. At some point in the future in all developed countries, there will be a huge number of old people dependent on social security, and a small number of the working population who will have to pay for it all. Either we return to a stable birth rate of 2.1, or it all collapses.
Public nordic-model self-pleasuring. Every "point" assumes the adequacy of the model and fails to compare a quasi-totalitarian model ("Everything within the State. Nothing outside the State. Nothing against the State") with alternative, better models. Including, free(er) production & consumption models, realistic income differentials based on personal choice & aspirations, and less government intervention. Also, one wonders where government licensing (and censorship) of media - and self-censorship - affect views of immigration, crime, religion and EU relations. Yes, of course. Some people demand slavery to an all powerful government. Others (most) just want to be free and unconstrained by fools on the left & other "well meaning" totalitarians
5:30 The whole point of this section is to explain the balance between the state, business, and employees. You seem to think that we have to choose between slavery to crony capitalism and slavery to a totalitarian state, but the Nordic model shows that there's another way.
@@deus_ex_machina_ The Nordic model is a thing in the world and it has merits. Let's be honest & clear about what it is and where it is weak. The better to improve it and the conditions of those that live with it (and advocate for it). I see your point and the official goal of the Nordic model is understandable as old-fashioned statism. The model fails as an innovation & jobs growth engine; it manages a downward glide-path. Not my opinion, see history. The model depends on high social-trust (good) in Nordic countries. The system undergoes stress and failure where immigration reduced social homogeneity & bonds. We see rampant collusion between government, unions, left political tribes & press to suppress information about crime by immigrants; viz, radical increase in cases of rape, murder, torture, damage to property; social and economic losses. Same for official corruption and suppression of innovation in favor of status-quo. It is not hard to see the harm done to social trust, law & order; material & social capital when institutions gloss harms to citizens & society in order to protect the status-quo. There you have it: pros & cons of a well-intentioned statist, paternalist, high-tax, maximalist welfare practices.
@@dfparker2002 Well, that "downward glide path" must be at a verrrry shallow angle as this Nordic model has been functioning well for ~100 years. Because of this system the Nordic countries were almost immune to the depression of the 1930s. In the US there seems to be collusion between government, corporations, business lobby groups and the media so it's no different. Greetings from the Norway of the South - New Zealand.
@@kiwitrainguy Which nordic model success for 100y? Asking because there were several things that happened that affected the government structure, policy and culture over that time period. As I read the data, the nordic model impoverishes everyone at a roughly equal level. Occasional (and lucky) economic windfalls obscure that fact. Luck fails and poor policies revert to the dreary and degrading mean. Which is subsistence economics - statism & collectivism. That said, it will be a race to see if long-standing syndacalist, media & government collusion and/or recent immigrants murder, rob, arson & rape the nordic nations before they assimilate & poor policy grinds the locals down. We must watch together and compare notes in good faith because the motivated, nationalized press will not report the facts.
@@kiwitrainguy I'd say that while the great depression did hit us, the response was to expand the welfare state, with some compromises where govt. made sure industry didn't go under, and at the same time securing the unemployed while works were begun to get the economy going again, this massive expansion of the welfare state, also made it almost impossible for extremist ideologies to gain traction, as the world around gravitated towards totalitarian regimes, nordic countries solidified on a far more centrist approach, where political movements left and right of the populace would be much more sluggish since you'd be upsetting the many for the benefit of the few moving quickly.
Me: Why do Nordic countries work so well?
The politicians: No idea. Now its time to lower corporate tax and cut social welfare benefits!
**cries in swedish**
Because social welfare makes people dependant and unproductive. High taxes doesn't create wealth, only shift recourses often from more productive to the less productive ones.
Sweden has been cutting its social programs from 90th.
@@johnybravo5667 That can be true for some people. However, there are definitely cases where social welfare helps people to become more productive. An example of this is if you get injured or sick and you are unable to work because of it. If you can't afford to pay for the healthcare, you're then basically screwed. If the public provides cheap or free healthcare, then you'll have the opportunity to get back to working in a few months or however long it takes to get well. I live in a nordic country and have personally experienced how helpful such a healthcare system can be.
@@common_man1337 yeah tell that Republican American the truth. I wish you guys knew the pain of supporting such a system in the USA.
Hold on, the narrator sounds very much like the narrator in Kurzgesagt videos... 👀
Pretty suspicious if you ask me -_-
Technologies alongside collaboration (capital/labor) drive growth and productivity. If wisely reinvested, you have your Nordic Model! 🤓
Meanwhile United States and Mexico wanting to be like the Nordics and failing miserably 😅
@@exseqwq9539 look into the 89 econometrics to learn how to improve social welfare + economic growth 😁
@@exseqwq9539 Because neither wants to do all the necessary things.
What is the difference between other european social market economics and the Nordic model? Because the nordic model sounds very simular to the German social market economy.
Other European countries tend to be a lot less comprehensive
The Nordic Model uses the Mixed-Market economy
Germany uses the Social Market Economy
In Norway it's about cooperation between workers and employers, and the government. It keeps a lid on salaries and makes sure low paid workers gets a salary they can live on, while Engineers etc doesn't earn as much. It's about solidarity.
I'll send this Vlog to Priti Patel and Boris Johnson then wait for the news both are off work with serious vomit problems.
What are the biggest differences between the Nordic model and the model they are using in Saudi Arabia? And is there any similarities?
philosophy behind it is probably the biggest, I'm sure if you look long enough you'll be able to scrounge up something that can be said to be somewhat similar.
The writing on this video is quite good, but I feel like you're super slow speaking along with the lack of slide/graphic variation makes it feel kinda dull, i had to watch it at 2xspeed. I know english must be your second language but i dunno - it might be just me! sometimes i can hardly understand some english dialects and sometimes i just wish they would talk faster. idk, just the perspective of a silly southern yank
You guys tend to talk quickly, so your ears are used to it.
I'm pretty sure this is computer generated speech.😉👍
@@johnjones6601 if this is computer generated speech, I’m seriously impressed, and I want to hear about whatever program is being utilized.
@@johnjones6601 listen to the speaker in this channel’s videos: does anything strike you?
ua-cam.com/users/inanutshell
This is basically a presentation to be shown to a captive audience in person, it's not meant to be engaging for an online audience.
A lot of UA-camrs talk way too fast, and incessantly. Yabba, yabba yabba yabba yabba yabba yabba yabba.
Is this Kurzgesagt? Please tell us if this is confirmed or not?
Probably not
I hope to be able with Hygge be with none sense a moment not worry about the truth in your safety zone for everyone, but trusting made us union🙏🏻😊.
3:54 Racial/Ethnic Homogeneity (A good thing)
Yes thats why the ethnic and racially homogenous countries in eastern Europe are the most economically and politically advanced in the region. The Nordic states have some of the higher rates of immigration in Europe, try again fascist.
@@ephraimduke Eastern Europe was the main battleground for the largest conflict in human history… not sure if you remember. Also, the increase in immigration is a fairly recent event. The relaxed immigration policies were in response to the refugee crisis. Before then and even still now, most Nordic countries are about 90-95% European. Try again, brainlet.
@@mpc7440 Absolutely moronic take. I see the goal post went from being homogenous to being “European”. Your idiotic hypothesis is not backed by any facts but rather the simplistic racist rhetoric of low IQ individual who subscribes to a failed ideology like falangism. You were wrong then you’re wrong now.Stick to trying to finish nursing school kid and leave the political commentary to people who know what they’re talking about.
.
The Nordic countries aren't ethnically "homogeneous" but thanks for showing your ignorance or just flat out stupidity.
@@jro7815 Not 100% homogeneous but all +90% European White... some around 95%... As homogeneous as you can get in this era. Racially, all Nordic countries are homogeneous. Ethnically, I'm sure there are ethnic Danes in Sweden or vice-versa, but I'd venture to say it's still largely ethnically homogeneous as well. If you want to prove my frickin' "ignorance" and "flat out stupidity," I'd like to hear your counter-argument... Id est, if you actually have one besides hurling insults that just make you seem pathetic.
How about have more children, reward mothers who stay at home with their young children, increase your marriage rate, and boost unionization?
Thats a disturbingly primitive mindset and I am a man that saying this
@@scientistx5717 Yeah, the 1.6 birth rate is very sustainable. At some point in the future in all developed countries, there will be a huge number of old people dependent on social security, and a small number of the working population who will have to pay for it all. Either we return to a stable birth rate of 2.1, or it all collapses.
@@fenixfve2613 no one will listen to you. Too many facts.
@@richcook2007 lol 😄 Is humanity doomed?
@@fenixfve2613 That problem an be solved with immigration.
Looking up the Nordic model related to sex work. Haha. Not this.
Check out the Portugese drug model while you're at it.
Public nordic-model self-pleasuring.
Every "point" assumes the adequacy of the model and fails to compare a quasi-totalitarian model ("Everything within the State. Nothing outside the State. Nothing against the State") with alternative, better models. Including, free(er) production & consumption models, realistic income differentials based on personal choice & aspirations, and less government intervention.
Also, one wonders where government licensing (and censorship) of media - and self-censorship - affect views of immigration, crime, religion and EU relations.
Yes, of course. Some people demand slavery to an all powerful government. Others (most) just want to be free and unconstrained by fools on the left & other "well meaning" totalitarians
5:30 The whole point of this section is to explain the balance between the state, business, and employees. You seem to think that we have to choose between slavery to crony capitalism and slavery to a totalitarian state, but the Nordic model shows that there's another way.
@@deus_ex_machina_
The Nordic model is a thing in the world and it has merits.
Let's be honest & clear about what it is and where it is weak. The better to improve it and the conditions of those that live with it (and advocate for it).
I see your point and the official goal of the Nordic model is understandable as old-fashioned statism.
The model fails as an innovation & jobs growth engine; it manages a downward glide-path. Not my opinion, see history.
The model depends on high social-trust (good) in Nordic countries.
The system undergoes stress and failure where immigration reduced social homogeneity & bonds.
We see rampant collusion between government, unions, left political tribes & press to suppress information about crime by immigrants; viz, radical increase in cases of rape, murder, torture, damage to property; social and economic losses. Same for official corruption and suppression of innovation in favor of status-quo.
It is not hard to see the harm done to social trust, law & order; material & social capital when institutions gloss harms to citizens & society in order to protect the status-quo.
There you have it: pros & cons of a well-intentioned statist, paternalist, high-tax, maximalist welfare practices.
@@dfparker2002 Well, that "downward glide path" must be at a verrrry shallow angle as this Nordic model has been functioning well for ~100 years.
Because of this system the Nordic countries were almost immune to the depression of the 1930s.
In the US there seems to be collusion between government, corporations, business lobby groups and the media so it's no different.
Greetings from the Norway of the South - New Zealand.
@@kiwitrainguy Which nordic model success for 100y?
Asking because there were several things that happened that affected the government structure, policy and culture over that time period.
As I read the data, the nordic model impoverishes everyone at a roughly equal level. Occasional (and lucky) economic windfalls obscure that fact.
Luck fails and poor policies revert to the dreary and degrading mean.
Which is subsistence economics - statism & collectivism.
That said, it will be a race to see if long-standing syndacalist, media & government collusion and/or recent immigrants murder, rob, arson & rape the nordic nations before they assimilate & poor policy grinds the locals down.
We must watch together and compare notes in good faith because the motivated, nationalized press will not report the facts.
@@kiwitrainguy I'd say that while the great depression did hit us, the response was to expand the welfare state, with some compromises where govt. made sure industry didn't go under, and at the same time securing the unemployed while works were begun to get the economy going again, this massive expansion of the welfare state, also made it almost impossible for extremist ideologies to gain traction, as the world around gravitated towards totalitarian regimes, nordic countries solidified on a far more centrist approach, where political movements left and right of the populace would be much more sluggish since you'd be upsetting the many for the benefit of the few moving quickly.