Shock! In the list of happiest countries, there's only one socialist nation in the top 20!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by DUCKofD3ATH, Mar 16, 2016.

  1. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #1
    Sweden checks in at #10.

    At #13, the USA is way happier than the UK, Germany, France, and Italy.

    It seems that self-declared socialist states aren't happy places to be. Who knew?

    The world's 50 happiest countries
    1. Denmark (7.526)
    2. Switzerland (7.509)
    3. Iceland (7.501)
    4. Norway (7.498)
    5. Finland (7.413)
    6. Canada (7.404)
    7. Netherlands (7.339)
    8. New Zealand (7.334)
    9. Australia (7.313)
    10. Sweden (7.291)
    11. Israel (7.267)
    12. Austria (7.119)
    13. United States (7.104)
    14. Costa Rica (7.087)
    15. Puerto Rico (7.039)
    16. Germany (6.994)
    17. Brazil (6.952)
    18. Belgium (6.929)
    19. Ireland (6.907)
    20. Luxembourg (6.871)
    21. Mexico (6.778)
    22. Singapore (6.739)
    23. United Kingdom (6.725)
    24. Chile (6.705)
    25. Panama (6.701)
    26. Argentina (6.650)
    27. Czech Republic (6.596)
    28. United Arab Emirates (6.573)
    29. Uruguay (6.545)
    30. Malta (6.488)
    31. Colombia (6.481)
    32. France (6.478)
    33. Thailand (6.474)
    34. Saudi Arabia (6.379)
    35. Taiwan (6.379)
    36. Qatar (6.375)
    37. Spain (6.361)
    38. Algeria (6.355)
    39. Guatemala (6.324)
    40. Suriname (6.269)
    41. Kuwait (6.239)
    42. Bahrain (6.218)
    43. Trinidad and Tobago (6.168)
    44. Venezuela (6.084)
    45. Slovakia (6.078)
    46. El Salvador (6.068)
    47. Malaysia (6.005)
    48. Nicaragua (5.992)
    49. Uzbekistan (5.987)
    50. Italy (5.977)
    No wonder Bernie's tanked! Nobody wants to be in a country that isn't happy, and apparently socialists are sourpusses.
     
  2. Sedulous macrumors 68000

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #2
    Umm, many of those in the top 10 have strong "socialist" governments.
     
  3. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #3
    Yup. The top 5 are the Scandinavian/Nordic countries, which are practically the standard bearers for modern European socialism.
     
  4. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #4
    #1 on that list offers free college education. Universal health care too, but then that's fairly standard for a first world nation.
     
  5. Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #5

    Of the Top 20, all but two have Universal Healthcare: United States and Puerto Rico do not.

    Costa Rica is part Universal.

     
  6. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #6
    I know this is gonna come up eventually, so I might as well address the inevitable "if you like it so much, why don't you move there" posts.

    I don't think the US should follow the Scandinavian economic model. Not entirely, anyway. While I can't argue the results on a social level. At the same time, I can't help but think they've become a little too sedate in their happiness. They're great places to live, but they're not pushing any envelopes, so to speak. I prefer a more dynamic model, closer to, but not quite classical capitalism, where only the top end of the market is heavily monitored in order to maintain competitiveness and fairness for labor throughout. My advocating for socialism begins and ends there, along with subsidizing healthcare and education.

    Ultimately, you could say I believe in a 50's era style of free flowing, decentralized capitalism with a more progressive social mindset.
     
  7. barbu macrumors regular

    barbu

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2013
    Location:
    ott.on.ca
    #7
    i don't think your list proves what you think it proves...
     
  8. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #8
  9. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #9
    I think the problem with Duck & Co. are that they always look at the subject and judge it by it's extremes. They see Socialism, capital S, usually judged by the Marxist definition, as a pure, singular form of economy meant to replace capitalism by distributing the means and methods of industry into the hands of the people, ultimately designed to pave the way towards a communist government.

    This isn't the socialism, small s, that the 1st world is leaning on. That's really just another, slightly more marketable term for a welfare state, which only shares its name in common with anything Marxist.
     
  10. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #10
    This is an age old problem that has never had a solution. We keep going back and forth with this. Until now, we really haven't had a solution to see which is the best system.
    Now, with more free trade agreement, we can globalize to the point where the US can finally become a socialist nation. The capitalist can leave and setup their businesses outside the US and ship their product/service anywhere they want.

    It has to be the capitalist because that's the system that fails when mixed and the socialist will never stop until they have everything they want.

    This way we'll finally see exactly how it would turn out. The socialist won't have anyone to blame, and the capitalist will be able to have there way as well.
     
  11. oldmacs macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Location:
    Australia
    #11
    This is what happens when you don't don't the difference between socialism and countries that have implemented 'socialist policies' to the benefit of citizens. Australia features socialist policy (Education, healthcare etc) and is above the US, and so do many of that top 10 including Denmark the number 1.
     
  12. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #12
    See, you're doing it too. Socialism and capitalism aren't an either/or situation by the modern definition. European Socialism/Welfare Statist/Whatevs, include capitalism as part of its overall model. It's an integral part to the system as a whole.

    No one's going to abandon capitalism because it created the 1st world as we know it today. It just looks at the failings of the classic capitalist model, and adjusts accordingly by making the well being of its citizenry a direct part of its policy.

    Really, I think the worst thing about it is that someone decided to slap it with the name "socialism", which has some, you know, connotations thanks to the goddamn communist manifesto. If they called it the Capitalist Open Market Happy People Progressive Tax Fun Time Smorgasbord, people wouldn't be freaking out about it now.

    Remember, there is no such thing as socialists AND capitalists, because modern socialists are capitalists too.
     
  13. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #13
    I wouldn't follow it either. They don't survive without oil and a ton of capitalist activity surrounding them. That ever goes away and they fall into the abyss, like Greece.
     
  14. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
  15. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #15
    Denmark at least intends on being oil free by 2040 or so.

    Though if you're talking about bolstering their economy on oil exports, well...you don't bank on a meal ticket in perpetuum. If your entire economy hinges around one thing, you better start hedging your bets, which the northern European countries are doing.
     
  16. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #16
    If they do, they're too ashamed to admit it. I linked to the list of self-declared socialist nations.
     
  17. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #17
    It's been cool since 1935 here in the states. We just forgot that's what we were back in the 80's.
     
  18. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #18
    Oh, well since it's you saying it....
     
  19. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #19
    Yeah, those are all Socialist states per the Marxist model. No one in their right mind is advocating for that.

    Hell, not even the Chinese are anymore, but they keep the shtick up cuz it makes them look edgy.
     
  20. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #20
    Wrong again. What I don't like about any form of socialism is that it robs from some people, and gives what they stole to other people the government decides are deserving.

    And the government always needs/wants more money until the tipping point is reached and the economy fails under the load and people stop producing. See Venezuela for the most recent example.
     
  21. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #21
    That doesn't change the fact that the very first entry on that list has exactly what Sanders is pushing for.
     
  22. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #22
    Sanders was going to pander to those Socialism always attracts: ne'er-do-wells who think the world owes them a living, and the power-hungry who gain power by pandering.
     
  23. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #23
    Can you name me one form of government that's entirely perfect in all ways and has absolutely no potential for failure? You can't. So one example of a badly administered country does not a compelling point make.

    The entire 1st world has been Social Welfare to varying extents since after WWII. It's had its downsides, mainly during the mid 70's, but overall, it's worked, and worked well. You're advocating going back to a purely classic capitalist model, which, guess what? It kinda blew up in everyone's faces back in the 30's. Catastrophically.

    Since the economy of the entire 1st world is still going strong, you're arguing against it due to the potential of someone running everything into the ground, rather than an inevitable reality. That's something no model of government or economy is immune to. As for alternatives, our only direct competition in concerns of economic models is China, and I doubt very seriously you want us to convert to their way of doing things.
     
  24. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #24
    Trying to change the subject tells me that you know full well that your original argument has failed.
     
  25. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #25
    But they don't call themselves Socialists (except for Sweden). Why do you think that is?
    --- Post Merged, Mar 16, 2016 ---
    I was making the point that Sanders was pushing for lots of stuff. Even Liberal economists thought his economic plan was, to put it mildly, "unrealistic":

    Liberal economists to Bernie Sanders: Your economic plan is unrealistic.
    Bernie Sanders' economic plan is receiving criticism from an unusual source. Former democrat economists for Obma and Clinton administrations. They're calling him and professor Gerald Friedman out, calling his plans unrealistic
    So if one of the items on his grocery list of freebies is available in Denmark, what does that prove?
     

Share This Page