I lived in Denmark for sometime while undertaking research at Copenhagen University and it was while I was there that the subject of Danish language used in university courses was a hot topic and they eventually legislated by no longer permitting English to be used. That was a signal for me regarding the growing nationalism, that and my comparative experience with Australia' multiculturalism where I felt the minority communities there were Othered and the sensitivity around subjects like Islam were far more heightened than I had ever experienced before. The homogeneity is really a type of nationalism.

In addition, to my everlasting dismay, people are taxed rather incredibly there. My friends told me they were paying almost 45% and other goods and services were really expensive; the cheapest food I could get was shawarma. However, in Australia we fail because of the property market while in Denmark they are very safe and economically this balances a freedom that strengthens their economy. But, it is not all wonderful there.

When you say "socialist" are you talking economically or are you attempting to convey that they are a type of social democracy, because if the former I may actually disagree with you on that one.

I've heard the claim that socialism doesn't work too many times already from the right in the US that it's making me sick. However, if that's true, then how are socialistic countries in the EU or Finland and Norway doing it? — Posty McPostface

If they're socialistic countries and if they're working then socialism does work, so the question is contradictory. What you've been told isn't true.

If they're socialistic countries and if they're working then socialism does work, so the question is contradictory. What you've been told isn't true. — Michael

Are they even socialistic countries? A free market economy is not socialist, so the Nordic model is debatable.

Are they even socialistic countries? A free market economy is not socialist, so the Nordic model is debatable. — TimeLine

I suppose the social corporatism is enough to count them as at least somewhat socialistic?

Although it looks like @Posty McPostface is more concerned with the welfare system, so perhaps he's asking more about successful welfare states?

Although it looks like Posty McPostface is more concerned with the welfare system, so perhaps he's asking more about successful welfare states? — Michael

Yeah, social spending and welfare seem to be linked together.

So, how are those countries pulling these enviable things off, of spending large sums of money on social welfare programs and at the same time maintaining their high HDI and low Gini coefficients? — Posty McPostface

If you invest in your people, then you will prosper as a nation. Seems obvious. And universal health care and education are the most basic of those investments.

As a nation, your problem then is the competition. So if you are taking the long term view of your social capital - investing in it - and your competition is simply happy to strip-mine its social capital, then your "economic system" can seem ... uncompetitive.

As a welfare nation, you would have to find ways to avoid becoming too globalised - too exposed to those competitive forces happy to indulge in a race to the sweatshop bottom. And also seek to take advantage of your greater social capital by moving upstream in terms of the products and services you then export.

So rather than selling junk goods, the Danes or Germans are particularly good at making premium stuff.

An alternative is to be a historically wealthy country like the UK or France. Assets acquired in colonial times keep the wheels greased.

Thanks. That really seems to have answered the question.

Lots of SSRIs.

I've heard the claim that socialism doesn't work too many times already from the right in the US that it's making me sick.However, if that's true, then how are socialistic countries in the EU or Finland and Norway doing it? Some of the European countries with the highest levels of social spending programs are also the most developed and educated places in the world.

So, how are those countries pulling these enviable things off, of spending large sums of money on social welfare programs and at the same time maintaining their high HDI and low Gini coefficients? — Posty McPostface

As a Finn I can guarantee that basically the discourse is usually absolute horseshit. Something that is so typical for our "fake news" era.

If we would here have similar views about the US and if we would believe in them, we would be confident that a new violent Civil War will break out in the US in just a matter of weeks or days and that the US economy would collapse in basically a few hours from now. So out of touch to reality are these claims actually. It's basically a quest to find the most bizarre newsclip that you can use to sell your crazy ideas.

Even if the Nordic countries DO have their problems because of the vast social welfare state etc. (as everything has it's downsides), the whole discourse compared to the US is absolutely ludicrous. As the GOP and the Alt-right cannot tell their supporters lies about the US that their supporters can see to be false with own eyes, they will look for the most bizarre news coming out of Europe and tell that Europe is on the verge of collapse. And people will believe that... because they don't live in Europe.

Yes, the export-oriented Nordic countries did suffer from the Global economic slowdown since the economic recession and did experience a brief increase in refugee influx (just like Europe did) a time ago. However the whole alt-right Trumpist discourse, just like the traditional conservative discourse, is simply fake news, which is so typical to our time. Remember when Trump told us about "what happened in Sweden"?

What makes it all totally whimsical is that the US (a) spends per capita far more in health care than Finland, Sweden and even oil-rich Norway and (b) the Nordic are far homogenous ethnically than the US. Those two facts ought to put things into perspective and end the alt-right discourse.

But no.

(b) the Nordic are far homogenous ethnically than the US. — ssu

What does that even mean?

I've got a pretty good idea of what it means, but I wonder if it's correct. Doesn't Finland have a large population of people of Swedish descent, and who still speak Swedish as well as Finnish? Sibelius - arguably the most famous Finn - was of Swedish descent. But he also wrote the country's most famous patriotic music (Finlandia) so perhaps it's that, although there is diversity, it is harmonious diversity?

Do go on, please.

About what?

Homogeneous societies and social welfare.

Sorry, I don't understand your request. What information are you seeking to obtain?

Is there any correlation between social spending and homogeneous societies?

I'm afraid I don't know. We'll need to wait until SSU wakes up to hear about that (it's currently 4am in Helsinki). I thought you were asking what 'ethnically homogenous' means.

However, I can see how homogeneity might make a country more likely to have good welfare, as it may make it harder to dismiss people as 'not my tribe' and refuse to help them in their misfortune. There are plenty of heterogenous countries with good welfare though: France, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada.

Most of the important points have been made. One might add North Sea oil -- applicable for Norway. Norway's sovereign wealth pension fund recently passed the trillion dollar mark--not bad for 5 million + people.

Just to emphasize -- the Nordic countries are not socialist: they are capitalist countries with strong social benefit programs, which contributes to the quality of life and to their prosperity. The US could do the same thing, but we would have to gut military spending and corporate subsidy programs and raise taxes, for starters.

As a group, Scandinavians are smart but dull. Boring. We should be as interesting as Italians and Frenchmen and as smart as Germans and Japanese. It's not for nothing that the English call rutabagas "swedes". As for the Finns, they define dullness itself.

And ban lefse and lutefisk. Outside of Lutheran nostalgia, there's no reason to eat these gistatorekl.