Recently an Australian pundit wrote an article about international perception of the US presidential election, particularly Bernie Sanders. The article is full of irony that the writer is completely unaware of. I’m seeing this lack of both self awareness and economic awareness all over the world lately. It’s why Western civilization is collapsing, though people like this writer have no idea.
What interests me the most are the people and media pundits who emphatically denounce Bernie Sanders and his supporters. The reasons all generally boil down to the fact that he is the reincarnation of Karl Marx and he wants to turn the U.S. into a communist state. That he is so far left of centre that he’s basically off the chart. For those people, here’s a reality check. Around the rest of the world, Mr. Sanders represents a point on the political spectrum that is mildly left of centre.
That’s correct. As left-wing as the United States has become, much of the world is even more left-wing than we are.
How’s that left wing stuff working out for the world? How’s Europe’s economy doing? How about South America, like Venezuela? How about India? How about all those socialist / communist countries in Africa?
These questions aren’t even asked. It’s simply, “everyone else is doing it, so you should do it too, you dumb Americans.” Quintessential Societal Programming.
Instead of pointing out that everyone does a thing, it’s more prudent to ask if that thing is working for those who are doing it.
His “wacky” ideas of free (and we’ll get to that term a bit later) education, free healthcare, regulating banks and corporations and so on are all actually staple ideas of many of the happiest and most prosperous countries in the world. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the ‘Happiest countries in the world index’ for 2016. The U.S. doesn’t make the top 10—but almost every single country that does has the kind of policies Mr. Sanders is promoting at some level.
He’s referring to the World Happiness Report, a report put out by the United Nations which doesn’t even measure happiness. It measures stuff like GDP per capita, life expectancy, and whether people perceive their governments as corrupt. These are fine things (sort of, since high GDP doesn’t mean much since it includes the cost of big government), but these things are not happiness. As just one example, thanks to left-wing immigration policies, Sweden is now the rape capital of Europe, with an average debt-to-income ratio of 170%, yet it places number ten on this list. Oh yeah…I’m sure those in indebted rape victims are really happy.
As always, folks are trying to attach high goverment spending with personal citizen happiness and effective economies, when in reality it’s usually the opposite.
Throughout the nomination process, Bernie’s critics always seem to be asking the wrong questions. The most common one I see is “How is he going to pay for all of this?” This question misses the point entirely.
Do you see the insanity in this thinking? Asking how one is going to pay for new government programs “misses the point entirely.” Really?
Seeing the problem yet?
Even if economists say that he can’t, does that really invalidate everything he’s aiming to achieve?
No, but it does mean that we shouldn’t enact it, because we can’t afford it. If I was elected president and I decreed that every child in the nation gets a free pony courtesy of the federal government, but I couldn’t show how I could pay for it, and economists all agreed that I couldn’t, that probably means we shouldn’t do it, regardless of now nice and fuzzy the idea makes us.
But in our new left-wing world, the fact that I couldn’t afford it means nothing. It’s a nice idea, so I should do it, go further into debt, and hasten our collapse. Because kids should have ponies.
If he can’t pay for all of it and the only thing that actually gets passed is universal college education and a reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, is that such a horrible thing?
If we can’t afford “free” college for all (and we can’t), then yes.
The other elephant in the room is that the current political status quo is to spend over half a trillion dollars per year on the military. So you’re against universal health care or college education because you don’t think it can be paid for, but you’re happy for your government to spend that amount of money on your military
This is a valid argument, and one of the few areas in which I agree with the left. It’s just sad that the left is addicted to big government in every area except for one (the military) where suddenly they realize that big government and overspending is a bad thing. Too bad they can’t apply that thinking do the other 85% of government spending.
The other nonsensical argument I often hear is that government needs to be smaller, and Bernie will make it bigger by running all these programs. First of all, more government programs means more jobs for people.
Again, the overly simplistic thinking of the left. So whenever there’s a bad economy, the government should hire people to dig ditches in the desert for no reason, because according to this guy, a job is a job.
A private sector job created by the free market is a good thing that helps the economy. A government job created by government is a bad thing, since that job steals money away from the current or future economy. Government doesn’t create jobs. It makes “jobs” from resources it steals from the private sector.
When we talk about “free” healthcare, for example, we know it isn’t free and are happy to accept it. We recognize that the good of many outweighs the selfish wants of the individual. It’s easy to tell someone that if they want health care then they should pay for it, until you are the one that gets struck down by misfortune and has to pay through the nose because the government has privatized everything.
First, it should be remembered that the US healthcare system not only isn’t privatized, but isn’t even close to anything that even looks like capitalism or privatization. Our current rip-off healthcare system is a corporatism / socialism hybrid, not privatized.
Second, as I’ve discussed many times at this blog, if healthcare was 100% privatized, it would be so radically inexpensive that paying for your own medical expenses would be a breeze even for lower-income people. Insurance (real catastrophic medical insurance, not bullshit “anything whatsoever medical” insurance we have today) would cheaply cover any catastrophe, again, even for very low-income people. That’s how it was in the 1950-60s. Doctors were super cheap, even for poor people, and came to your house. That’s what the free market does.
Do we still bitch that we’re paying too much in tax? Sure, who doesn’t? But most of us made peace with high taxation long ago because it means:
1. We won’t lose our job and get bankrupted by the hospital bill if we get sick
You can accomplish that without high taxes and a government healthcare system, as I just showed above.
2. We can attend university for a reasonable fee, not leaving us saddled with horrific debt
Wrong. You still have horrific debt. The difference is instead of having a college loan you have to repay, the debt is buried in the government where it will be your kid’s or grandkid’s problem instead of your problem. Doesn’t that strike you as just a little selfish?
Just like healthcare, college is not “free,” even if the goverment pays for it. Last time I checked, college professors and staff don’t work for free. College campuses don’t magically build themselves for zero cost. These things must be paid for. Since goverment can’t create money (without causing inflation that you have to pay for) that means you, your kids, or your grandkids must pay for these things, regardless of if you use the government as a middleman or not.
3. We can work a minimum wage job and actually survive on the income
This has nothing to do with taxes. This has to do with money printing and monetization of government debt, as I’ve discussed many times.
4. We have a real shot at moving up in society if we work hard
Wrong. You have a harder time moving up in society than you would in a truly free market. Much harder. Hell, just a few paragraphs before this, you said, and I quote, “We also recognize that, while it might be more difficult to reach the stratospheric heights of billionairdom here, it can be done with a lot of hard work.”
Of course, by using the term “billionairdom,” you’re using the classic left-wing strawman of falsely defining all people of higher income as super rich “billionaires.” Is it so terrible that some people who make $20,000 a year might want to make $150,000 someday? Or are they evil “billionaires” too?
We fight to keep all our benefits—you should have heard the uproar a couple of years ago when our government tried to institute a fee of $5 to go to the doctor instead of it being for free. The government scrapped that idea very quickly.
There it is, folks. This is what’s become of the once great Western Civilization. A bunch of beta males terrified of a $5 fee. This is what dependence on government does to people; having them scream and protest for, good lord, fear of a $5 fee for going to the doctor.
Notice again how this guy doesn’t see the incredible irony of his interpretations. He’s actually bragging that his people screamed at the government because they didn’t want to pay five fucking dollars.
Is that something you would brag about?
All of this ignores the massive, massive elephant in the room: that your corporations, banks and politicians have no qualms about being socialist when it suits them. They’ll happily put their hands out for subsidies that they don’t need to make billions more that won’t be taxed—or when they tank your economy and the rest of the world’s economy they’ll complain that they’re too big to fail before taking all your hard earned money. None of them went to jail or even attracted regulation from the establishment politicians. Instead, they just got more money to continue as before.
He’s absolutely right about this. He’s describing corporatism to a T. The problem is that his solution to corporatism is big government and Western European style socialism. He doesn’t understand that his cure is just as bad as the disease.
The opinions in this article, which really do represent most human beings in the Western world today, precisely demonstrate why the Western world is completely fucked, and why the problems that must be fixed will never be fixed.
If you want an economy to survive and thrive for hundreds of years, you need to adopt a few very simple beliefs for government spending:
1. If you can’t afford something, don’t buy it. This is regardless of what you want to buy. It doesn’t matter if it’s free college, a vast military empire, or free ponies for children. If you can’t afford it with tax revenues, don’t buy it. (Yes, a little borrowing can be okay under certain conditions, but the US, Australia, and most of the rest of the Western world are way past “a little.”)
2. Don’t borrow billions of dollars from other countries.
3. Don’t print trillions of dollars of your own currency to fund government or to bail out rich people. This hurts poor people and destroys a living wage.
4. Keep your federal government reasonably small. This applies to both social services and the military. Not just one or the other, you jerkweeds! Both. If individual provinces, states, or cities want to spend a lot of money on government services, that’s up to them and the voters in those areas, but keep the centralized federal government small.
5. “Free” healthcare and “free” college are not only not free, but actually end up costing more than if they were provided by the free market once you factor in government overspending, waste / fraud / abuse, interest on debt, and inflation from increased currency printing. In a truly free market where very little of these things happen, this stuff suddenly becomes really inexpensive.
6. Not all rich people are billionaires. The mega-rich are a teeny, tiny percentage of the “rich.” The vast majority of who you call the rich not only work more hours per week than you, but contribute more to the economy than you do in terms of jobs, lower prices, tax revenue, and many other things.
7. Corporatism is bad, but socialism is just as bad.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of the Western world completely disagrees with the above seven items, and eventually they will pay the price for this.
Enjoy the decline!
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
I think one of the things that isn’t addressed in this is the extent to which these European and other “western” economies live parasitically off the evil empire of the USA. He gives one specific example — the US Military — which even to this day defends Western Europe, Japan, South Korea and secures the AUS-NZ region too. Then when Donald Trump suggests that Japan — one of the richest countries in the world — should pay room and board for our military personnel, everyone goes apoplectic.
(And to be clear, my solution is to reduce the size of our military and let these countries defend themselves, but at least if we are defending them it doesn’t seem unreasonable that they should buy us the bullets and MREs we are using.)
A second really important example is one that sticks in my craw and that is in regards to medical care, and drugs in particular. We often hear about how in the USA drugs cost ten times as much as in Canada or Spain. We hear that despite the fact that the reason is because Americans are paying part of the cost of those Canadians and Spaniard’s drugs. The math is simple. Drugs cost a large up front cost to develop, and have a tiny per pill manufacturing cost. The upfront cost is distributed over the lifetime of the drug by upcharging the cost of the pills. So a pill is a small cost to manufacture and a large per pill fee for drug design. However, the drug company can still make a profit if they unevenly distribute the design cost. Consequently Americans pay the large majority of the drug design cost in their elevated fees, and those Canadians and Spaniards simply ride as freeloaders on the back of American drug consumers.
(FWIW, this inequity happens mostly because of trade barriers erected by the government in response to the lobbying of the great corporatist monster drug companies. Were we Americans able to buy our drugs from anywhere in the world then the ability to unfairly distribute the load would disappear overnight. I might add that the cheaper drugs would have the cost of less new drugs, but that is a whole other matter.)
So it is bad enough that the American taxpayer has to subsidize the rest of the world, what is even worse though is that we have to hear them crow about how much better they are than us because of their parasitic ways.
Great summary! Where can I read more about that wonderful American healthcare in mid-20th century? It’s not the first time I have read your praise of those times, and would love to have something to tell my brother who works in a Health Policy Research university center in one of the most liberal cities in North America. No points for guessing their perennial opinion on the matter…
Fraser Orr, you Americans have a big problem with healthcare procedures, not just drugs (and you are probably paying more for the same simply because you’re richer). You might know this epic text from 2009 on the matter: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/06/01/the-cost-conundrum.
I find the problem is the corporatism that drives companies to squeeze every dollar because “young doctors don’t think anymore,”
The system in Canada or Spain is socialist, but it sure is incentivizing sensible actions from the doctors. Don’t ask me how, I don’t know how a doctor is reviewed throughout his life.
Caleb, interesting and thought-provoking points.
1. Shura – from the New Yorker post – “And the damning question we have to ask is whether the doctor is set up to meet the needs of the patient, first and foremost, or to maximize revenue.” Places like Mayo Clinic, presumably have become so great because they put the patient’s well-being first.
2. Fraser Orr – this is a good set of points. A lot of things around the world are “subsidized” by the US government, which enables those countries to spend their money elsewhere. Good arguing point for future reference.
3. One major change that has happened in the US in the past 100 years is the amount of wealth held in business interests versus pensions. The “bottom 90%” now holds most of its wealth in housing and pensions. 100 years old ago it was business interests and housing. Pensions began to become more of total wealth in the early 60s. In other words (assuming the data is correct and I am interpreting it well), “normal people” aren’t creating more personal wealth because they don’t have their own business anymore, they now work for corporations and government who give them pensions.
Check out these two graphs (data from Zucman – http://gabriel-zucman.eu/uswealth/). They are just percentages of total wealth of bottom 90% but you get the main idea (it’s not normalized to total assets adjusted for inflation).
Correct, and I don’t talk about that enough. As one example, one of the reasons leftists point to socialism “working” in Scandinavian countries is because those countries essentially had a free military (us in the US) protecting them from an expansionist empire on their doorstep for the last 65 years.
I’ve mostly read it in books, so I have no links off the top of my head.
I have a full article on healthcare coming; I’ll research links for that and include them.
Great point, and you’re right. Robert Kiyosaki writes a lot about this.
> Fraser Orr, you Americans have a big problem with healthcare procedures, not just drugs
Yup,. for sure. And Caleb wrote a great article on this very subject that he references above. Bottom line is that medical care is expensive because government interference has separated the payer from the payee. It is a long story, and Caleb indicated that he was writing something on it, so I’ll leave it in his very capable hands. But i’ll give you a typical example (and I have dozens more.) A while ago I was in a hospital for a routine procedure and I was talking to one of the nurses. He was holding a urinary catheter (not for me, thankfully), not the part that goes into your body, but the part that drains it into a bag. It is essentially an 18 inch piece of plastic tubing which you could buy at Home Depot for about fifty cents (if you bought the fancy one.) It is not a sterile device (it is for directing urine into a bag, after all), but the nurse told me that the hospital billed it out at $30. Now who in their right mind would pay $30 for that? Nobody. But the problem is that the users DON’T pay for it. All that happens is insurance rates go up and up and up, and employers bury the cost of insurance into reduced wages.
Furthermore the outrageous tax law says that employees get their medical insurance premiums paid out of pre tax money, whereas people who buy their own must pay it out of post tax money. This means insurance, which is already massively bloated in price, costs about 30% more if you buy it yourself (irrespective of risk pooling).) This is, IMHO, one of the most unfair rules in the IRS’s Byzantium of insanity (and BTW, one that Donald Trump has put in his tax plan to be removed.) It makes it far harder for people to liberate themselves from the oppressive system of employment. And in fact it is designed to do so, because employees are the most tax-milked of all people, and are easy to control through workplace regulation.
Bottom line is this — based on what I have seen, due to regulation, medical costs in the United States are bloated one or two orders of magnitude, just due to regulatory compliance (and the consequential rent seeking, cartelling, price isolation and inelasticity and so forth.)
If medical insurance cost $100 a month for a family, it would be a non entity as a political football. It should cost that if employers and government didn’t fuck it up so badly.
> The system in Canada or Spain is socialist, but it sure is incentivizing sensible actions from the doctors.
I’ve never been to a hospital in Canada or Spain, however, I have been to one in the UK where I grew up. I was so filthy and so barren, and so horrible a place that I didn’t even want to take my children into the place to see their dying grandfather. You have no idea. These places are like something out of a 1950’s stereotype of a hospital.
Another example? A relative of mine, who lives in Glasgow, Scotland, had gallstones. The doctor ordered an MRI, however, at the time there was only one MRI machine in the whole city of Glasgow (which has a population about the same size as San Diego). One! I had to get one of those MRIs they do to check for thickness of the arteries (all clear, Woot!!). I got the script from the doctor, called the place up and went in the next day. My relative? He waited 8 months for that MRI, and his was a medically significant test rather than a quick wellness check up.
BTW, that MRI scan cost me $100. Why? Because they don’t accept insurance — you have to pay for it yourself. Apparently they’d go out of business if they try to charge $10,000 per scan without running it through the insurance labyrinth.
Remember all these other non American systems live off the back of the American tax payer who subsidizes them all. Remember that since the Second World War the United States has won, either in part or in whole, all but fifteen of the 70 Nobel prizes in medicine and Physiology (and similar statistics in other such prizes.) Of the other fifteen, the majority of them did their work in American universities or American corporations. When did a Spaniard last win? 1959, I believe.
And finally, remember that it is pretty well documented that Canadians, when they REALLY need medical care, jump on a plane and come to America.
OK, I’m ranting…. Don’t even get me started on patents and medical liability.
Here’s some educational links about history of healthcare spending in US. I just googled “historical data medical costs”. Basically, it’s been going up since the 60s.
Also, this is interesting. It shows you all the Medicare filings per year, I believe.
Great points here! You hit it on the head. I’ve been saying ever since this Obamacare crap that the issue is not how many uninsured there are, but the cost of healthcare. It’s insane what things cost when you look at an itemized bill from a hospital. Getting more people on the insurance rolls doesn’t solve the problem, although it’s a great boon for the Insurance industry! People don’t care what these things like a small tube or aspirin costs in the hospital since they are not directly paying.
Obamacare should at best been a short stop gap to keep people from going broke but not some systemic solution. It’s a joke long term and will no doubt add to the decline in this country.
Very good article. I’m sure you have been following the EU referendum recently and I’d like to know what you think the outcome might be if Britian leaves the EU. I read your hypothetical manifesto on what you would do if you were president – how well would Britain do if it suddenly adopted your solution? Most people seem to think that economic growth is everything, but that’s like measuring how good someone is by the quantity of food they eat. Britain, and particularly southern England, is generally overcrowded with too many extremely expensive mediocre houses…..it’s not exactly something to be excited about, which I believe has been exacerbated by being part of the EU.
My Brexit article is already written and goes up on Monday!
If they left the EU, there would be a very temporary recession that would be scary, and then the economy and average citizen happiness would improve to the point where people would be shocked. More detail on Monday.
Do the Brits have the balls to do this? We’ll see…
Thanks Caleb and look forward to your article! The trend so far looks to be something similar to what your Republican / Democrat demographic voters would look like with the indigenous, outcome independent over 35s, small/ medium sized businesses and more honest politicians voting out whilst young people, the non-indigenous, socialists, looney lefties, corporate business, the banks, and flimsy politicians all voting in. I’m sure you’ve heard already on your news, a Labour MP campaigning for In, has been murdered today….emotions have gone into overdrive, campaigns have stalled and it is believed the In campaign will benefit. We just don’t need this.
“A private sector job created by the free market is a good thing that helps the economy. A government job created by government is a bad thing, since that job steals money away from the current or future economy. Government doesn’t create jobs. It makes “jobs” from resources it steals from the private sector.”
The usual right wing argument. To *define* the economy as being the private sector, and then to say that government sucks money out of the economy. If a person puts up a radio antenna working for a private company, that’s economy. If exactly the same person puts up exactly the same antenna but they are working for the government, then that’s a drain on the economy. If the company charges a thousand bucks and pays the dude, that’s the economy working; if the government levies a tax and pays the dude, that’s an unconscionable drain on the private sector.
It’s nonsense. The economy is people working, manufacturing goods and providing services, and those same people consuming and using them. Govt vs. private is just two different ways of setting up a structure within which people can do that. Now – one of them might generally work better than the other, agreed. But it’s situational.
“There it is, folks. This is what’s become of the once great Western Civilization. A bunch of beta males terrified of a $5 fee. This is what dependence on government does to people; having them scream and protest for, good lord, fear of a $5 fee for going to the doctor. Notice again how this guy doesn’t see the incredible irony of his interpretations. He’s actually bragging that his people screamed at the government because they didn’t want to pay five fucking dollars.”
Dude. Many people have no money *AT ALL* at the end of the month. Not five dollars. Not fifty cents. Not five cents. None. They have no money. Not any *at all*, This is what pundits like yourself and conservative members of parliament just don’t get. That yes, if you mandate a five dollar minimum, then that means that many people who *should* be seeing a doctor, who will die if they don’t, or who will spread some sort of horrific infectious disease if they don’t, won’t be seeing a doctor. Not because they are squealing at a five buck charge. But because they literally, actually, do not have the money.
Not that americans have a problem with this. I believe it is the law over there that if you hold no currency whatever, then you get thrown in jail for being poor. Disgusting, and not a place where I would want to live.
Exactly right. Because that first person used his own money or voluntary investor money. The second person is using money he or his bosses acquired at gunpoint from innocent people who could have used that money to improve themselves or their businesses economically.
I never said government wasn’t a part of the economy.
Correct. WHY don’t they have any money?
1. Shittty economy created by government interference.
2. Lack of jobs because of government over-regulation of the free market.
3. Too-expensive products and services caused by government money printing.
You see poor people, but you don’t ask WHY they’re poor. You just see them and scream that they need help. There’s more to the story.
We do not have this law. Some individual cities have anti-vagrancy laws, but they are rare.
Yep, I don’t want to live here either, that’s why I’m getting the fuck out. (But I sure as hell won’t be moving to Australia.)
Spot on article, often times I am embarrassed to tell people I am from Australia. The attitude of Pete Ross is sadly the majority attitude of most Australians. I can definitely confirm that it is extremely difficult to work your way out of a hole you have dug for yourself. in Australia.
I am currently unemployed, I had to leave my job because of a boss that was fond of bullying staff. He made a verbal personal attack on me in front of other staff, which I overheard. Worked for difficult bosses before, insults and personal attacks are not ok. I formally resigned, I am struggling to find another job because it seems a piece of paper is more important than actual industry experience here these days. I have worked with fresh graduates with an accounting major, they never had a proper accounting job. They make mistakes, slow down the client work and interrupt my work because they are too afraid to ask the managers for guidance. I do their job better, but don’t have my piece of paper, due to stupidity on my part in certain life situations slowing my path progress. I have a large uni debt due to failing several subjects, I intend to pay this in full after a year of full time employment in my field of study. I need this handout to get a hand up, I wouldn’t have taken it if I wasn’t desperate and could make my own way. I feel extreme guilt about all this, not everyone wants to live like this. It’s taking a long time to turn this around, with the way the world is these days.
The sad thing about all this is, I know what is coming. I am going to erode what savings I have if I don’t find work soon. The longer you are out of the workforce, the longer it takes to get a job with increased difficulty. Get any job, and you are judged on why you haven’t gotten another in your related field, much worse if you have a decent work history in the industry you studied for, without your degree.
Now the biggest failure here is (apart from myself), I try to apply to a government job for an entry level position in some byzantine government branch, and they want the cream of the crop for a menial position. The application process is so convoluted, the time it takes to apply for one position there I can apply for two in the private sector. Traditionally a government job in Australia is for the “little people” like me, yeah right. I know someone who works in a certain govt department and he told me he has never seen such a well qualified and experienced bunch of people being paid to do such simple work, with very low productivity and workload requirements. People like this are being wasted in a govt department, when they would be much better off earning much more money in the private sector, doing the same work. Less experienced/ qualified people can do the same work, cheaper and have skills + experience they can use in the private sector when they move on.
So I can’t get a job working for the govt, but they are happy to give me social security instead. Work related assistance is also a failure, if you have a corporate, white collar background, govt employment agencies are incapable of helping you effectively gain employment. If you have a blue collar work background, work is pretty much there for you with these agencies. Also you are stuck to agencies available to where you live, making it more difficult. Private recruiters don’t want to know you without your degree or if you aren’t working in the relevant industry. All the private recruiters have stopped calling me once I sent out my updated resume, reflecting my new situation. Many people take a handout because there is little opportunity for a hand up, so they just quit. Even though I am eligible for welfare I refuse to take it, people worse off than me and trying to get ahead like me would be better off with it than I would. I am on a tight budget and not buying bullshit, I’ll survive- hopefully.
Great article, was just wondering if you could write an article about the Scandinavian Welfare model, since as a dane, I only hear people in Denmark but also in general talk about how great it is, and how the US is screwed if they dont get a Bernie type as president.
‘We have such high standards of living’ because we have free education, healthcare, solid great economy etc.
I haven’t been able find any real evidence that suggests otherwise, other than that I know that it breeds very dependent people.
Would be great hearing your view on this!
I’ve discussed that before. The primary reason Scandinavia has been able to make their happy socialism work is because of the massive amounts of oil in the Norwegian sea you guys have been selling. The problem is that region will run out of oil soon. Then, we shall see how well long-term socialism works when you don’t have billions of dollars of oil to sell.
Ok makes sense for Denmark that made ~150 billion DKK, and Norway making ~6.000 billion NOK (I read in some articles), but for Sweden I don’t really get it cause they don’t really produce that much oil after all:
What do you think?
Sweden? You mean the per capita rape capitol of the world, with double digit increases in rape every year because of its suicidal immigration policies? Where 46 percent of the women are scared to go out after dark according to recent surveys?
Yeah, I’ll pass on Sweden.