Not even a successful society is perfect. It certainly doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. It’s still better than what most of the rest of the world is doing.
Nobody said we shouldn’t. The point is, we shouldn’t look away from the issues in a country just because they are doing better than others in some cases.
You’re seeing a motivation behind my comment that isn’t there, so you really shouldn’t call me obtuse. Is Norway doing pretty good? Yes! Could they also do better? Yes! I’m not playing crab bucket, but I’m also not sticking my head in the sand here.
Maybe next time open with the “pretty good” stuff. Before this comment everything cooking was negative which sure looks like crab bucket (not just from you, but also from you) and I’m still leaning toward obtuse by omission tbh.
It means that when people advocate for improvements, YOU SHOULD STOP IMMEDIATELY PLAYING CRAB BUCKET.
…your argument is that we literally should not criticize ideas until they’re actually implemented and proven to be lacking? How does one establish that something is better without open critique?
What does that even mean? For those of us who aren’t in the know like you are, that phrase doesn’t mean anything to us.
And if you’re open to a friendly suggestion, nix the “western world” propaganda; focus on explaining the “exploitation of billions in the global south” part.
Norway doesn’t produce cocoa beans. Norway doesn’t produce cotton, or bananas, or iron ore, or cobalt, or gold, or most basic raw materials you need to run a society. Neither do Spain, or Germany, or France, or the USA. Instead, these countries focus on the production of high value-added goods and services, which they can do because they are historically highly industrialized, developed, and have high levels of education, infrastructure and concentration of productive capital.
In this manner, Germany imports iron ore from poor countries in the global south at low prices, and exports cars at high prices. In the international market, therefore, one hour of German/French/Norwegian work is exchanged often for tens of hours of work from India, or Congo, or Mexico. This is unequal exchange, and is the pillar of neocolonialism.
Through political, economical and military powers, the western world has ensured that the global south remains underdeveloped. IMF predatory loans and neoliberal policy impositions, support for fascists or monarchists, coups, or outright military invasions are some of the most common tools the west uses to maintain these countries underdeveloped and with cheap labor.
With quick google-fu Nordics seem to be in pretty comfy positions in world wide rankings. Not at the top but certainly in the best 20%
Also there is huge difference in the sense that even if you are poor in the nordics you still have right to healthcare and education. At some places you would just be fucked.
There are people who slip through the cracks (usually those with mental health/drug issues), and that the “basic level” of support hasn’t caught up with inflation…
But regardless, it’s 10000x better than the US system/the system in most other countries.
This is bad analysis. Natural resources don’t make countries poorer, they make the US/UK/France/Spain/Italy invade you.
Libya, rich in oil, was the richest country in Africa (and highest Human Development Index) until the west bombed it and triggered a civil war. Iran was on the way to use its oil for its own profits by nationalizing it under the democratically elected leftist government of Mosaddeq until it got blockaded and couped by MI6+CIA and a corrupt monarch got reinstated. Venezuela took millions of people out of poverty until US sanctions came in an attempt to kill the socialist government and put millions through hardship. Saudi Arabia, having a government very cozy with the US, gets away with no US coups, but has 70% of the population being effectively slaves.
And how did the bombing help exactly? Not to mention the western participation in the formation of the civil war itself, with its constant meddling and sanctioning against the Libyan government.
Worth noting that most of the time oil (newly discovered natural resources really)makes a country poorer than richer. See Venezuela and such.
Hmm, somebody should let the Middle East know that they’re poor.
More likely, the discovery of oil attracts the worst kind of industrialists, who will exploit the workers into abject poverty, and take all the wealth. It isn’t the oil that makes the people poor, it is the government who sells them out.
I don’t get your point? The US is one of, if not the wealthiest, country in the world. We made money off of slaves, oil, gold, child labor and now taking advantage of our working class without paying for healthcare. It also used to be innovation, but that’s going away. We should be doing even better. How many of the wealthiest in the world live here?
The argument isn’t that the US can’t do it, it’s that there are only a few countries that ever could. It’s pitched as some sort of universal fix, but can’t be done without a vast amount of pre-existing wealth.
It’s pitched as some sort of universal fix, but can’t be done without a vast amount of pre-existing wealth
Right, which we have. There are also enough wealthy countries and the EU that could stop causing chaos in developing countries while supporting our own, that would make everyone’s lives better.
You were the first person in this comment chain to mention the US (important to note that the post doesn’t, either). Nobody said the US couldn’t do this, they just explained the reason Norway can.
worth noting how norway is rich off of oil
True and the Nordics have plenty of poverty themselves once people look closer.
(This is just saying it exists, nothing more)
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Not even a successful society is perfect. It certainly doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. It’s still better than what most of the rest of the world is doing.
Nobody said we shouldn’t. The point is, we shouldn’t look away from the issues in a country just because they are doing better than others in some cases.
It means that when people advocate for improvements, YOU SHOULD STOP IMMEDIATELY PLAYING CRAB BUCKET.
Let better be better and then sure raise some issues. Your comment seems intentionally obtuse.
You’re seeing a motivation behind my comment that isn’t there, so you really shouldn’t call me obtuse. Is Norway doing pretty good? Yes! Could they also do better? Yes! I’m not playing crab bucket, but I’m also not sticking my head in the sand here.
Maybe next time open with the “pretty good” stuff. Before this comment everything cooking was negative which sure looks like crab bucket (not just from you, but also from you) and I’m still leaning toward obtuse by omission tbh.
I’m sorry I didn’t spoon feed my comment for you, mister obtuse.
I forgive you.
…your argument is that we literally should not criticize ideas until they’re actually implemented and proven to be lacking? How does one establish that something is better without open critique?
deleted by creator
I think it speaks more to who you are as a pwrson that your first reaction is to criticize an idea.
Negativity begets negativity. I choose to look for positivity and hope first, and criticize later.
Norway relies on the exploitation of billions in the global south, as all of the western world does.
What does that even mean? For those of us who aren’t in the know like you are, that phrase doesn’t mean anything to us.
And if you’re open to a friendly suggestion, nix the “western world” propaganda; focus on explaining the “exploitation of billions in the global south” part.
Norway doesn’t produce cocoa beans. Norway doesn’t produce cotton, or bananas, or iron ore, or cobalt, or gold, or most basic raw materials you need to run a society. Neither do Spain, or Germany, or France, or the USA. Instead, these countries focus on the production of high value-added goods and services, which they can do because they are historically highly industrialized, developed, and have high levels of education, infrastructure and concentration of productive capital.
In this manner, Germany imports iron ore from poor countries in the global south at low prices, and exports cars at high prices. In the international market, therefore, one hour of German/French/Norwegian work is exchanged often for tens of hours of work from India, or Congo, or Mexico. This is unequal exchange, and is the pillar of neocolonialism.
Through political, economical and military powers, the western world has ensured that the global south remains underdeveloped. IMF predatory loans and neoliberal policy impositions, support for fascists or monarchists, coups, or outright military invasions are some of the most common tools the west uses to maintain these countries underdeveloped and with cheap labor.
Care to give some sources to that?
With quick google-fu Nordics seem to be in pretty comfy positions in world wide rankings. Not at the top but certainly in the best 20%
Also there is huge difference in the sense that even if you are poor in the nordics you still have right to healthcare and education. At some places you would just be fucked.
There are people who slip through the cracks (usually those with mental health/drug issues), and that the “basic level” of support hasn’t caught up with inflation…
But regardless, it’s 10000x better than the US system/the system in most other countries.
Worth noting that most of the time oil (newly discovered natural resources really)makes a country poorer than richer. See Venezuela and such.
So good on Norway to not give in to unbridled corruption and out that money on a public fund to make its own citizen wealthy
Well yes, Norway’s leader wasn’t assassinated by the US, followed by sanctions and throwing money and weapons at militant factions. I wonder why…
This is bad analysis. Natural resources don’t make countries poorer, they make the US/UK/France/Spain/Italy invade you.
Libya, rich in oil, was the richest country in Africa (and highest Human Development Index) until the west bombed it and triggered a civil war. Iran was on the way to use its oil for its own profits by nationalizing it under the democratically elected leftist government of Mosaddeq until it got blockaded and couped by MI6+CIA and a corrupt monarch got reinstated. Venezuela took millions of people out of poverty until US sanctions came in an attempt to kill the socialist government and put millions through hardship. Saudi Arabia, having a government very cozy with the US, gets away with no US coups, but has 70% of the population being effectively slaves.
There was a full-blown civil war in Libya well before the intervention of NATO (which had unanimous support from the UN security counicl).
And how did the bombing help exactly? Not to mention the western participation in the formation of the civil war itself, with its constant meddling and sanctioning against the Libyan government.
Not unanimous, but not vetoed either (Russia and China abstained from voting).
Sarkozy’s personal interest in the matter also make me doubt France’s wouldn’t have been different under any other government
Edit: I’m not disagreeing with the whole “the UN allowed it”, and the general unrest in Libya before the intervention. Just adding context
Sorry, got confused with the unanimous vote before it, which sanctioned Libya.
Hmm, somebody should let the Middle East know that they’re poor.
More likely, the discovery of oil attracts the worst kind of industrialists, who will exploit the workers into abject poverty, and take all the wealth. It isn’t the oil that makes the people poor, it is the government who sells them out.
I don’t get your point? The US is one of, if not the wealthiest, country in the world. We made money off of slaves, oil, gold, child labor and now taking advantage of our working class without paying for healthcare. It also used to be innovation, but that’s going away. We should be doing even better. How many of the wealthiest in the world live here?
The argument isn’t that the US can’t do it, it’s that there are only a few countries that ever could. It’s pitched as some sort of universal fix, but can’t be done without a vast amount of pre-existing wealth.
Right, which we have. There are also enough wealthy countries and the EU that could stop causing chaos in developing countries while supporting our own, that would make everyone’s lives better.
You were the first person in this comment chain to mention the US (important to note that the post doesn’t, either). Nobody said the US couldn’t do this, they just explained the reason Norway can.
Worth noting that the Nordic model made Norway, and other Nordic countries, quite rich even before they discovered oil.
It is replicable, and continued to make Nordic countries without oil, rich as well.