Debunking Polidice: Arguments Against Social Democracy—Scandinavian Economies Part 2

Debunking Polidice: Arguments Against Social Democracy—Scandinavian Economies Part 2


Socialism isn’t really just something confined
solely on that of the Marxist theory. “Denmark and Sweden are market economies, not socialist
state of planned economies. I hate this argument, it’s taking the sheer dishonesty of the first
argument and coming on full circle. They’re taking that strawman of progressives being
literal socialists and they have the nerve to turn around and say that these countries
aren’t socialists when they are the ones labelling universal healthcare as socialism. This is
taking anti-semantic arguments to a whole other level. Nobody is claiming that Finland
is literally socialist, this really just goes to show you how intellectually desperate the
right is on this issue.” Socialism by definition could be any political or economic system
involving political centralisation, economic central planning, etc and you do have parts
of socialism even within the British economy for example and yes, a mixed economy. I do
understand his point that these economies and social democrats believe in this mixed
economy today and there’s nothing wrong with that, I can understand that argument. But,
it’s wrong to say that universal healthcare isn’t socialism, that is socialism. Socialism
is political centralisation and that’s part of what socialism is. That’s why the NHS has
been an abysmal failure because it’s socialism and Sweden was just one of those countries,
like I said that, you know, brought in the private initiatives for the sake of that.
“It was actually, it was a lovely country, it was all very clean, extremely expensive
though.” “Yeah.” “Guess how much a pint was? £7.30” But when it comes down to it, when
you argue on the economic calculation problem it completely destroys those who favour social
democracies. “Argument #3: social democracies are bankrupt. Far from it, in fact, most of
these countries are far more financially stable than the United States. Most of them have
lower debt GDP ratios and almost all of them still have that triple A credit rating, which
we lost several years ago.” Well, like I’ve mentioned before, the serious problem with
these countries is the fact that they do have a serious debt problem, there’s no denying
that fact. You could look at Denmark; you could look at Sweden; you could look at Norway,
they have a serious debt problem, there’s no denying it, or that of Finland, these countries
do have a serious debt problem. At the end of the day, that’s because of all the reckless
spending and wasting of such natural resources. Norway being the prime example, it tore the
backside out of the North Sea Oil for the past 5 to 6 decades. That’s not the sign of
an economy that’s efficient. You see, these countries aren’t as glorious as you make them
out to be because in the long-term, never mind the short-term, but in the long-term,
are these countries going to sustain that? Is Norway going to sustain the higher tax
rates and the big welfare state? No, it’s not, because it’s going to have to find some
way in order to be productive to get the money coming into their country and the North Sea
Oil’s not going to last them forever and they recently had divested away from North Sea
Oil. “Argument #4: What about Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal? These countries really
are basically irresponsible and riddled with corruption, but not only are they in the minority
of social democracies, but it’s not entirely their fault that they’re in trouble, it’s
the European Union’s fault from imposing austerity and tight money policies. So, honestly it’s
right-wing policies that are being imposed on them like austerity.” Greece has thousands
of years of history and is arguably a country with the worst credit rating in world history.
It’s a long history of socialism and that’s why Greece is in the mess that it’s in today.
So is Portugal, so is Spain and why are they in that mess? Socialism, because they’re profligate,
because they don’t know how to live within their means, because they don’t understand
the value of capitalism. Yes, today they have these mixed economies where you have the private
sector and they try to mix it with this of socialism, but how are you supposed to run
a mixed economy, how are you supposed to run an economy with businesses and higher tax
rates and then expect good results at the end of that where smaller business people
struggle and it ends up creating monopolies in the hands of giant corporations, because
that precisely defines what the European Union really is and even if these countries were
independent from the European Union, they would still be rife with corporatism, which
is their own undoing. How are you supposed to have an economy that prospers off the back
of that? The social democracies that you’re speaking of, such as that of, you know, these
countries, you’re calling out for the strong government regulation as I said. The social
market economies have extremely low levels of government regulation, so they’re able
to sustain themselves to some degree, you’re not calling out for that, however, you want
to strongly regulate the private sector, you basically want to do a Scottish National Party;
you want to do an SNP. “Argument #5: you may get a lot from the government, but have fun
paying those taxes. If you’re lower or middle income, you’ll get more from the government
than you’ll pay in taxes and even if you’re upper income, you’ll have the so little safety
net incase something happens to you. Now, as I said at the freedom tunes video, it’s
good for the rich to pay higher taxes since their income is more disposable and by the
way, the U.S. spends much, much more per capita on healthcare and education than Europeans
do, so if you include the costs of private premiums and tuition, then you’re much better
off paying the taxes.” So, I don’t need to go into this argument too much because I’ve
covered basically the issue with the severe lack of productivity, but in relation to that
and what I will add, is the fact that many of the smaller business people are struggling
and many of them end up going under as a result of the higher tax rates, this ends up, you
know, preventing many other people who would love to start up their own small business,
it prevents them from ever doing so. This all goes down to the argument that, yes, government
creates jobs, but it destroys far more jobs than what it creates. Government is not a
job creator, the job creator is the private sector and if you’re going to strangle the
private sector half to death, whether it’s the strong government regulation, which is
what these social democrats would call out for, or, of course, the higher tax rates,
then, of course they’re going to be crippled and it’s not better off for the poor because
what does the private sector do? It basically passes off the higher tax rates off onto the
taxpayer. In other words, what businesses do in order to compensate for the higher taxes,
they raise their costs of goods and services or they pay off the workers so that there’s
basically fewer workers and they might replace them with automation. “Argument #6: None of
the Scandinavian countries have minimum wage laws or burdensome regulations, so they’re
more in line with laissez-faire free market capitalism. This is actually misleading. They
might not have an official minimum wage, but their unions are solo backed by the government
that their effective minimum wages through collective bargaining are sometimes even higher
Bernie’s goal of $15 an hour. Anyone who works in these countries makes a living wage, in
fact, this is more progressive than having a set minimum wage and as for regulations
as you’ve probably heard me say it depends on the regulation itself, it’s true these
countries have fewer unnecessary regulations, but they’re very strict when it comes to regulations
to protect workers, consumers and the environment.” So the purpose of this argument and I’ve already
argued on the unemployment of these Scandinavian countries like that of Denmark, changing it
slightly, if you were to talk about the minimum wage, you can check out the video where I
explained in detail about the minimum wage because when you raise the price of the lower-skilled
workers, they’re no longer in demand from the employers. They end up getting paid off,
you end up seeing, again, business owners compensating for that, so they’ll raise the
costs; who does the cost get passed off onto? Always gets passed off onto the taxpayer or
that of the people who are the consumers, at the end of the day, well, they would be
taxpayers. “Argument #7: If these countries are so prosperous and happy, then why do they
have such high suicide rates? There is absolutely no correlation between countries level on
prosperity and their suicide rate. In fact, these are the countries with the lowest suicide
rates, so, by your logic, which is far to be like; Pakistan, Egypt, Syria and Venezuela.
By the way, here’s a comparison between our suicide rate and the Scandinavian rates.”
Well, the argument hasn’t really been debunked because if you were to look at the United
States of America, then yes, it’s been in a severe economic mess and because of the
strong government regulation over the private sector. One would only need to stare at that
of the medical care costs in America that’s soared out of control and for many years they’ve
been faced with that of a serious unemployment problem, I think Baltimore is a place that’s
got a serious problems, even Detroit and now you look at California, it’s going in the
same direction. All these places that are ending up in a severe economic mess because
of all the socialism. Now, and that’s not to say all States are the same, but collectively,
the United States is strongly corporatist, it’s no wonder it’s got a serious problem.
“Argument #8: “Until the recent tax cuts, all of these countries have lower corporate
tax rates than the U.S. Extremely misleading, if you adjust for loopholes and deductions,
then before the Trump cuts, our effective corporate tax rate was a measly 14 percent
and now it’s even lower.” Okay, I cannot touch upon the argument to do with the United States
because I don’t know anything of recent. I think there was a reduction in taxation, but,
that’s not looking at things as a whole because then if you were to compare the Scandinavian
economies, they’re sitting with extremely low levels of government regulation, so their
economies are fairing better off because they’ve got strong economic business freedom. That’s
the complete opposite to that of the United States of America where they have a serious
problem where they strongly regulate the private sector and it’s why it’s been faced with such
a problem over so many years. “Argument #9: Okay so, maybe social democracy works in countries
like Denmark, but their population is only 5.7 million, you can’t expect that to work
here too. I’ve heard lots and lots of people make this argument, but, none of them have
ever been able to back it up. If you are someone who makes this argument, I want you to leave
a comment explaining why in detail their population matters, in specific ways you can, like, sure,
there are some cases where population matters, but this is not one of them. I’ve heard people
argue that fewer people means less spending, but it also means less revenue, so what’s
your point? And more importantly, where is your completely arbitrary dividing line? Canda’s
population is 37 million; South Korea’s population is 51 million; UK’s population is 66 million;
France’s population is 67 million; Germany’s population is 83 million and Japan’s population
is 127 million. The U.S. has 327 million people, but that’s only 4 times the population of
Germany, well, Germany’s population is 15 times Denmark’s population. The ratios vary
between Denmark and Germany is 4 times that between the U.S. and Germany. And, by the
way, if you were just dead convinced that we simply have too many people for a social
democracy, then we can find a way for the States to do it. California is by far our
largest state and its population is half the population of Germany.” These countries are
not successful because economic success would be measured down to that of, not just to do
with the material wealth, the living conditions and so many things that you would measure,
it would come down to efficiency. After all, why does the study of economics exist? It
exists because resources are not infinite because resources are finite. It’s all about
a question of our place on this earth with scarce natural resources and how we can better
improve the material standards of living of the masses whilst using the fewest resources
as possible, because, after all, if resources were infinite, you wouldn’t need the study
of economics because there’s no need to economise, is there? Now, if you were to contrast Denmark
to that of Hong Kong; Hong Kong had practically no natural resources, it was getting richer
each and every single year because of the strong free market economy. Unbelievable,
because if you were to contrast the average poor person of the 1950s in Hong Kong to the
average poor person of Hong Kong today, there’s a massive difference. Hong Kong was able to
lift the masses out of poverty, it made the rich richer and the poor richer. Now, if you
were to contrast that to Denmark or any other Scandinavian economy that has literally tore
the backside out of natural resources and has been faced with severe lack of productivity
in its domestic economy and is sitting with a debt problem and has a serious problem where
they cannot afford to produce in their own home countries; how on earth can anybody in
the right mind call that economically successful? It makes no rational sense.

5 thoughts on “Debunking Polidice: Arguments Against Social Democracy—Scandinavian Economies Part 2

  1. Scotty M with that third point, what Polidice was saying was that compared to other countries, social democracies have far less debt.

  2. I love your shirt Scotty. Also have you ever thought about doing a livestream with some other Libertarian Youtubers or maybe even a debate?

  3. Just found this channel yesterday and I love it! Very well researched and well argued, cannot believe the low number of views.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *