The Ugly Face of Socialism

[StThomasMore]

Actually what we evil republicans have an issue with is the abuses carried out by unions and the modern union mentality of doing as little of work as possible for the most money we can get and using union dues to support whatever candidates that the union bosses determine who is worthy of union dues money. How about the strangle hold that public sector unions have placed on the tax payers.

I have no problem with unions. They are a great thing if done in moderation, but when it gets to the point that unions are putting a big enough strangle hold on companies that it forces jobs to go overseas then I have a problem.

If workers exploitation didn't exist , then unions wouldn't be needed. That's why they were created in the first place.

Going overseas to take advantage of workers who are willing to take extremely low wages because they are destitute is another form of workers explotation and abuse. Rerem Novarem explicitly condemns this:

"Wealthy owners of the means of production and employers must never forget that both divine and human law forbid them to squeeze the poor and wretched for the sake of gain or to profit from the helplessness of others."(#17)

"As regards protection of this world’s good, the first task is to save the wretched workers from the brutality of those who make use of human beings as mere instruments for the unrestrained acquisition of wealth."



As the Catholic Church states, the main goal of the proper treatment of workers and workers rights is the right to a living wage, where the worker and employer can bargain based on the basic living needs of the worker. This would help even out the gaping work inequality among the blue and white collar.

The U.S. Catholic bishops gave the need for a living wage priority in their Statement on Church and Social Order (1940):


The first claim of labor, which takes priority over any claim of the owners to profits, respects the right to a living wage. By the term living wage we understand a wage sufficient not merely for the decent support of the workingman himself but also of his family

Quadragesimo Anno (1931), “In the first place, the worker must be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family.”


I'm not saying one should force companies to pay a living wage. If a company is unable to then they should pay what they are able to. However if they are able to pay a living wage, it is an immediate thing they should do once they are able to. But a wage where a wife is forced to work because the husband is paid so low is against Catholic social teaching, since it states:

A wage so low that it must be supplemented by the wage of wife and mother or by the children of the family before it can provide adequate food, clothing, and shelter together with essential spiritual and cultural needs cannot be regarded as a living wage.

 

[MKJ]

I'm not saying one should force companies to pay a living wage. If a company is unable to then they should pay what they are able to. However if they are able to pay a living wage, it is an immediate thing they should do once they are able to. But a wage where a wife is forced to work because the husband is paid so low is against Catholic social teaching, since it states:

If a job does not create enough value that it can provide a living wage, I'd suggest it isn't a job worth doing.

 

[MKJ]

The problem with pure capitalism is that it becomes too abused by the wealthy and in turn nearly always ends up turning into a plutocracy. I don't even consider America capitalist anymore, it is plutocratic in every way. As Pope Leo XIII said, when you put capital as king, you put capital above the human being, which dehumanizes the worker.

If the wealthy were honest and did not take hostage the free market by their weight, then capitalism would be ok and the average worker would truly be able to flourish and expand his potential. But when the wealthy monopolize the market, like when Fannie Mae did with the mortgage market, or Lehman Brothers with banking, or people like Alan Greenspan looking the other way while companies were committing insider trading, excessive usury/lending, and control fraud, they stifle the potential of others who end up being sucked down by their bad business systems.

So capitalism in America doesn't really allow people to flourish or develop by their own potential. Their potential is limited by the constrains of what the corporatist elite put on the free market systems. The capitalistic abuse and control of a few wealthy CEOs can mean the loss of thousands of middle and lower class workers. This is a moral problem when the lives of thousands of workers become dependent on the lifeblood of a few wealthy bankers and CEOs.

THis is a problem integral to capitalism thoogh - it will always become a plutocracy or something like it. It isn't just America, it is a problem with the form, because the free market is not based on any human will for the good of all. The free market is based on human desire and who can pay. Human desire is fallen and tainted by greed and other things, and can even be manipulated. And the destitute cannot pay much for their real needs. The market produces what they can convince people to pay the most for. So, Viagra rather than spending money on research for malaria or clean water for all.

THose who are most willing to ignore the common good and manipulate others, or who start out with a leg up through inheritance or whatever, are almost always going to be able to get ahead of those who do not lack conscience, follow the rules, or start with nothing. And because money brings power, they are often able to crush these others by taking losses temporarily, manipulating consumers through advertising, or encouraging regulation that crushes smaller players.

 

[Erose]

If workers exploitation didn't exist , then unions wouldn't be needed. That's why they were created in the first place.

Going overseas to take advantage of workers who are willing to take extremely low wages because they are destitute is another form of workers explotation and abuse. Rerem Novarem explicitly condemns this:

"Wealthy owners of the means of production and employers must never forget that both divine and human law forbid them to squeeze the poor and wretched for the sake of gain or to profit from the helplessness of others."(#17)

"As regards protection of this world’s good, the first task is to save the wretched workers from the brutality of those who make use of human beings as mere instruments for the unrestrained acquisition of wealth."



As the Catholic Church states, the main goal of the proper treatment of workers and workers rights is the right to a living wage, where the worker and employer can bargain based on the basic living needs of the worker. This would help even out the gaping work inequality among the blue and white collar.

The U.S. Catholic bishops gave the need for a living wage priority in their Statement on Church and Social Order (1940):


The first claim of labor, which takes priority over any claim of the owners to profits, respects the right to a living wage. By the term living wage we understand a wage sufficient not merely for the decent support of the workingman himself but also of his family

Quadragesimo Anno (1931), “In the first place, the worker must be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family.”


I'm not saying one should force companies to pay a living wage. If a company is unable to then they should pay what they are able to. However if they are able to pay a living wage, it is an immediate thing they should do once they are able to. But a wage where a wife is forced to work because the husband is paid so low is against Catholic social teaching, since it states:

A wage so low that it must be supplemented by the wage of wife and mother or by the children of the family before it can provide adequate food, clothing, and shelter together with essential spiritual and cultural needs cannot be regarded as a living wage.

Yeah the key is a decent wage for the work provided. I work in all types of companies and see all types of employee/employer relationships. The plants that have a union are the lower performing ones with a lower employee happiness and the wages are not significantly different.

The three main reasons for companies going overseas are unrealistic demands of unions, the high levels of taxation on companies in this country, and the unrealistic regulations forced on them. Basically it has become too hard for these companies to make a profit here and for them to survive they must go somewhere else.


To be honest the best friend for workers is a low unemployment rate where employers have to compete for the workforces.

 

[AMDG]

If workers exploitation didn't exist , then unions wouldn't be needed. That's why they were created in the first place.

They definitely were *not*. They were created to insure segregation. When men wanted to smoke a cigar, all they had to do was "look for the union label", to be sure that no Chinese were employed. Why on Long Island, New York there are still remnants of that intention. Only whites were allowed in unions. (And of course they charged ridiculous and unneeded prices.) Blacks undercut that by being able to work for less (and of course, did the same quality of work). So a law was passed that made it so that only union work was allowed. Everyone had to hire union or they were breaking the law.

And just because someplace is unionized that doesn't mean that they care about the employees. When I worked in an long running big business on Long Island, it was non-unionized. They offered hot lunches at discount (50 cents for a hot lunch like stuffed pork or chicken, mashed potatoes, and vegetable) plus a steep discount to all the employees for things that the business made (it was a publishing house so if their book cost $20.00, an employee could get it for about $2.00.) It was almost family with even sports teams after work. It was really cold when the union started picketing for it to be unionized. So the company offered hot cocoa and soup to the picketers. Of course, the union won anyway. Last I heard the publishing house is out of business.

Unions surely don't save money either. My local parish had to put a new roof on the hall and have it painted. The Knights of Colombus offered to do it for free--think they were even going to "eat" the costs of materials. But oh-no, that couldn't be, we were *forced* to pay a union to have it done and believe me that was unbelievably expensive. We are *still* paying it off. And what do the unions do with that collected dues? Why donate to Obama's election--that's right the unions are in Obama's pocket. And Catholics who don't believe in abortion were *forced* to help elect someone who absolutely *hates* Catholics and the pre-born--he's against the Church at every turn.

 

[MKJ]

Really you actually believe this crap you are spewing? You know what, one of the great things about this country is if anyone wants to better their life financially and are willing to work hard for it they can do it. The problem is there are too many people out there who want a better life but are too lazy to do it with their blood sweat and tears. So what do they do? Well they covet what others have earned through their blood, sweat and tears.

Also one word of advice. I have never been offered a decent job by a poor person.

Do you really see that in America though? Things are actually really hard there for small business owners, as I'm sure you've experienced yourself. There are other countries that have much much better regulations and atmospheres for small business, so that the average citizen really can get ahead and own his own business and livelihood, if that is what he wants, without being crushed by regulation or big players. There are places in Europe where 50% of businesses are owned by independent operators.

But that is achieved by legal structures favouring smaller operators, or perhaps especially lack of legal structures favouring larger operators, not by a totally free market like some libertarians suggest would be effective.

 

[MKJ]

They definitely were *not*. They were created to insure segregation. When men wanted to smoke a cigar, all they had to do was "look for the union label", to be sure that no Chinese were employed. Why on Long Island, New York there are still remnants of that intention. Only whites were allowed in unions. (And of course they charged ridiculous and unneeded prices. Blacks undercut that by being able to work for less (and of course, did the same quality of work). So a law was passed that made it so that only union work was allowed. Everyone had to hire union or they were breaking the law.

OK. Unionism doesn't, in fact, have its origins in the USA. And the use of unionism to further the particular aims of some does not mean that was its only purpose.

 

[Erose]

Do you really see that in America though? Things are actually really hard there for small business owners, as I'm sure you've experienced yourself. There are other countries that have much much better regulations and atmospheres for small business, so that the average citizen really can get ahead and own his own business and livelihood, if that is what he wants, without being crushed by regulation or big players. There are places in Europe where 50% of businesses are owned by independent operators.

But that is achieved by legal structures favouring smaller operators, or perhaps especially lack of legal structures favouring larger operators, not by a totally free market like some libertarians suggest would be effective.

Two things i am a small business owner who started my business during the period and quite honestly doing well enough to support myself and 4 others. But takes hard work and some sacrifice. If you are not interested in doing either nor willing to accept the risk, then don't do it.

Another point on your comment about regulations. Regulations here in this country come from the executive branch of government and this President done more to oppress companies including small businesses than any other President in recent memory. Why? Because unions don't like small businesses because they don't have, use or need unions. Unions own this president and he is going to do whatever they tell him to do.

 

[A Penitent Man]

If workers exploitation didn't exist , then unions wouldn't be needed. That's why they were created in the first place. [quote/]

Unions in the UK came about following the introduction of technology into the workplace, which lead to a deskilling of trades and took work and therefore the ability to put food on the table away from craftsmen. The response from the newly rich mill and factory owners was to drive down wages and increase hours worked, this coupled with artificial and ridiculous corn prices lead people to band together as they were exploited and worked into early graves.

That was how and why Trade Unions sprang up!

They later formed the British Labour Party. So as they could have a voice in parliament against the same people who had starved and driven all the folk out of Ireland and Scotland, just so Lord this and that had somewhere to hunt without having to look at poor people,the Conservatives or Tories as they are called (Tory is an old Irish term for an highway robber BTW).

The Trade Unions set up the first libraries and taught people how to read and write, the one thing the folk at the top of the pile did not want!

Sadly they have become juggernauts in a changed world and are as corrupt as any politician or journalist becomes.

We over here have always seen the unions in the States, maybe wrongly as another arm of organised crime intent on exploiting not only the poor downtrodden workers but also squeezing every last drop out of employers.

I myself have always believed that the Reformation in England and the split with Rome ultimatley created the environment that led to the Industrial Revolution. As landowners became mill owners and started exploiting the poor. This created the class society we still have in England and which will always be devisive and used to split this nation. To be honest this country was better off before the Normans (Aristocracy) arrived..

The world is possibly at its most scary tipping point since the dark days of WW2 and I pray to God we stop fighting over petty differences over who is the richest and most powerful and sort this world out.

Facsist,Conservative,Liberal,Socialist,Communist,Anarchist.
Whatever folk label themselves we are all dependant on each other at the end of the day. One World,One Human Race, One God.

May The Lord Have Mercy On Us All.

God Bless.

 

[MKJ]

Two things i am a small business owner who started my business during the period and quite honestly doing well enough to support myself and 4 others. But takes hard work and some sacrifice. If you are not interested in doing either nor willing to accept the risk, then don't do it.

Another point on your comment about regulations. Regulations here in this country come from the executive branch of government and this President done more to oppress companies including small businesses than any other President in recent memory. Why? Because unions don't like small businesses because they don't have, use or need unions. Unions own this president and he is going to do whatever they tell him to do.

You don't really seem to have addressed my point though, which is that many other places have a much better climate for small business to flourish compared to the US. I am a bit flummoxed as to why you would think that the American system is particularly good at giving people that kind of opportunity.

Regulations and practices that favour large corporations are something that have been around for a long, long time. And regulations that are difficult for small businesses don't come only from the executive branch of the federal gov't - you can see them at every level, including the municipal level.

If you think this is all about Obama, or really has much to do with him at all, I don't know what to say. He hasn't done anything real against corporatism and has in fact supported it, but he sure as heck didn't do anything to create it - our economies have been on that road since before we were both born.

 

[Baqueinfaith]

You don't really seem to have addressed my point though, which is that many other places have a much better climate for small business to flourish compared to the US. I am a bit flummoxed as to why you would think that the American system is particularly good at giving people that kind of opportunity.

Regulations and practices that favour large corporations are something that have been around for a long, long time. And regulations that are difficult for small businesses don't come only from the executive branch of the federal gov't - you can see them at every level, including the municipal level.

If you think this is all about Obama, or really has much to do with him at all, I don't know what to say. He hasn't done anything real against corporatism and has in fact supported it, but he sure as heck didn't do anything to create it - our economies have been on that road since before we were both born.

Why not give an example?

I can think of at least one that might support your argument, but I want to hear what you have to say.

Funny thing is, everyone on here trots out Catholic Social Justice to support their anti-capitalist rhetoric, but no one seems to see how, by those standards, mass immigration is completely unjust.

But that would be too honest for some posters, who see the Catholic church as a big smokescreen for their far-leftist political views.

I wouldn't be suprised if half the poeple posting in this forum are secretly very pro-abortion, because otherwise you guys sound like Janeane Garofalo.

 

[Baqueinfaith]

Lumping all socialists together is a mistake. Take a look at pure, unadulterated capitalism. Many if not most far Right Republicans would prefer to see the United States have a pure 100% unfiltered capitalist system...that would look like:

no unions (workers have zero right to bargain for their wages, benefits, cost of living, health care, hours, leave, nothing. We'd look like Oliver Twist all over again)

all the tax burden on the middle class, zero on the wealthy because the rich are the "job-creators" (big eye roll)

zero environmental restrictions. Who cares? Let the earth get loaded with trash, water tainted, ecosystems wiped out, global warming, clear-cut the land, exploit it for $$$$

death penalty carte blanche---juice inmates and ask questions later

get rid of Medicare---you get old, that's your problem, not ours! I wasn't put on this earth to take care of the elderly. Free market, man...sorry!

get rid of social security---you lost your money on the stock market? Hey, you knew the risk! Sorry bud....lost your pension? oh wait, we got rid of pensions!!

lawsuits? Get rid of 'em. Doctors can commit malpractice. They are professionals and should always be trusted....just call any challenge to a quack a "frivolous lawsuit"

defense spending----DO IT! without end in sight! The more we feed the weapons of war and the military-industrial complex and the principles of PNAC, the bigger our portfolio

Wall Street financial regulations? Heck no. We'll just bail 'em out anyway...ya can't lose

Outsourcing...love it

Downsizing....adore it

Protecting big insurance companies...oh yeah!


If we just cut taxes to zero, cut all regulations, destroy the government's ability to regulate everything, and get our country into plenty of wars, we'll prosper....

That's the philosophy that's been the GOP for years now. And we're in a recession...so I don't see how we can trash people that want mild socialism as a bunch of Stalinists when we see what unchecked and wild capitalism has done to the United States?

We hear the anti-socialist argument that they "seek to create a utopia" but how is that different from the capitalist elite Republican who wishes to see a country club fortune 500 rich man's utopia where the middle class is squashed into mediocrity at best and down into poverty at worst?

I think a rational course of action is a capitalist country with plenty of social programs, more taxes on the wealthy, and plenty of co-ops and companies where the employees own the company and less where a rich CEO gets a $500 million bonus even when his country is driven to the brink of bankruptcy and failure?

"Many if not most far Right Republicans would prefer to see the United States have a pure 100% unfiltered capitalist system...that would look like:"

Okay, sugar pie, whatever. Continue to talk out of your ass. Have you ever met a "far-right Republican"?

Stop creating this ridiculous straw man you know perfectly well doesn't actually exist, and then some actually right of center people might start to listen to you.

Or was this just ideological masturbation?

The funniest part was the whole thing about quack doctors. Whatever, baby. Go run home and cry to mommy becuase obviously anyone that doesn't agree 100% with your point of view is some evil "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] 0 REGULATIONS EXPLOIT EVERYONE CAPITALIST!!!!!".

 

[11822]

Huh? It is the liberals in congress and the Whitehouse that protecting the top 1%. From what I understand these same liberals don't see nothing wrong with socialism, since they are trying to push it here in the US because it has helped Europe out so much.

Protecting Americas Capital is not protecting the greedy 1%, its protecting american interests, and the economy. The rich supply jobs and give much to charity. Hows the job market lately under our new socialist influence? Hasn't Obama proven that his way is not necessarily the right way? Socialism or Capitalism. You decide.

 

[MKJ]

Why not give an example?

I can think of at least one that might support your argument, but I want to hear what you have to say.

Funny thing is, everyone on here trots out Catholic Social Justice to support their anti-capitalist rhetoric, but no one seems to see how, by those standards, mass immigration is completely unjust.

But that would be too honest for some posters, who see the Catholic church as a big smokescreen for their far-leftist political views.

I wouldn't be suprised if half the poeple posting in this forum are secretly very pro-abortion, because otherwise you guys sound like Janeane Garofalo.

I'm not sure what you want an example of? A country? An annoying regulation? If you mean a country, Sweden is one I might mention. Which is not to say that it or any other country is perfect, by any means. (And I guess it raises the question, what do we mean by good for small business? Easy to start one? They do well?)

But even if there were no places that were good for small business in any way, I wouldn't say that means the US and Canada are doing well for them. The way we treat small business as opposed to big business is what tells the tale. Big business can get preferred services at banks, government subsidies, many avoid paying taxes, they can drive legislation and regulations that are favorable to themselves, they can use their deeper pockets to drive small competitors out of business. And part of the reason is that our regulations allow them to grow much bigger than they naturally would.

These are all things that make it very difficult for small business to compete, even if they are offering better service.

And of course, to even think about starting a small business you usually need some capital, and if you get a wage that doesn't let you acquire that, you are just not going to get that opportunity with the same freedom as someone born into a wealthier family.

 

[Baqueinfaith]

Newsflash to everyone posting here:

America is neither 100% Capitalistic, nor 100% Socialistic.

And I am not interested in any more ridiculous posts about how if only we would go towards some ridiculous *pure* capitalism or *pure* socialism, it would all be perfect, but we can't because the other side is a caricature.

 

[MKJ]

"Many if not most far Right Republicans would prefer to see the United States have a pure 100% unfiltered capitalist system...that would look like:"

Okay, sugar pie, whatever. Continue to talk out of your ass. Have you ever met a "far-right Republican"?

Stop creating this ridiculous straw man you know perfectly well doesn't actually exist, and then some actually right of center people might start to listen to you.

Or was this just ideological masturbation?

The funniest part was the whole thing about quack doctors. Whatever, baby. Go run home and cry to mommy becuase obviously anyone that doesn't agree 100% with your point of view is some evil "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] 0 REGULATIONS EXPLOIT EVERYONE CAPITALIST!!!!!".

I have spoken to a surprising number of very committed neoliberals who think that there should be little or no regulation. One could argue they are idiots and don't count, but they do seem to have some numbers and loud mouths.

 

[Baqueinfaith]

I'm not sure what you want an example of? A country? An annoying regulation? If you mean a country, Sweden is one I might mention. Which is not to say that it or any other country is perfect, by any means. (And I guess it raises the question, what do we mean by good for small business? Easy to start one? They do well?)

But even if there were no places that were good for small business in any way, I wouldn't say that means the US and Canada are doing well for them. The way we treat small business as opposed to big business is what tells the tale. Big business can get preferred services at banks, government subsidies, many avoid paying taxes, they can drive legislation and regulations that are favorable to themselves, they can use their deeper pockets to drive small competitors out of business. And part of the reason is that our regulations allow them to grow much bigger than they naturally would.

These are all things that make it very difficult for small business to compete, even if they are offering better service.

And of course, to even think about starting a small business you usually need some capital, and if you get a wage that doesn't let you acquire that, you are just not going to get that opportunity with the same freedom as someone born into a wealthier family.

Sweden or Denmark would be one example. Italy might be another.

Then again, in Sweden, one family owns most of the big corporations. And if you look at professional salaries in those countries...they're just pathetic. I suppose a busdriver would make more than he would in the US...but that's not saying much. And good luck acquiring capital on a Swedish bus driver's salary...maybe if the cost of living were the same as it was in Thailand...but not in Sweden. No sirree.

In fact...even a surgeon in scandinavia doesn't make enough to acquire real capital.

I guess there's less pressure over there, because until recently anyway there were no bad areas you had to pay to avoid (key words: until recently). Until recently there was very little crime. And if a bus driver and a nurse make the same, very little reason to kill yourself going to nursing school.

The main advantage of Scandinavia in my mind is that this whole cancerous ghetto culture is less pervasive over there. In fact, much could be said about most of the developed world. Then again, if those countries are as committed to mass immigration and militant secularism as they seem...good luck is all I can say. At the risk of offending some of the Europeans on this forum...have you seen how trashy white Europeans act when they get a little bit of booze in them? It's absolutely mindboggling the violence and anti-social behavior over there. Not to mention the skyrocketing crime rates (as opposed to falling rates in America. Mainly this is because in America we still imprison people occasionally. And in Europe they seem to just coddle them, loudly scream about how superior Europe is, then put their fingers in their ears and sing "la la la la la la evidence to the contrary shall not be heard la la la la la la la") But I digress...

But yes, I agree with your example of Scandinavia.

 

[Baqueinfaith]

I have spoken to a surprising number of very committed neoliberals who think that there should be little or no regulation. One could argue they are idiots and don't count, but they do seem to have some numbers and loud mouths.

Little regulation, or no regulation?

There's a difference.

And what other safeguards to they suggest placing? All the ones I speak to suggest a number of additional safeguards, plus loss of privileges for the powerful that go alongside their regime of "LESS" regulation.

NOt to mention, some parts of that rant were just bizarre. Yeah, all those poor ambulance-chasing lawyers and their low class, thuggish clients with their perfectly justified lawsuits against doctors. Mmmmhmmm. What version of the world are you living in?

And then, mistaking these Ron Paul libertardians. Yes, liberTARDians with the right-wing of the GOP is also a bit bizarre. The right-wing of the GOP isn't exactly happy with outsourcing either.

It was just a bizarre, stupid, delusional masturbatory rant devoid of evidence.

Like this whole, stupid, thread.

 

[11822]

Newsflash to everyone posting here:

America is neither 100% Capitalistic, nor 100% Socialistic.

And I am not interested in any more ridiculous posts about how if only we would go towards some ridiculous *pure* capitalism or *pure* socialism, it would all be perfect, but we can't because the other side is a caricature.

Sound logical and reasonable

 

[MKJ]

Sweden or Denmark would be one example. Italy might be another.

Then again, in Sweden, one family owns most of the big corporations. And if you look at professional salaries in those countries...they're just pathetic. I suppose a busdriver would make more than he would in the US...but that's not saying much. And good luck acquiring capital on a Swedish bus driver's salary...maybe if the cost of living were the same as it was in Thailand...but not in Sweden. No sirree.

In fact...even a surgeon in scandinavia doesn't make enough to acquire real capital.

I guess there's less pressure over there, because until recently anyway there were no bad areas you had to pay to avoid (key words: until recently). Until recently there was very little crime. And if a bus driver and a nurse make the same, very little reason to kill yourself going to nursing school.

The main advantage of Scandinavia in my mind is that this whole cancerous ghetto culture is less pervasive over there. In fact, much could be said about most of the developed world. Then again, if those countries are as committed to mass immigration and militant secularism as they seem...good luck is all I can say. At the risk of offending some of the Europeans on this forum...have you seen how trashy white Europeans act when they get a little bit of booze in them? It's absolutely mindboggling the violence and anti-social behavior over there. Not to mention the skyrocketing crime rates (as opposed to falling rates in America. Mainly this is because in America we still imprison people occasionally. And in Europe they seem to just coddle them, loudly scream about how superior Europe is, then put their fingers in their ears and sing "la la la la la la evidence to the contrary shall not be heard la la la la la la la") But I digress...

But yes, I agree with your example of Scandinavia.

Undoubtedly many countries have many problems. Not all of them are really related to what we're talking about here though. And some are really global issues that are a problem for everyone.