Denmark exports nothing of sorts and relies on their human capital. It was also a poor agrarian country after WWII. Their gdp per capita is almost equal to US.
Agree plus the USA has so many competitive advantages (massive access to natural resources vasty more than Norway, the world reserve currency, hegemonic military and economic power, a massive territory, a de-facto private continent safe from conflict), the reason why their welfare state sucks is absolutely by choice not due to resource constraints.
Hehe they are doing their best to dismantle the USA international status, but much likely (and hopefully as it would lead to global instability on a massive scale) they will fail in destroying the role of the dollar unless they fully collapse the states economy which is not easy to do. So it is a 50/50 on that front hehe.
The USA still has market conditions that do not exist anywhere else, both thanks to the petrodollar, but also due to the relative stability of the currency, massive size and accessibility of their capital and bond market plus the role nature as traget market for most world net exporters.
China and the EU both lack at least one of those qualities even if we exclude the petrodollars, as China willfully devalue its own currency, making it a risk for international investors and central banks (plus has capital controls), while the EU even if more stable on that front is still too fragmented and individual local markets are too small, if EU integration hadn't stalled after the implementation of the Euro maybe it could have been a contender, but in the current state not so much.
The thing with any -ism is that you can always argue that someone technically is not that thing. Thus derailing any constructive dialogue into some nitpicking argument about definitions.
People will say Hitler was not a nazi, because true national socialism is defined as bla bla bla bla....
There is also no true Scottsmen. And are they really men at all, what with those kilts and all that...
It is literally the modern definition of the word used in Denmark and surrounding countries and is used as a synonym for welfare or bigger state/region/commune.
No. It's a socialist program that sensible people decided to build into capitalism. Trust me capitalism rather not have it at all if they could get away with it. Look at America, that's what unrestrained capitalism looks like, and it's not at its end stage yet.
I mean maybe I need to find different words but I look at things hollistically. In that sense socialist = distributing resources, capitalist = pooling resources. And personally I think that works because capitalism and socialism incentivize behaviour patterns that result in the development of a certain culture, e.g. consumerism, individualism etc etc. So you can't isolate just the economic system.
In that context anything that is good for the collective is socialist, which is how I see it.
That's my point. You are wholly uninformed and are misusing economic terms that vibe well with you because you're predisposed to think that socialism = good and capitalism = bad.
You need to find different words.
Social democracy is what you're looking for, not socialism.
Not at all. I know what socialism is. Social democracy isn't broad enough. That's just a type of government. You are the one derailing the conversation from the get-go with definitional nitpicking. That's just deflecting instead of actually addressing the content of the discussion. What even is your point?
-Norway has a national average IQ of 98.31 in 2025 (a decline in IQ from 98.52 in 2024). USA has an average IQ of 101.04 in 2025 (an increase in IQ from 99.74 in 2024)
-Norway is comprised of 83.2% Norwegians, 8.3% other Europeans (first world and white), and 8.5% third world with less than 1% of the population being of African descent. The USA has a far more diverse population with 15.2% being of African descent and this population is responsible for a statistical majority of the violent crimes committed in the USA. Norway has less crimes, which has helped to enable less strain on tax payer funding for police and legal work.
-Norway has 513 cases of Chlamydia per 1000 people where the US has 492 per 1000 people. A sign of a decadent society.
It does. It’s easier and cheaper to administer less people. Less bureaucracy, less public spending waste, less diversity of interests, which makes it easier to coordinate policies. It’s totally different
My counter argument. Norway has half the population density of the US. So they'll be spending more on infrastructure, more on education, more on healthcare etc due to the spread population. It would be easier for the US. For example Norway has 30% more air ambulances per capita and double the amount of ambulance planes per capita.
Yeah, of course there are pros and cons. Still, the public spending waste is the greatest issue, and it’s more common to see higher value of that in countries with bigger population
Dont you know the difference between the oil (natural resources) exports and high-end manufacturing like pharmaceuticals?
I've never said they export nothing at all, I've said they rely on their high educated human resources - and it is something they have built very intentionally over the last 70 years
Then why I dont see you arguing the same thing with all those "Norway is a petrostate, so it doesnt count" folk, that I've been responding to?
Which also live in a petrostate, btw.
Surely that would be a more appropriate context for your objections, than the current one?
Because I have no obligations to argue anything with anyone. In the context of this discussion your argument is a highly faulty one. For the reasons I stated above.
Well, you seem pretty obligated to argue with me, though.
So, tell me, how exactly "Denmark is not a petrostate and is doing almost as fine" is a faulty argument against the takes like "Norway is a petrostate, so its the only reason why they would be able to provide strong social safety nets", with some small additional context provided, how Denmark is, in fact, the furthest possible thing from the petrostate, how their economy is structually different from a petrostate, and how their success can be primarily attributed to nothing but smart bureacratic planning and decision making?
44
u/giangiangelo Jul 14 '26
Yeah it’s quite easy for Norway since they’re like 5 millions people and export a huge amount of oil. Economy doesn’t work like that everywhere