Well, if you want to get technical, a certain level of socialism seems like a good idea, not all out- but you can't really treat any element of socialism as bad for virtue of it being a component of socialism. Keynes, anyone? (It's worth noting also that Norway currently owns bragging rights to the highest quality of life in the world, despite a significantly smaller GDP- clearly some socialism can't be that bad.) Like everything else, the best is gained from a mixing of both elements.
Norway is floating on oil. With the huge profits available to it, their government simply could not do anything to hurt the economy. These oil profits provide a convenient crutch for a bad system. If the country had to actually earn a living, it couldn't survive.
The true measure would be a comparison between their current situation and a functional free market economy.
Calling Norway a success is akin to praising the money management of a spoiled child with a billion-dollar trust fund.
Norway is oil independent. Try again.
"Well, if you want to get technical, a certain level of socialism seems like a good idea, ..."
Only if you are ignorant of history and economics.
Socialism causes poverty, and this has happened so many times in the last 100 years, and so many millions have died
due to socialistic failures (and I dont just mean communist dictatorships, I mean even democratic socialist economies; look at African socialist economies, or even some European countries now suffereing from underemployment, eg, France vs more freemarket Ireland, the one country that moved towards free markets in Europe since 1980s has coincidently been their most successful economy.)
" not all out- but you can't really treat any element of socialism as bad for virtue of it being a component of socialism."
- price fixing doesnt work: It destroys the efficiency of allocation through price scarcity
- government ownership destroys the ability to incentivize efficient use of capital, which capital markets enable
- redsitribution of wealth require taxes, which disincentivize production and lower the standard of living
etc.
" Keynes, anyone?"
What about Keynes. His ideas were abused by politicians to such an extent that
Neo-classical economics trumped his ideas, which were based on incorrect underlying notions of how to incentivize
Say's Law proved more correct than Keynes (check out the Supply Side bible "The Way The World Works" for more on this; or read an Austrian economists view of the credit cycle).
" (It's worth noting also that Norway currently owns bragging rights to the highest quality of life in the world, despite a significantly smaller GDP- clearly some socialism can't be that bad.)"
Socialism has nothing to do with it. A highly cultured small country gets handed a windfall of oil riches. Yippee.
Now do real apples to apples - south korea vs north korea; east vs west germany, 1945-1989; or cuba versus puerto rico 1959-today.
Or just look at Zimbabwe today... socialism indeed is killing thousands.
"Like everything else, the best is gained from a mixing of both elements."
So, you put arsenic as a seasoning on your food?
I believe it was Nixon who said we are all Keynesians now. And proceeded to act like it, ultimately culminating in Wage/Price controls, WIN buttons and other nonsense. None of it worked. Which is why we got to 21% inflation under Carter, and $800 an oz. gold.
So no, I don't think Keynesian economics are good, or work. In fact, basically he supported Government and big banks working together to manipulate the money supply to stimulate growth. Greenspan is the biggest Keynesian ever, and the bitter fruit of what he has sown will not be long in being harvested, in my opinion.
A little bit of socialism is a like a little bit of the clap...
Norway also owns billions of barrels of oil that it can pump out of the North Sea for $10 a barrel and sell for $60.
-ccm