@Matias it came from wikipedia, so could be subject to error.

These are not communist countries. By Engels' definition, in communism there is no money.

Disagree. I had and have so many graduate students who want to stay in the US from Scandinavian countries

@zesty your data is flawed, due to very small and incidental sample, (your students only), the research I quote is clear and is a UN study with a very large sample, no comparison

@Mofo1953 How do you know that my data is flawed? I ( as opposed to you) declared the limitations of my data. We pay approximately one third of the UN budget and don't have 30% of the UN vote! This useless organization with all kinds of dictatorships in control can come up with the most useless information and statistics.

@zesty How do I know? Easy, because you said your data comes from your own students from Scandinavia, ergo a very small sample. The UN commissioned study is much more reliable because not only is it statistically significant vs your incidental data, but it was commissioned by the UN (not conducted by the UN). Regardless of what you may think of them, most of their studies are not useless, as you say, but very reliable, like the most recent on Climate Change for example, also you are wrong in saying that many dictators control it, when in fact no dictator in the world controls the UN, unless you are referring to the security council that has veto power, yet the majority of veto power countries are not presided by dictators. You tend to use your opinions as fact, which coming from a college professor as you describe yourself, is in itself troubling. The UN is not a useless organization, in fact UNICEF, WHO, UNESCO, etcetera are all well respected UN organizations that do a lot of good around the world. And these are facts, not opinions.

@Mofo1953 Respectfully disagree. How about the budget? The American Taxpayer pays all this undeveloped scum to bring down our great country! Barbarians trying to control their God's! Get real!

@zesty well, I am here because I don't believe in gods. History sides with the barbarians, they conquered Rome, remember? But disagreements aside, we are not talking about either the money nor the institution here, let's not get off the subject, democratic socialism and Scandinavian success stories and the research that proves the point I made. So let's really get real! Americans, most of whom are taxpayers, are very pleased with the democratic socialist ideas as the polls show, Medicare for all, increase of minimum wages, free community education, so why do you think this is? Why do you think the majority of Americans disagree with you? Oh, and I wouldn't call anyone "undeveloped scum" or that the UN is trying to bring down our country. How? Again, prove your points, all you give are your extreme opinions but no facts, no evidence, no data. Here's my data:
[salon.com]

Of course we have a mixed form of government. The question to my mind is: are there limits to how many or what kind of socialist entities we want in our society. I think that production has to remain capitalistic, the market system is dynamic it works well

For instance I wonder about Elizabeth Warren's brilliant idea to have the government get into the drug mfg biz. It is meant to avoid mkts with limited competition, such as generic drugs, which are the majority of the production is (if I recall right), from one company I think she may be over the edge, at least for me here, and I suspect there may be better ideas on how to control drug prices.

I do like Warren's idea to add a moral compass to the mission statement of corporations. If as SCOTUS decided, corporations and other associations are legal persons with certain rights, then it ought to be incumbent on them to have certain social responsibilities (as she outlined in her proposed bill) that go beyond satisfaction of the shareholders. I think (hope) capitalism can be rehabilitated along more moral and socially acceptable terms, and still perserve its dynamic market forces.

@cava No real disagreement here, we can and should have a lively conversation about how capitalism should be constrained and held to some kind of standard of decency, and to what extent the social safety net should be extended, and how. The Overton window has definitely moved since even 2 or 3 years ago, and that's a good thing. America is way overdue for adult conversations about the way forward, rather than mindless taboos and Shibboleths. I just hope it's not too little, too late.

I share your reservations about Warren's drug plan. The problem with drug costs in the US is basically that pharmaceutical companies are free to charge many times the going price for their wares in the US, because they can. Some fairly simple legal changes will address that, it seems to me. One of the other candidates, I don't recall who, suggested that big pharma simply not be allowed to charge more than 50% over the average going worldwide rate for a given drug in the US market; even that would be a big improvement. I believe 2, 3 and 4 times the going rate is not uncommon. There's a reason why, a couple years ago, they tried to make it legal for Americans to purchase drugs from Canadian mail order pharmacies; they can get the exact same meds for far cheaper prices that way.

This is not even funny! BS

@zesty. I disagree. Zesty I'm disappointed in your generalization of the issue.

@t1nick Nick - I think that one of the major differences between our viewpoints is that you presume the benevolence of government officials. In my view they are everything but decent, good people. Consequently, in my view, the less power they have, the better.

@zesty. I agree with your perspective on gov't officials in general. However, I feel that are enough decent people to offsets the others. I think once we get beyond this facist Administration we presently have, things will swing to the left. Maybe not as far as to becomeva Socialist Capitalism, but closer.

@t1nick I'm very afraid that you are right. People want to have free everything. Nobody believes anymore in hard, decent work.

@zesty. Work ethic has gone to hell in this country. It didn't begin in 1980, but exponentially spread beginning with the Reagan Admin. Teaching has changed significantly in the last 40 years with work ethic all but disappearing.

@t1nick OK, I see your point. However, the economic actions during Reagan 's administration, collapsed the Soviet empire. This is extremely positive, isn't it?

@zesty. Yes and no. The Soviets collasped their own society by overextending their economic system beyond sustainability. They did it to themselves (Soviet war in Afghanistan was the straw), but it is true that Reagan baited them into it.

Don't forget, Reagan brought us the Iran Contra war which was an assault on the Constitution by circumventing Congress by selling arms to Iran to pay for a covert illegal war.

He also started the trend agsint intellectualism in his 1983-84 re-election campaign. Which leads to today's trend to disparage education at all levels. Dumb is in unfortunately.

@Elganned Simple: so called entitlements, handouts for idiots

@Elganned Both communism and "democratic socialism" are forms of collectivism where everyone's earned value is stolen.

@IAMGROOT. I suggest you give up some things if you do not want to be part of the social system.

@t1nick I support the Libertarian approach of less government, greater personal freedom. If you support collectivism you are suggesting the sacrifice of freedom.

@IAMGROOT. I do not believe in the viability of Libertarianism. Humans by evolution are social organisms. It was the evolution of society, along with abstract thought processes, advanced communications, and resultant tool making that allowed the himan species to survive a dangerous and tumultuous time in our history.

After a certain population size depence upon a social organizing and controlling organization as a check and balance against aberrant social behaviors becomes necessary. Human social pressure operates successfully up to the tribal level by by means of an agreed upon social norms. Above the tribal size. the population norms break down due to the size and proximity. In order to keep aberrancy from overwhelming society, a larger structure is needed.

Example: 1964 Voters Rights Act which elimenated the overt vestiges of Jim Crow. Without that act, we would still be living under Jim Crow.

By its nature, Libertarianism is a self-centeted movement that seeks to divorce one from their social responsibilities. Libertarianism in in itself a form of social aberrancy.

@t1nick I disagree. And please define "social responsibility." If by that you mean subscription to collective policy whereby individual involuntarily sacrifice their personal earnings for the "greater good" then yeah, I'm against that.

@IAMGROOT. With all due respect, reducing social responsibility to a fiscal equation reinforces what I stated above about it being a self-centeted philisophy.

"Social responsibility", much like each member of a wolf pack must hold up its end in the hunt, yet is dependent upon all the others to follow suit. So is it true with human societies. Success of any human community depends on the agreement and cooperation by its members. Otherwise it is destined to fail. That why Libertarianism is unsustainzble and a social aberrancy and dysfunction

@IAMGROOT. P.S. if you use any of the programs that are listed on the graphic I attached above, you've already bought into and are a part of the collective.