Stockholm-The Green Capital of The World

no... either you hate the swedes or the danes, no exeptions
edit: if you mean diplomatic realations Norway and sweden are pretty close so are the dannes the finns not to the same extent

No like in hockey and things like that.

oh yes we hate echother (especialy the scandinavian countries) we have 1 minute long sport commericals bashing the other country and its team/players.

If there's any typos or something, it's because of this weird glitch thing. I can fix it, I just need to go to Word and that's a pain.

They spend it on things that don't produce as much growth as it takes to strip the wealth from a company, who earned it.
It hardly increases economic growth to get hip surgery, nor pills. It does increase economic growth to create a new inovation, like the iPad, which would not have been created if Apple had to spend the money on some old person with only two years left anyway.

No I ment a 'giant supermarket' by letting foreign companies coming in and basiclly shoping for resources. It still makes wealth, but wealth for the foreign country, you just get a megar precent from drilling and maintaining pipelines. It happened to Mexico, in fact. It boosted their economy in the short-term, but American companies just looted the country.
I may be lost on the debt thing. Which country are we saying has a bigger debt?
That does work, except it takes something like 3-4 "workers" to provide for someone on full medicade (for instance), and this was fine back when everyone was having like 7 children a couple, but now days there is an average of 1-2 a couple. There is no way for it to sustain itself without cripple effects on economic growth(notice how just about every "progressive" European nation is secondary in today's world) or some other source of revenue(by "other revenue" I mean OIL).

I believe you misquoted me. I think I was talking about Canada or something. Idk, it wasn't Norway, if that's what you mean.

All of that is tracable to oil, in fact you said it yourself. Also, while it was a good investment, basiclly your just filling in for Europe's Green Energy Fetish. Although, you are probably right about the Fish. As for higher education and that sort, it's all oil money basiclly. I mean the fish and green energy help a little, but oil is what keeps you able to pay for all your welfare and the like. Here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Norway#Economic_structure_and_sustained_growth Your an oil based economy, primarily.

Its not so much hate like we're going to bomb the fuck out of eachother as it is the French and English hating eachother. It was bad because of all the dominance Sweden and Denmark had over all of scandanavia at certain points. Its devolved a lot since that all happened long ago. So most hate is, as Pineapple said, just in sports and other competitions between us.

Yes but it does create consumption in its own right something, and seeing that you use the ipad as an example, hand held multimedia is something that would not have been able to be bought by the economically less fortunate and unemployed.
Off course the main goal of having social security is not really in getting more profits, its because you know people care more about people the fact they wont starve when they get old then about ipads.
In the medical industry technological innovation can also happen, new methods for surgery, new types of implants and new types of pills. They are all what you would term innovations and thus according to you should create economic growth.

Wait what? a service economy doesnt have anything to do with letting your country be chopped up for rescources that is called industry. Also in a previous post you promote oil exploitation by private companies but here you seem to find it bad when this happens through foreign companies, well if you allow private companies to exploit rescources then it can also be foreign companies doing it.

Debt is calculated by percentage of GDP, the US has bigger absolute debt but also has bigger GDP, Sweden has lower absolute debt but also lower GDP. Thus it is possible to compare both of these countries debts by percentage to GDP, irrespective of these being to countries of different sizes.

Every Western-European country is already secondary since world war II, but that still means they have been able to be more prosperous then the rest of the world for about half a century irrespective of social security measures that have been implemented for about an entire century.

Your all wrong I'm pretty sure the greenest people/city in the world is some random tribe in the middle of the amazon that don't know anything about the outside world and only co2 they make is breathing and fires for heat and cooking everything is made of rock and wood

1) Letting some American company hire a few thousand workers to run some oil rigs with all the oil being sent to North America and Europe doesn't seem very industry-like.
2) I think we've gotten confused in our posts. I blaim that glitch that makes the area where you write flip out and unseeable.

Yes, it's a great problem because if they just come in and take it then you lose resources for little gain. Actually the best thing to do would be to help a native company build some sort of refinery or processing plant(though temporary cheap loans and susidies, it's not very Free Market like, but there can't be a Free Market without a market, now can there?) to actually get a slice of the wealth from all this.

Ok so using that logic...
America is in debt ~14 trillion dollars.
The GDP is about ~14 trillion dollars.
America owes somewhere between 0-1 dollars?
Or is it already divided and the absolute debt is 196 trillion dollars?

Well hell, I don't mean to sound like Che but even freaking Libya can survive if all they have to do is pour money in from their oil. Also it's not like wealth just disappears without the nations being defeated horribly in some sort of war, like Rome perhaps (even then most of the wealth was still around, just not organized or in Rome). The fact that the nations were booming before they had their welfare states and are now secondary with them is corilated. It's not like after WWII everyone just gave up and decided to not matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-sector_hypothesis

First you dissaprove of subsidies, then you approve? There cant be a free market without a market? First you want privately owned companies then you want governement to impose a monopoly on the exploitation of internal rescources? Get your thoughts in order please.

Dude really? The debt is calculated as percentage of GDP, thanks to that you get a PERCENTAGE, according to which you can compare debts between countries.

Welfare state has started expanding throughout the 20th century and before in Europe and it hasnt impeded on Europe having comparatively massive economic growth. I couldnt make sense out of the rest you were trying to say.

You know you can regulate monopolies in a free market... Free market can have regulations then it's mixed. When people refer to free market they mean a bit of regulations

@Joske

Turns out a bunch of people living in dirt shacks can't very well build a processing plant. Think of it like 1800s America, they needed to subsidise the Railway Companies to get a trans-American railroad. Being plauged with corruption and costs, it should be gotten rid of as soon as possible.

It's also not much of a government monopoly. That would be like having the government running the plant and shutting down everyone elses plants.

When money is pouring in from your giant colonial empire a little social programs wont have a major effect. Although it was incredibly unstable. By about 1910 the UK wasn't fairing so well, and after just WWI they went from International Creditor to International Debtor. Of course after the Great Depression and WWII it didn't end so well for the Empire.
Meanwhile of course America, who didn't have to pay for a bunch of shit, among that the Military but that's different, became incredibly powerful.

I said wealth doesn't just disappear, it gets moved around. That's why the average life for everyone (baring like North Korea) has gotten better, not related to their system. The welfare state slows down growth is all. The problem is that there hasn't really been a welfare state for more than a generation or two, and with less and less kids you can already see it beginning to crack under just a few problems.

How would a governement be able to build a big project in the first place, if its tax base is "living in dirt shacks"?
So what you are saying is that oil exploitation and by extension the mining of raw materials should happen by companies that are from the country in question, these companies should then be supported by subsidies by the governement and the governement should bar any foreign competitors to enter the market?
Well the point with that is that to start up these mining companies you still most likely need foreign investments, certainly in situations where in your words "people are living in dirt shacks".

Colonies (particularly the ones secured during the 19th century) generally didnt generate much profit compared to the costs of creating and maintaining colonial administrations...etc
America was equally unstable on an economic field, the great depression also wreaked massive havoc on the American economy irrespective of its freer market. Also dont forget that a number of measures such as minimum wages were introduced as an answer to the great depression, which did not impede on America's ability to become powerfull.
Also during the same period the Soviet Union who did have to pay "a bunch of shit" also became incredibly powerfull, so your reasoning that the lack of American social security programs caused the rise of the US as a superpower is quite botched.

Well economic growth is all nice and stuff but what I largely care about is living quality, which is generally calculated using the HDI (human development index). Now what happens when you look at the normal HDI, well the United States is doing good, its at the fourth place with the only Scandinavian country above it being Norway.
But if you take into account the inequality-adjusted HDI what result do you get then? The US gets beaten back to rank 12, with all the Scandinavian countries ending up above them. So what does this tell us? Yes the freer American market might be able secure some of the highest economic growth, (supported by its high GDP per capita, although both Norway and Sweden still beat the US at this), so not actually some of the highest economic growth. And to top that off the wealth gained also generally benefits the rich.

Yes, population ageing is quite a problem in most Western countries is a result of the demographic transition that has taken place in many developped countries. The point is that this is still a problem when you dont have a social security program because as the economic base of working/young people is outnumberred by non-working elderly people, the cost for taking care of these people gets transfered to the younger generation who does not have enough manpower/production capacity to pay for their upkeep. And well you know making them starve because they cant pay to get in an elderly home is kinda bad.

I gather from this that this site is just one big social experiment.