The CATO Institute’s index that people use to say how capitalist Norse countries are includes mostly things that have nothing to do with distinguishing capitalism from modern democratic socialism.
Even looking at the economic freedom indicator, only four percent of it is looking at the state’s ownership of assets, which is core to what socialism is.
Yet, this is used again and again to say how capitalist these countries are.
In the US, the state owns around 4% of total national wealth, for Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway, this is: 11.2%; 24.1%; 31.7%; and 57%.
There are many different types of Socialism. Just determining that a country isn’t a fully topped down planned economy, doesn’t mean it’s not Socialist.
Low-wage workers in the US pay HIGHER taxes than the Nordic countries if you count healthcare premiums as taxes. Healthcare premiums come right from your paycheck and go a bureaucracy that pays for healthcare. It’s the same in the US as Nordic countries, except in the US it goes to a private company and in Nordic countries, it goes to the government. In both cases. health insurance is provided…except out of pocket costs are also lower in the Nordic countries.
If you need a family plan, then the US average wage worker also pays more!
The focus on taxes is silly. What matters is what are the cost burdens on Americans. Whether it is a tax from government or a healthcare premium from an insurance company, it’s a burden! Only looking at taxes is highly misleading, especially when taxes are instead of a premium, so when you look at the US, you ignore the cost of that premium.
That the US is a larger country, means we have more economies of scale, meaning it should be easier for us to provide healthcare for its people. We don’t do it based on ideology.
The problem with childcare fraud in Minneapolis wasn’t simply a problem with Somalis, but with private companies providing government services while being paid by the taxpayer. That wouldn’t have happened if the government did it itself.
The Nordic countries have universal welfare states and high levels of state ownership. They are examples of more successful “socialist” policies.
Trump policy has made the paperwork requirement of welfare much higher, leading to people who qualify to not get the benefits. It’s more difficult to be poor under Trump policies.
Trump’s tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy do not sunset. His financial benefits for the middle class and below do sunset. If he really thought these programs were good and were helping people, he and the Republican Congress that passed them would have made them permanent, instead, he made them temporary to use as an election issue.
Trump Accounts mostly benefit those wealthy enough to take advantage of them as tax deductions (ways to avoid paying taxes, making the deficit, debt, and inflation worse).
Anytime the government does something through tax deductions instead of checks, it’s a sign that it will mostly benefit the wealthy.
Overall, the scientific evidence finds that Medicaid does improve health. There was a literature that found this, then the Oregon study found that it didn’t! But then with the ACA, some people were randomly sent a reminder to sign up for Medicaid, and those that got the letter, signed up more, and they had better health outcomes. The Oregon study followed people for too short of time and the sample was too small.
Japan has lots of assets like a massive sovereign wealth fund. When you subtract these assets from their debts, their debt to GDP ratio is 77%, which isn’t that high.
Japan takes money from its people in the form of taxes and then invests in assets like US treasury bonds. Because their currency depreciated over time, their debt has become worth less, while their foreign assets have become worth more.
This has benefited Japan a lot, but may backfire if the Yen goes up, foreign interest rates lower, or Japanese interest rates rise. If Japan has inflation, this could force them to raise interest rates or live with inflation.
“President Donald Trump on Wednesday said it’s “not possible” for the federal government to fund Medicare, Medicaid and child care costs, arguing that it should be up to the states to “take care” of those programs while the federal government focuses on military spending.
The president’s remarks were delivered to attendees at a private Easter luncheon at the White House”
Studies don’t add up to supporting that inequality matters outside of the inequality itself. Instead of focusing on inequality, it’s better to focus on helping everyone live a better life than on inequality per se.
The 89% of fraud is committed by Somalis stat is misleading. 89% of the people convicted in a specific fraud scandal, the Feeding Our Future case, were of Somali descent. The ring leader was a white woman. So, this stat just refers to the percentage of convictions in one large fraud case.
Because states run programs like Medicaid, but the federal government pays for over half of it, states have the incentive to come up with new programs and less incentive to properly police Medicaid spending.
“state and federal prosecutors have been trying to bust fraudulent preschools and other Medicaid fraud schemes in Minnesota for more than a decade. And yet, there are always more. Law enforcement is doing its best, but the problem seems to be that the state’s welfare bureaucracy is doing a terrible job of stopping the scammers in the first place.
…
This is not just a problem in Minnesota either. Medicaid fraud is remarkably common. The federal departments of Justice and Health and Human Services run a joint program to catch fraudsters, and in 2024 alone it accounted for 1,151 convictions that recovered almost $1.4 billion.
…
Anyone who wants to stop Medicaid fraud should focus less on scoring partisan political points or demonizing immigrants and more on the boring work of fixing federal policy.
Telling states to pay for a larger share of their own Medicaid spending seems like an obvious step in the right direction. It would give state officials—from governors like Walz all the way down to the lowest-ranking bureaucrat—a stronger incentive to prevent waste and fraud in the first place. It would reduce the burden placed on out-of-state taxpayers when states with lax enforcement allow fraud like this to occur.”