Tuesday’s editorial bashing socialism (“Say my name: Scandinavian countries have abandoned socialist policies,” Feb. 18) was petty, full of lowbrow snarkiness and didn’t make any points worth keeping.
The scattershot logic had me scratching my head – what was the point of saying that Sweden’s economy is less regulated than the U.S. economy, but that Finland’s and Norway’s are more regulated? That’s defeating any argument about whether socialized Scandinavian countries are a regulatory monolith.
Also, do your homework if you’re going to slip in stereotypes about hot chocolate consumption – Portugal leads the world.
After spending many paragraphs denigrating socialism and its adherents, the Journal concludes that “larger welfare states” are worth emulating – but not socialism? And the “Clydesdales of capitalism” – what a priceless metaphor!
Scandinavian countries are very socialized, contrary to the arbitrary conclusion of your editorial, and the beneficial outcomes are real and measurable.
High taxes in these countries support a robust safety net of services, from socialized health care to generous state pensions, all while their citizens – and this is a hard pill to swallow – enjoy greater freedoms than we do.
Childhood poverty rates for the worst Scandinavian country – Sweden – are half of ours, and we have the privilege of spending twice as much per capita on health care.
I don’t think it’s unpatriotic to borrow ideas from other countries, particularly ideas that seem to be working. However, I can’t tell from your editorial if you actually agree. Maybe the Fjord ponies of democratic socialism can help pull us toward a clearer understanding.
Ole Bye
Cortez
