UWSaint wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 1:45 pm
Per wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 12:40 pm
donlever wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 12:12 pm
You are still astounded by Governmental incompetence in the West?
I find that more astounding tbh Per.
Our governments tend to do OK. I mean, I may have political disagreements with them, but they tend to be rather competent imho.
But then, almost any metrics you use, the Nordic countries tend to do surprisingly well, so maybe we’re not the norm.
(1) Why do you think that is?
(2) Do you think that will be the case in the future?
(3) Are you concerned about the decade+ lack of growth in GDP & per capita income in the Scandanavian countries and Europe more broadly, especially as compared to the United States?
(4) What do you think the United States did so well in the second Obama term, the first Trump term, and the Biden administration to outpace Europe (and Canada) in per capita income and GDP growth?
U-dub, U-dub, U-dub! The questions you ask!
Each of those four would be worthy of a ten page summary of a much larger body of work.
I don't really have the time to put in that effort, and I assume very few would be interested in reading all of it, so we can't do that.
But I will try to humour you by at least attempting to answer these questions. Each answer will be rather long, so I will have to split it in onee post per question.
(1) Why do you think that is?
There are several factors that play into this. To some extent they have the same root causes and they tend to reinforce eachother. as follows:
- Deep rooted sense of equality
- Long tradition of democracy
- Tradition of voluntary work and membership in associations
The high level of trust permeats all levels of society in the Nordic countries. We tend to think that most people are decent and have good intentions. We trust our neighbours, we trust our government and they have trust in us. There have been many studies that show that the level of trust in a society improves its functioning, because people will lend a hand when needed and there is less need for security measures. A typical example was during the pandemic. Most countries issued bans, laws, curfews etc. In Sweden the government issued recommendations. Other countries thought we were crazy and many claimed that Sweden did nothing to prevent the spread of the disease. I'm sorry? Nothing? The government
recommended that we stay at home, distanced ourselves from others, etc. And most Swedes follow recommendations. Why impose laws that would violate the freedom of movement etc granted in the constitution when you can just politely ask people to stay home?
In Sweden a handshake confirms an agreement and then you make sure to honour it. In the countryside in Scandinavia people still tend to leave their homes unlocked. It is less frequent now though than when I grow up.
The low level of corruption works in tandem with the high level of trust. I'm not saying that corruption is non-existent, there are always some bad eggs. But it is not expected, and it is not tolerated. We expect our leaders to have high morale standards, and we tend to be very unforgiving if they break that trust. A leading social democrat, Mona Sahlin, was exposed by the press to not only have bought Toblerone chocolate and diapers with her government credit card, but also to have parked in a no parking zone, repeatedly, outside the government department she was responsible for, and had failed to pay the fines. There was a huge scandal and she had to resign. Who are you to believe you have a right to park in a no parking zone just because you are the Secretary of Labour and you are late for a meeting? I bet in many countries she would have had a chauffeur driving her to those meetings, but that's not the way we do it. Take your bike, or the subway. Or park where you are supposed to. Now, our scandals may seem a bit silly compared to what goes in other countries, but there is a very strong belief here that you should not think you are special. And this weeds out a lot of corrupt behaviour before it has gotten too far.
Which leads us to the deep rooted sense of equality. Medieval feudalism never took hold here. During the Middle Ages we were pagans and vikings. No lord could claim he had a divine right to oppress others. Unlike continental Europe and the UK the majority here were independent farmers. You owned your land, tilled the soil and lived off it. Much like early settler America, I guess. So we have never really had a peasant class that just boughed their heads in obedience. Now, the different Nordic countries have slightly different history, but there is also a lot in common. And that the majority of the people were free and not vassals or serfs clearly play an important part in the forming of our traditions and mindset. Sure, during the viking age we had thralls, often brought in from the British Isles or Eastern Europe, but they were not chattle slaves and could buy their freedom if they worked hard and saved up. Also, the Christian missionaries told us we had to stop that, so we abolished slavery in the mid 14th century. But I digress. The mindset in Sweden is that no one is above anyone else. We are all equals. And people who think themselves better than anyone else are frowned upon. I mentioned before that I was sitting right behind a former PM on the train to Stockholm, my sister once stood in a check-in-line for a flight behind then acting PM Torbjörn Fälldin. And yes, he was on a regular flight and checked in like anyone else. Why should he think himself special just because he was the PM? This is not unique for Sweden, it is the same throughout the Nordic countries.
To begin with there were no hereditary kingdoms in Scandinavia. We had kings. Originally lots of them. But they were basically local strongmen, and they could be deposed of as easily as they were elected (and yes, they were typically elected). Denmark was the first Nordic country to be united under one king, and they then claimed large chunks of England as theirs as well, and two or three Danish kings were also kings of England. When Harald Fair Hair united Norway, lots of Norwegians sailed off in protest and created a republic on Iceland instead. Their parliament was founded in 930 AD and is still up and running. Most issues in the viking age were settled at the ting (aka thing), a gathering of all free men that usually took place twice a year. This was both on a local and a regional level, and eventually on a national level. At the ting you would solve disputes and discuss common undertakings, like the building of a road, or the staging of an attack against enemies. There were basically three ways of solving disputes. Through arbitration, by a jury of equals or through combat. The viking jury system was later adopted by the English, who still use it, and I hear it has also been copied by the USA. The ting system was gradually reformed into courts and local, regional and national parliaments. The ting-system was sort of democratic in nature, albeit it only encompassed arms bearing free men. Women would often participate, but did not have a vote. In Norway the parliament is still called Stortinget (the Great Ting), in Denmark it's called Folketinget (the People's Ting) and in Iceland Alþingi (the All Ting, basically short for the Ting of All of Iceland). In Sweden we call our parliament Riksdagen (Day of the Realm, basically borrowed from the German Reichstag) but we instead use the word tingsrätt (ting court) for our lower courts. Anyway, after the black death decimated the population more or less by half, the Nordic countries united. It came to be that the Norwegian king had no son and only one daughter. She married the oldest son of the Swedish king, and they had two sons. The Norwegian king than named the younger grandson heir to the throne of Norway, as the older brother had already been named heir to the throne of Sweden. Then the older prince died and the younger was named heir to both thrones. He then married Margarete, the youngest daughter of the Danish king. That Danish king also did not have a son, and the two elder daughters were married off to different royal families. Anyway, they then had a son, and then the now king of Sweden and Norway died as well. Margarete then quickly managed to have her newborn son named king of Sweden, Norway and Denmark and to become the intermittent ruler in his place until he'd be old enough to take the reigns himself. This was the creation of the Kalmar Union that united all the Nordic countries, because at this time Finland was part of Sweden and Iceland, Greenland* and the Faroe Islands were parts of Norway, from 1397 till 1523. Now, there was a lot of tension within the union, because whereas Denmark and Norway had adopted the tradition of hereditary monarchy, Sweden still insisted that only the Swedish Parliamentary Estates could elect a king. The Parliamentary Estates was a four chamber parliament, that only assembled when necessary, but roughly once every three years. The "estates" or chambers were Nobility, Clergy, Burghers and Farmers. For laws to pass they had to be accepted in all four chambers, and it was the same with the election of kings. Now, this parliament was not elected, like a modern day parliament, but it had representatives from each province in each of the four chambers, including the provinces in Finland and at times the Baltics, parts of Poland and Germany. This system actually caused the nobility in Sweden to be extremely weak compared to in other countries, because quite often they were looking for concessions from the king, but the king would then try to gain favour from the other three groups, and more often than not they would all gang up on the nobility. At the same time the king could not become too powerful, or all four estates would unite to block his will. So basically, we have parliamentary traditions going back to the dark ages, even if an elected parliament only came about in the early 19th century and full and equal suffrage only came about in 1921. But anyway. The Kalmar Union came to an end in the 1520's. The Swedes did not want to elect Christian II of Denmark, and he got sort of pissy about it and invaded Stockholm in 1520. After they then finally agreed to hand him the throne, he invited all the Swedish nobility to a coronation party, locked the doors and had them all executed, Game of Thrones style. This pissed everyone in Sweden off pretty bad, so it was on! And by 1523 Gustav Eriksson Vasa, the son of a low ranking nobleman, had managed to kick the Danes out and seize the throne. Many idiots say that Sweden was created in 1523, which is bullshit. Sweden had been around since the viking age, and we entered the union with Denmark voluntarily, and all the joint monarchs were approved by the Swedish parliament. The only time we were forcibly ruled by the Danes would be between 1520 and 1523. Anyway, Gustav Vasa was a Swedish Stalin, who killed all his enemies and ruled with a steady hand. He also introduced hereditary monarchy to Sweden. During his reign and that of his sons, the parliament was severely weakened, but it made a strong comeback in the 18th century. After the death of Carl XII, the parliament more or less made the following monarchs mere figureheads, making a rubber stamp of the king's signature and just stamping his approval onto laws that they passed without his presence. During this time we also passed a new constitution in 1766 that included freedom of press and freedom of information. Sweden was also one of the first countries to officially recognize the independence of the USA, and we set up a free port at Marstrand on the Swedish west coast where US vessels could dock, circumventing the trade embargo that the British had put in place. But I digress. The point is that Scandinavians have had parliamentary traditions and courts of law at least since the viking age, if not earlier, and that we never had a system of feudalism or serfdom.
As I said, it is hard to not get long winded here. I also think that the "it takes a village" culture is strong here. We have a tradition of voluntary work and being members of all sorts of clubs and associations. Some 600,000 Swedes are part of a choir. Pretty much every parent has volunteered as an unpaid coach for some sports team, we have book clubs and sports clubs and you name it. One of my colleagues is part of an amateur theatre company, etc, etc. Sports teams cannot be owned in Sweden. They are associations. They are run by a board that is elected by the members. Once again, there are several studies that show that societies that have a high level of people participating in non-profit activities tend to have better cohesion and better outcomes in general. This sort of volunteering also helps build trust and teaches people the basics of governance and leadership. 80 percent of Swedes are also members of a trade union. This means that workers have a strong position vis-a-vis companies and is probably why I have 35 days of vacation.
I think all these factors contribute to a well functioning society where we trust our neighbours and our elected officials and where nobody is allowed to believe that they deserve special privileges or are above someone else. And if they seek such privileges we are quick to give them the boot.
We also have freedom to roam, which means that you are allowed to go hiking anywhere, whether it is public or private property. But you can only stay for one night on private land, unless you have an agreement with the owner, and you should not pitch your tent in someone's garden or field. The rule of thumb is that your camping site should not be visible from the house of someone who lives there, and that you clean up after yourself. Don't leave a mess. The whole freedom to roam concept is also built on trust. We trust people to walk across our land without making a mess. There are no "no trespassing signs" or threats of physical violence. And we don't mind coaching the neighbour's kids and teach them the basics of football, chess or ice hockey. And we do that for free.
I'll get back to the other three questions. I'll try to answer the next one tomorrow.
