Different Economic models and results

What do you guys think of the different economic models that countries use to compete in the Global market.I read an article in World Economic Forum about competetivnes and the top ranks are taken by countries that have very different approach in their Economy and Society.The top five countries in last year study were Finland(1),USA(2),Sweden(3),Denmark(4) and Taiwan(5).
How is it possible that the top results come from very Countries that are almost in Opposite ends of the spectrum of Economical ideas. How is it possible that the Scandinavian countries that have many times referred as very Socialistic Nations can compete and even Win USA,that is many times referred as the home of Capitalism?Here is the article that inspired me to create this thread:

http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Nordic+countries+and+East+Asian+tigers+top+the+rankings+in+the+World+Economic+Forum's+2005+competiti veness+rankings

Quote:

---

"The Nordic countries share a number of characteristics that make them extremely competitive, such as very healthy macroeconomic environments and public institutions that are highly transparent and efficient, with general agreement within society on the spending priorities to be met in the government budget. While the business communities in the Nordic countries point to high tax rates as a potential problem area, there is no evidence that these are adversely affecting the ability of these countries to compete effectively in world markets, or to provide to their respective populations some of the highest standards of living in the world. Indeed, the high levels of government tax revenue have delivered world-class educational establishments, an extensive safety net, and a highly motivated and skilled labour force" said Augusto Lopez-Claros, Chief Economist and Director of the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Programme.
...suggesting that what is important is how well government revenues are spent, rather than the overall tax burden per se

---

(my bolding)
well, these seems to cut to the heart of why the socialist system can work. by providing equality of opportunity to their citizens, it allows the cream to rise. In some ways this is a better model of perfect competition than the more differentiated social/educational systems in the US.

The point being that it isn't the type of system you use, but how well the sytem is administered. The social contract in the scandinavian countries works very well.

However, of course, the US model works as well. one of the chief positions of the small government advocates in the US is that public institutions are inefficient by definition. i have never believed this to necessarily be true. However, what this might indicate is that there is an inverse relationship between public institutions and the size of the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I hate to say it, but Finland, and to a lesser degree Sweden, have socialism down pat. It works for them. It's not an easy system to use, as you can see by the failing French Economy.

Capitalisms advantages lay in its being the "natural" system. It's what people are inclined to do when the state is not enforcing some other kind of system, therefore it is just self-perpetuating economic goodness when done right.

---

That leads to a dangerous road in which Capitalism as it was meant to be once dominated America from around 1870s-1900s: the one which was accompanied by the social Darwinism idea and, as a result, made lives for millions of Americans horrible, put the nation in several minor crisis (and a major one around the early 1890s), allowed police brutality against American citizens, fostered the "unconcerned" and individualistic climate of American opinions, and, in conclusion, wasn't very nice. Only the moralistic, "superior" Progressive movement managed to began change, and only the sweeping New Deal era and FDR's leadership closed away much of the old wounds. According to the classical theism tradition, and Hobbes and a bunch of others in the Enlightenment tradition, humans are naturally inclined to be evil. By their conclusion, a completely free economy is really not different from an anarchy.

Adam Smith's work isn't flawless. Marx noticed that, quite clearly, even if his own theories aren't any better.

For me, my opinion on the economic system has yet to be formalized. Being raised in capitalistic economies only, even if one of them was utterly, thoroughly corrupted and oligarchic while the other (America) is not really that impressively successful, I could not vouch blindly for capitalism. Having not lived in socialist (referring only to the economy) economies before, I could not vouch blindly for socialism either.

but the socialism of the scandies have, according to the report, created "a highly motivated and skilled labour force"... so it isn't necessary to have the naked free market to create a motivated work force.

There's more than one way to skin a cat! ~:)

editted out lame joke that might be misunderstood

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Hence I said "Done right." Capitalism works, even if it has no limits. It just means some people wound up exploited for the betterment of others. Capitalism "Done right." does away with a reasonable amount of exploitation, but does not coddle. As opposed to socialism, which is all about coddling.

Capitalism works at the risk of exploitation. Socialism can work at the risk of stagnancy. As with most americans, I believe that a strong work-ethic is what makes someone worthy of living in my country, and that is my fundamental disagreement with socialism.

---

Capitalism works because of its benefits not its pitfalls. It is a flexible system that shortens the time between demand and supply. It is responsive. Being exploitive is not any good in capitalism... poor workers make crap consumers.

And Socialism done right is not about coddling but enhancing the citizens. If the aim of Socialism is to raise up the abilities of people and help make them individuals who are highly educated and motivated that is Socialism done right.

And with Socialism and Capitalism you can actually mix the two models under a Democratic model.

While cheerfully ignoring that the top ten countries:

Finland (1), Sweden (3), Denmark (4), Iceland (7) and Norway (9) are all 'socialistic' economies.

Australia (10) is as well.

Singapore (6) is in a strange way a socialistic country (at least with respect to housing, schooling and public transport).

BTW Kagemusha the link you list states Taiwan as number 5 and Singapore 6... or am I looking at the wrong year?

Yup Pape you are right sorry.my mistake.I will correct the original post:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Or need we go look at that thread about the French students whining about the possibility of *gasp* being fired?

---

I don't know that anybody is upset by the fact that they can be fired at all, or even w/o restriction. It is the fact that it makes an exception for a certain group and not another. It is exactly the same as what the Jim Crow laws did, but not with race and with something much more tangible. To treat two individuals differently under the law is patently unjust and discriminatory.