The Truth about the Welfare State and Social Democracy
While researching world poverty and nutrition, I somehow ended up watching this video by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation that claims to explain what “social democracy” means. The comments on the video were mostly enthusiastic praise and wistful longing that the United States could provide such wonderful social protections and guaranteed income to it’s citizens.
Based on a hunch that this utopian story was not quite accurate, I looked up a few facts about Scandinavian countries. I found that this term refers to Norway, Denmark and Sweden, Finland, Iceland and some smaller islands. The population of all of these countries combined is only 27.5 million with nearly half of that living in Sweden and 2.4 million of those in Stockholm. The GDP of Sweden alone for 2021 was $5,381 billion. For comparison, the population of the United States is 332,403,650, according to commerce.gov. The GDP of the US for 2021 was $23 trillion.
Long story short, it did not take me long to learn that the reason Scandinavian countries have been able to provide such a high quality of life via welfare programs is because of petroleum exports. Yes, all that social welfare was funded by evil fossil fuels!
But now those same countries plan to phase out all fossil fuels by 2050. Denmark made the statement here. Norway is trying to figure out it’s way out of fossil fuel dependence for it’s wealth. As for Sweden, I found some articles about being the first country to get rid of fossil fuels and still provide a welfare state, but no actual reports of that happening yet.
It is a fact that FOSSIL FUELS have provided the energy needed for wealth accumulation, economic growth, and even the food supply in the form of fertilizer that enables mass food production for the poor in developing nations.
To continue feeding the world while also reducing fossil fuel use will require big changes. “Rob Percival, head of policy at the Soil Association, says organic farming can feed the world, if consumption patterns are adjusted to encourage those who can afford meat to eat less of it. “We need an urgent shift in both production and consumption if we’re to avert the worst consequences of climate change, including a dietary shift towards less and better meat,” he says.” https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jan/28/can-we-ditch-intensive-farming-and-still-feed-the-world
I wonder if the commenters on the Friedrich Ebert video have thought of where the money comes from for Scandinavia’s welfare states. Have they considered the consequences of implementing the climate agenda, especially on developing countries? I think not.
Conclusion: Everyone wants free stuff. Someone has to pay for that stuff. In rich countries, it’s much easier to give money to the lower classes. Having a strong economy takes energy and money. Without fossil fuels, everything will change. The anti-fossil fuels agenda will take the world backwards, especially poor countries.
Freedom will also suffer as total economic control will be put into place over the years. Socialists blame capitalism for climate change and inequality. Their goal is to slow down economic growth and kill capitalism. To do this, they will have to make growth very expensive. This is the actual goal of the climate agenda. Be careful what you ask for.