Sometimes when I rail against socialism, people ask me "What about Norway? Their socialist healthcare system seems great. And it doesn't seem an otherwise terrible place."
I don't think "socialist" is a binary descriptor, but a spectrum descriptor. So, a given policy can be more or less "socialist", and given country can be more or less socialist. (Just as say, someone can have a small defined tumor, or be riddled with cancer.)
People can live a long time with slowly growing tumor. For example, most men, if they live long enough, will develop prostate cancer. Prostate cancer grows slowly enough that many physicians don't recommend treating it--by the time the cancer becomes severe enough to deserve treatment, the patient has typically already died of old age.
Similarly, otherwise healthy market economies can tolerate some amount of socialist policies (such as centrally planned, state run health systems).
Norway is a small, fairly homogeneous country with strict border controls and vast oil wealth. The country has a mostly market economy with a generous welfare system that is heavily subsidized by their oil wealth.
So, yes, Norway hasn't collapsed from their socialist healthcare system yet. Their government may never collapse, if they can reign in the demand for ever increasing spending (especially once their oil reserves run out).
But other countries are not so lucky. Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Argentina, South Africa--all are economic basket cases because their socialist programs have destroyed the incentives to create wealth and prosperity.
Even the US, as wealthy as it is, is on track to be bankrupted by ever increases Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid costs (among other government spending). The only practical way out will be massive devaluation of the currency. I don't know how that devaluation will play out, but such collapses are often accompanied by civil unrest, increasingly authoritarian government, and war.
I don't think "socialist" is a binary descriptor, but a spectrum descriptor. So, a given policy can be more or less "socialist", and given country can be more or less socialist. (Just as say, someone can have a small defined tumor, or be riddled with cancer.)
People can live a long time with slowly growing tumor. For example, most men, if they live long enough, will develop prostate cancer. Prostate cancer grows slowly enough that many physicians don't recommend treating it--by the time the cancer becomes severe enough to deserve treatment, the patient has typically already died of old age.
Similarly, otherwise healthy market economies can tolerate some amount of socialist policies (such as centrally planned, state run health systems).
Norway is a small, fairly homogeneous country with strict border controls and vast oil wealth. The country has a mostly market economy with a generous welfare system that is heavily subsidized by their oil wealth.
So, yes, Norway hasn't collapsed from their socialist healthcare system yet. Their government may never collapse, if they can reign in the demand for ever increasing spending (especially once their oil reserves run out).
But other countries are not so lucky. Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Argentina, South Africa--all are economic basket cases because their socialist programs have destroyed the incentives to create wealth and prosperity.
Even the US, as wealthy as it is, is on track to be bankrupted by ever increases Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid costs (among other government spending). The only practical way out will be massive devaluation of the currency. I don't know how that devaluation will play out, but such collapses are often accompanied by civil unrest, increasingly authoritarian government, and war.