Omg, it’s Kurz Gesagt! Bless. Also, Social Democracy gave Scandinavians the highest quality of life in the world, showing that it is empirically the best policy to improve human life. So, we should have Social Democracy everywhere
...Those countries have a reliance on fossil fuels exports, or patriarchal ethnostates, or universal peacetime conscription, or a CoVId-19 policy which keeps their economy open by way of sending large numbers of "palliative" lethal injections to nursing homes with instructions to administer them in lieu of transferring their residents to the hospital... Sen. Paul of Kentucky, an anarcho-capitalist Putinpuppet, loves that last one especially. Linking SocDem to "The Scandinavian Model" is a losing proposition, at least in my country.
just because it works over here doesnt mean it will work evereywhere. It worked for scandinavia but it might not work for a country like the USA, Russia or India
In essence social democracy is the start of what democratic socialism starts out as. where they differ is the outcome. Democratic socialists want to transfer from capitalism to socialism by the means of democratic process and legislation, while social democracy doesn't want to do away with capitalism but to rather to humanise it and fix the issues of wealth disparity that is caused by unregulated capitalism.
Wrong ! There is to many regulations on business today not less watch Peter Schiff 1% video and Europe has less far middle class than Usa and millionaires
+Oli Cansdale This video uses several fallacies , notably one where it promotes the idea of relationship between STATE and MARKET as being more important than State and People as a whole.
This is what Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn and Sarah Wagenknecht are re-inventing. _Real_ Social Democracy, not the pseudo neoliberal BS of Tony Blair, Bill Clinton & Gerhard Schroeder.
"Free markets" without regulation is not a true free market. A true free market needs regulations to protect workers, the environment, and the poor. Social Democracy is what is need throughout the world. I don't care whom disagrees with me. I'm used to dissent-- I'm an American. Mock me if you will as I m also used to that solely because of where I was born. Hahahah.
finally, an american who gets it, monopolies and corrupt markets is a form of oppression and tyranny as it removes economic freedoms from the citizens of the country
I question whether growth can be sustainable. It seems that, at some point, on a planet with finite resources, the level of production and consumption must at least level off. I don't see how infinite growth is sustainable indefinitely.
We have a solution called: Asteroids. Just mine them for precious minerals and use the mineral like sand and other more precious material more conservatively and not waste it on extravagant things
But there are ways that an economy can grow without consuming more resources. For example, if we had better trains, trams, and cycling routes, we would consume less fuel. Another example would be more recycling. Using uranium power would require less mining than coal and would produce more energy. If we used greenhouses, we could grow enough food using less land and water.
As a Sri Lankan I should say, our constitution states that Sri Lanka is a Democratic Socialist Republic, but actually it's a Social Democratic Republic.
It still requires the nation to have wealth beforehand for the state to work correctly. I.E there may be periods where we revert to low taxation to generate wealth.
Yeah but how would you regulate private industry and the free market? Obviously far left socialism as well as far right capitalism both prove to be inadequate, So would that mean higher taxes for the rich while also give a UBI? or is there just a cap limit for how much individual corporations can make before having to turn it over to the state? I like the idea of a UBI for sure but I feel but the excessive free market is ever distorting the economy an widening the gap between the rich and the poor. What I am asking is, yes you gave a great general idea about how social democracy works, but how would you actually implement it in the way of gaining a little more control over the free marketers?
@@goodgirlkay in denmark danes typically pay only 38-39% income tax which is not all that high its only up to 59% for money that is made above half a million KR i dont know how much that is i US currency
They didn't say infinite growth, sustainable growth is growth that attempts to balance economic, environmental and social factors so that there is a net zero.
We have corruption not democracy. What about a board of directors that works out different proposed solutions and votes on them. Only relevant or trend-setting topics similar to the previous election programs of the parties come to the vote. The people can of course also propose solutions. The board of directors decides independently on day-to-day business. These decisions can be revised by referendum.
It wasn't 60% tax on all of the income, but 60% on a part of your income above a certain threshold. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pnoLAMHwf2I.html&t
I know you can't really address much in a short video, but the idea that wealth should be redistributed for the good of the "whole of society" is a fanciful idea. The reality is that government is made up of human beings with limited knowledge and an inclination towards self-interest. Social Democracy system is, in reality, the gifting of power to a elite group of people based on their ability to win a popularity contest, then hoping they keep their promises and they have the knowledge and intellect to redistribute wealth in a way that is going to end up helping the general welfare (of not only this generation, but future generations) instead of harming it. To truly work as advertised, in a Social Democracy you would need political leaders who are all extremely intelligent and at the same time completely altruistic, to be chosen through the democratic process. Call me a cynic, but this is an impossibility.
As German I can only say that social democracy means that half the year I have to work for the state as social democrats take 50% of the money I earn and gives the majority of it to other people so those people vote for them again and have to have all sorts of social insurances I don't want to but the state forces me to pay for them. And overall the state services grow and grow as of course majority figures out soon enough out that social democracy in the end means that the majorty can take away stuff from a better off minority and call it righteous
Well that rich minority isn't rich on it's own. If you are a successful businessman, Good for you. U did great. You started and Managed a great business by your own. But, You ever able to do that because of good roads that we as a society paid for and you used to transport your goods on, because of skilled workforce that we as a society trained though a good educational system. Every human has both a collective and Individual responsibility. N it is social democracts who believe in we ought to perform both simultaneously side by side and not at the cost of one over the other.Unlike what American Conservatives or Soviet Communist believe.
@@ananthuajay6470 This is the basic economic idea known as spillover. A positive spillover from good education, good infrastructure, etc. Far outweighs the negative economic impact of not having these things in place. Say one owns a small bakery & is looking to hire a cook. If public funded education was not there he would not know the basic math or writing for the position of cook. If roads were not there he could not get to work, if public transportation was not available he could not commute to the job. Free marketers like to pretend they did everything alone, but they ignore the benefits that public funded institutions & programs have given them in terms of their workforce & even their own life. History has shown free market capitalism will not provide education, healthcare, etc. Because human beings are just cogs in the machine that can & will be replaced.
"When you are asked to love everybody indiscriminately - that is - to love people without any standard - to love them regardless of whether they have any valour or virtue, you are asked to love nobody" - Ayn Rand.
SoulRippster If you believe that using the violence of the state to interfere in the voluntary interactions of people is actually effective or in any way moral, then yes. You live a Utopian lie in which you ignore injustice and bad economics. The economy thrives IN SPITE of the state, not because of it.
