Will Ferrell was the star of a Super Bowl ad about Norway, complaining that Norway had more electric vehicles than the United States. It was funny, of course, especially when he gathered his friends and headed for Norway to complain, but ended up in Sweden.
Sunniva Whittaker, rector of the University of Agder in Norway, says, “The Americans are coming, and Will Ferrell does not look happy.” She says she wants to maintain good relations with the Americans, so she stars in a hilarious ad in response to Will Ferrell, “apologizing” for having so many electric vehicles, then scurrying to hide the fact that university tuition is free, healthcare is free, and other important things in life are also paid for by the government. This is what the Republicans have warned us about: Socialism! Free education for all! Free healthcare for all! Social security for all! A year of paid maternity leave! Beware!
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I have heard that Norwegians are not expected to put away much of their earnings towards care in their senior years, because that comes with the package of being a citizen in Norway, so you can buy that boat and do other things with your income, and that actually stimulates the economy and creates jobs when people spend money instead of sacking it away for the future costs of getting old and infirm. That’s a reason, perhaps, why Norwegians don’t pay much more in taxes than we do, but oh, they seem to get so much more in return.
Norway is a wealthy country because of the significant amount of oil and natural gas it exports. It produces 313,661 barrels per day for every million in population. To give you some context, the US produces about 36,000 barrels per day for ever million in population.
That does not explain Norway’s generous social welfare programs. Finland has the same social democratic values. All education is free, even graduate and professional education. They pay for those programs with taxes.
Norway is a petrostate. The top 5 countries for oil production per capita are
Kuwait at 721,725 barrels a day per million people
Qatar at 500,000 barrels a day per million people
United Arab Emirates at 335,103 barrels a day per million people
Saudi Arabia at 324,866 barrels a day per million people
Norway at 313,361 barrels a day per million people
All of those countries have generous social welfare programs for their citizens.
What about Finland? Is it a big petrostate? Why does a Finland provide the same social welfare benefits as Norway?
The post was about Norway. There are, of course, many other countries that can be discussed.
TE,
You said that Norway has generous social programs because it is oil-rich. No, it has generous social programs because it has communitarian values. That’s why I mentioned Finland. It has the same generous social programs but is not an oil-rich nation. The Middle Eastern nations you mentioned have lots of oil but no one thinks of them as Social Democracies.
From wikipedia: Electricity generation in Norway is almost entirely from hydroelectric power plants. Of the total production in 2005 of 137.8 TWh, 136 TWh was from hydroelectric plants, 0.86 TWh was from thermal power, and 0.5 TWh was wind generated. In 2005 the total consumption was 125.8 TWh. end quote
So the engine of Norway’s welfare state is destroying the planet?
How is it a “welfare state” when most of the adult population is employed & receive public services they’ve paid for through taxes?
I use “welfare state” in what I think is the received general meaning, not as a derogatory term.
E.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state
In other words, I don’t mean “a place where people get something for nothing.” I mean a state where the government extends a taxpayer-funded safety net, funded by taxes on local economic activity, to protect the well-being of its citizens. With Norway, a large amount of that local economic activity is fossil fuel-based.
I pointed out to TE that Finland has the same generous social welfare without relying on oil exports. It’s a matter of values.
Joe: that is a function of geography, and just means that Norway can profit all the more from exporting oil it doesn’t need to areas not so well-endowed with hydropower, and reap more profits.
Flerp,
Yes, Norway’s wealth comes from oil. To their credit the Norwegian’s are conflicted about this. Not so conflicted that the left it in the ground however.
TE’s “analysis” is very simplistic and lazy. Norway has a sovereign wealth fund of more than $1 trillion that invests its assets in ventures that will benefit its citizens. Rather than waste money and resources on irresponsible tax cuts, it invests in the long-term future of its citizens. Yes, Norway produces significant amounts of fossil fuels. But they recognize that oil will not always provide those funds, that it comes with real consequences to the health of its citizens and the climate. Therefore, its investments are increasingly going toward green energy initiatives. The problem is that there are not enough of those ventures to fund, but the promise of substantial investment will likely change that. It is the most civilized nation on earth and proves it by constantly looking at the long-term public good.
Excellent, Greg.
Norwegian offshore drilling doesn’t produce enough energy to power one of Betsy DeVos’ ten yachts. That was funny when TE tried to change the subject because Diane caught TE in a Finland dilemma. I’ll add, because I’m sure socialism lights up the night for TE, that the Norwegian public owns a large share of its oil and gas companies. Also, the United States today produces far more oil and gas than Norway and every other nation on earth, for that matter. The United States is a far wealthier country than Norway and every other nation. The U.S. has plenty of financial resources to have a healthy social welfare program for all of its people.
Thank you, LCT.
The absurd inequality in our nation makes billionaires and prevents generous social welfare policies.
An economist — and a particular one at that– making a simplistic argument?
I am shocked! Shocked!!
bethree: Of course it’s a function of geography AND of the ingenuity and determination of the Norwegians to not depend on fossil fuels for their energy sources. There are many countries with similar geographies that don’t utilize hydroelectric power. Yes, the Norwegians depend on their oil wells to boost their treasury, so I guess some people see them as phony baloney hypocrites. I believe that they do want to eventually phase out their dependence on the oil $$$$$$ or Kroners. Give the Norwegians some credit for trying to limit and phase out the use of fossil fuels in their own country.
Interesting. I have talk about Europe, redistribution of wealth and progressive taxation for, like, a gadzillion years. We needed a commercial from the Super Bowl to remind us about it.
Fascinating.
I do want to mention that I am gladdened Norway is doing well. I heard something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
We are too busy paying for the military and corporate welfare in this country.https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1136522780057633
Corporate I’ll grant you, but our military budget is connected to the question at hand. Norway spends 1.7% of GDP on military; US double that [3.4%]– and our GDP is 9 times theirs. We have to ask to what extent our military budget supports the happy lifestyle of Euro social democracies.
Approaching 70 cents of every dollar of annual federal discretionary spending. You don’t have to be an economic whizkid to know that this is a losing formula. We spend money and waste lives to protect the rich who pay little-to-no taxes. This includes churches.
Diane The below headlines are in today’s Huffington Post. My immediate question? Why?
TRADE AUTHORITIES HIT BIDEN’S ELECTRIC VEHICLE PLANS The U.S. International Trade Commission banned one of the world’s biggest electric vehicle battery manufacturers from selling in the United States, striking a blow to the Biden administration’s ambitious plan to electrify the nation’s auto fleet. The decision bars South Korean giant SK Innovation from importing its batteries or the components to make them for 10 years. [HuffPost]
See this:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lg-chem-sk-innovation-lawsuit/u-s-itc-rules-against-south-korea-but-allows-temporary-vw-ford-battery-use-idUSKBN2AA2WR
teachingeconomist Thanks for the reference to further developments in the electric car battery issue and S. Korea. On top of what’s going on in Congress right now: what a tangled web we weave? CBK
I’m going to admit to an intellectual incapacity to understand the linked article. My first reaction was, could it be this move is simply to support US manufacture of electric batteries for vehicles? (help!)
Didn’t GM announce that it plans to transition to all-electric vehicles?
Thanks for steering me, Diane! I found these tidbits:
GM’s announcement included “we are rapidly building a competitive advantage in batteries.” And an 11/25 article: “GM Opens Up a New Front in Its Battle With Tesla: Batteries– A new $2.3 billion plant cranks out Ultium cells to power GM’s upcoming line of electric vehicles.” A joint venture with a SKorean firm being built in Lordstown OH. Tesla builds a small number of its batteries, in conjunction w/Panasonic, in Nevada, but is rumored to be planning a huge expansion. (GM’s new Lordstown plant will produce 50% more batteries than Tesla currently does.)
I see from TE’s link that the ITC’s decision stems from a lawsuit between SK battery mfrs, & will be dropped if they settle it– also that a presidential review of their decision hasn’t yet taken place.
I sent that video to my financial advisor. I thought it said a LOT in a funny manner.
My financial advisor didn’t want a progressive tax system in Illinois to pass even though the pensions are now 40% funded. He HATES anyone telling the wealthy that they must ‘pay their fair share’.
He is against a $15 an hour minimum wage.
He said that government doesn’t do anything right and gave an example of how a person making $145,000 a year would do much better investing that money than being forced to give it to Social Security.
He wife once said that you can’t give money to poor people or they won’t work.
He’s honest and is a good investor but his political believes are really getting to me.
My financial advisor is also against forgiving the debt that college students are getting in order to finish college.
I wonder if he’s against FREE college for everyone. [Probably is. After all, we can’t give too much away.]
So many of these CPAs and financial advisers are anti-Social Security and Medicare or any social programs. They say forget SS, it’s going bankrupt which is a big fat lie. Oh sure, invest in the stock market, it’s “so” dependable. NOT.
The stock market is dependable as long as it is manipulable — either directly through insider trading, for example, or indirectly, through “derivatives” and other opaque financial “instruments” (of destruction)
When it stops being manipulable — eg, when a light is shone on what is going on under the covers — it inevitably crashes.
And even then, it is only dependable for the manipulators.
Carolmalaysia
I think there is a large amount of “I didn’t have my debt forgiven, so why should someone else?” involved.
It’s all about ” Me Me Me” with these types. Even if they are millionaires or even billionaires, they hate the idea that someone is getting a break that they did not get.
He said that forgiving college student’s debts would be unfair to the parents who struggled to pay. AND that it would cause children to think, “I’ll borrow money and wait for the government to pay for my bill”.
I visited the Soviet Union in 1989, and my young guide told me a joke. One neighbor notices that the guy next door has acquired a cow. His immediate response was “why should he have a cow? I don’t have one. His cow should die.”
That’s a game that lots of us have used: “When I was your age, we walked two miles back and forth to school. No reason you can’t, too!” A rather simplistic example, I know, but I would be very surprised if everyone couldn’t come up with their own example.
It is a lot more painful when people who have “made it,” the “close the gate and bar the door” folks, figure they owe nothing to those who probably helped get and keep them there and who will continue to provide the stability in society necessary for the sustained prosperity those privileged individuals enjoy.
Of course, that’s how you couch the argument when you don’t want to make i sound like it’s just sour grapes.
It’s called concern trolling when you do it online.
I guess we should be bigly afraid of those happy Nordic folks with all their free time to enjoy family, friends and life while not having to live paycheck to paycheck.
According to Celebrity NetWorth, Will Ferrell has a net worth $160 million. Ferrell doesn’t need a free education. He already has one, and due to his success in film and comedy, he doesn’t need to worry about keeping a job.
“He attended Turtle Rock Elementary, Rancho San Joaquin Middle School, and University High School in Irvine. While in high school, Ferrell played for his school’s varsity football team. After high school, Ferrell attended the University of Southern California. He studied sports broadcasting and information and was an active member of the Delta Tau Delta fraternity.”
https://www.eduinreview.com/blog/2011/06/will-ferrells-education-background/
NOTE: USC is a private university. The Average annual cost to attend USC is $30,453. His father played saxophone and keyboards for the Righteous Brothers. His mother taught at an elementary school and Santa Ana College.
Will Ferrell reportedly has a net worth in 2020 of 160 million dollars. By 2001, Ferrell had become the highest-paid cast member in Saturday Night Live’s history, with earnings of $17,500 per episode.
According to CBS News, Ferrell’s politics lean Democratic. At one time, he endorsed Bernie Sanders and then Hillary Clinton.
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/celebrities-favorite-presidential-candidates/23/
He also doesn’t have to worry about healthcare. Ferrell has plenty of money to pay for his health bills if he ends up in the hospital. Getting sick will not bankrupt him.
Ferrel also doesn’t worry about where his next meal will come from. He can eat anywhere he wants and can have all of his food delivered and never worry about running out of money.
If Ferrell can’t get the health care he needs to survive, he can go anywhere in the world and pay for the best health care whenever it is.
Once someone is wealthy like Ferrell, he doesn’t need a social safety net like most of us, the other 99-percent. He doesn’t have to worry about anything when it comes to money.
Has Ferrell’s wealth and fame infected him with the greed-narcissist virus or was this just a publicity stunt?
I think Ferrell was mocking our tight-fisted conservative views. Despite his wealth, he is known to be a Democrat. He once did a satiric play on George Bush. By the way Ferrell is married to a Swedish actress so he knows quite a bit about a democratic socialistic society.
To be fair to Will Ferrell:
This was not a publicity stunt, i.e., a staged event the purpose of which is drawing attention to some person or object without paying for the resulting public exposure. This was a commercial conceived & paid for by a vehicle manufacturer seeking to promote one of their products. He was hired & paid (well, I presume) to appear in the commercial. The Super Bowl broadcast is in a class by itself in the advertising industry; large advertisers typically go all out in spectacle & expense for ads airing in it, employing top-ranked entertainers or other celebrities.
GM, not Will Ferrell, produced this ad, for their own benefit. It’s highly unlikely GM’s corporate mission includes the goal of promoting Will Ferrell’s popularity or career. His hiring for this ad was a business decision based on extensive research indicating much of the intended audience finds him entertaining & has generally positive associations with him.
The ad doesn’t remotely imply that Mr. Ferrell is in need of, or demanding, government-subsidized services. It presents the outrageous premise that he’s so deeply concerned that Norway surpasses the US in electric car use that he assembles a group to go there & protest in person. It’s a joke; they’re kidding! Clearly they failed miserably in your case. GM & Mr. Ferrell know they can’t win ’em all (see above, “extensive research indicating much of the intended audience…”). (Emphasis added.)
It’s true Will Ferrell, like many top-level entertainers, is highly paid for his work. You may or may not approve of this practice, but it is the nature of our society today. Mr. Ferrell didn’t create this; it was in effect long before he was born. Like many of us in the arts (yes, that’s why this is a big deal to me), he gambled his quality of life on the possibility of making a living practicing his art; he won big. Many more of us won smaller, but still have been privileged to spend our lives being paid to do something we love. Perhaps (hopefully) some of you in the teaching profession can relate to that. I don’t begrudge any artist their success, even those whose work doesn’t appeal to me.
Lloyd, you do tremendous service to the education profession with your insights & dedication. Your points inform about many important issues & broaden my perspective. I intend no offense with any of my comments. I don’t know if your objections here concern any or all of Will Ferrell specifically, the entertainment &/or advertising industries, GM &/or large corporations in general, or our society’s values, but your apparent hostility toward Will Ferrell &, by implication, other successful entertainers appears misplaced.
I think Lloyd missed the point on this one. You can’t go into teaching even dreaming of “making it” if your definition of success is how much you have socked away. It’s no secret, so it’s hard to begrudge someone else who chose a profession that awards a few people handsomely. There are plenty of legitimate targets who think their wealth makes them a gift to humankind. I don’t think Farrell is one, but then again I don’t pay much attention to actors’ private lives.
I read Lloyd’s comment as an indictment of Ferrell specifically.
Not sure how one can read it differently.
And the fact that Ferrell is very wealthy means he doesn’t need to do any sort of commercial, to say nothing of one he disagrees with.
Ferrell would have absolutely no reason for doing the latter sort of commercial.
Ferrell can do whatever he wants to do. Some of his movies were hilarious. I loved “Talladega Nights” where he played a race car driver named Billy Bob.
Diane – I won’t presume to evaluate the scope of Lloyd’s comments; as a colleague, you’re certainly in a better position than I to do that.
I think my response applies regardless of whether his criticisms were directed toward Will Ferrell personally or extend to other financially successful entertainers.
Unless he actually agreed with it.
SDP – If we’re going to speculate on Will Ferrell’s motives for agreeing to appear in the commercial, I agree with Diane above that it’s unlikely he needs the money to cover next month’s grocery bill or something like that, & that he probably wouldn’t participate in a presentation the central point with which he disagreed. In order to explore that, we have to consider why GM would broaden its presentation to a variety of social programs just to sell batteries.
GM’s intended message for the commercial is that electric cars equipped with their new battery are a superior choice for automobile owners. They can’t just talk about their battery, though, because electric cars, being a relatively new addition to the mass consumer marketplace, aren’t yet in sufficiently broad use for the battery to be as profitable as they’d like. Therefore, they have to approach the topic indirectly, first attempting to increase the market for electric cars in general, & then suggesting if viewers switch from gas to electric cars, GM’s cars utilizing their battery would be the best option. Most commercials simply try to persuade consumers who already use a particular type of product that the advertiser’s version of that product is desirable over their competitors’ versions. In this case, however, they have to begin by convincing viewers to begin using a product type with which their focussed product, the battery, would be useful. That’s why the ad centers on electric cars rather than electric car batteries.
In establishing their case for electric car usage, they choose to tie in electric car usage with social programs that benefit a country’s people. Considering the controversy in the US over such programs, that’s actually a daring move for a large broad market corporation like GM. This happens to connect historically to a position expressed by a previous GM head: “What’s good for GM is good for America.”
https://www.hemmings.com/stories/2019/09/05/fact-check-did-a-gm-president-really-tell-congress-whats-good-for-gm-is-good-for-america I personally commend GM for incorporating these programs into their pitch. (& I’m sure they’ve been on pins & needles awaiting my evaluation.😀)
I think it is fair to infer that by consenting to do the commercial, Mr. Ferrell does agree with its positive references to social programs, & for that I commend him as well.
I think the commercial “sells” the superiority of electric-powered cars, and it also sells the superiority of social welfare programs in a non-threatening nation. Great message!
Diane – agree wholeheartedly. The tie-in to social programs is a choice by GM, & an admirable one. The humorous setting serves well to keep it non-confrontational.
The point I was making My point appears to have been completely missed.
But arguing about a stupid ad for a stupid game that I did not watch is not high on my list of things I enjoy doing, so I won’t argue further because THAT would be even stupider.
Lloyd,
Do you have it in for Will Ferrell? I don’t know if I do, but I would challenge him to push for redistribution of wealth, strengthening of the public commons, and progressive taxation instead of selling a car battery, the raw material of which probably comes from China or mines in Africa owned by the Chinese.
Other than that, I find most of liberal Hollywood to be limousine liberals, and they are just as much a part of the problem as the GOP is.
I was shocked but delighted to listen to a Mick Jagger interview in which he lambasted the rich and spoke explicitly about the plight of working class people. There are few celebs willing to do so. I was not impressed by Springsteen’s recent stunt as a “middleman” trying to bring everyone back to the “Center” in his Jeep ad. I wanted to tell him to shut his mouth, stick to his music, and realize how far to the right the Center has moved in 50 years. But when you are worth millions, you disconnect with reality. You feel, you perceive, but you don’t bother to think and research. Maybe Susan Sarandon should have talked to him . . . Or Cardi-B?
But best not to put too much value into celebrities, as they don’t legislate.
American Exceptionalism
But haven’t y’all heard? The United States is the greatest.
Greatest in child poverty
Greatest in percentage of uninsured persons
Greatest in wealth inequality
Greatest in income inequality
Greatest in number of people without dental care
Greatest in number of prescription drug costs
Greatest in percentage of people under penal supervision
Greatest in pollution levels in our air and water
Greatest in all of the diseases of affluence–heart disease, diabetes, cancer
Greatest in distrust of government
Greatest in greenhouse gas emissions per capita
Greatest in military spending
Greatest in arms exports
Greatest in percentage of workers without union representation
Greatest in number of school shootings
Greatest in amount of violent crime
Greatest in number of right-wing hate groups
Greatest in adherence to fundamentalist Christian superstition
As Trump never tired of telling us, we are the best. Wouldn’t want those evil Socialists to fix any of this.
cx: Greatest in prescription drug costs
Bob Have we lost? CBK
I hope not.
Greatest in infant mortality
Greatest in educational and economic disparity across economic and racial groups
Oh, and greatest in Covid cases and deaths
We also have an exceptional number of nitwit “experts”.
“Experts” who first tell us that masks don’t work and then a few months later tell us that they do — as if somehow the facts have changed, even though surgeons, nurses and others have been wearing masks for a very long time, which makes it clear that the medical community was well aware that masks work.
Our youngest is looking at colleges and the tuition is shockingly high. We’re probably in the top 20% of income in our county and we will BARELY be able to afford our “flagship” (public) state university.
I cannot imagine what working class people are doing. There is NO WAY they can afford to send a kid to college without saddling that kid with 60 to 80K in debt.
It’s appalling that people my age stuck the next generation with this absolutely raw deal. We should be ashamed.
I graduated college with 1500 in debt. Working class young people will leave with 80k and that’s IF they choose a public school, in state, and take advantage of any merit aid they might receive. It is simply unaffordable for ordinary working people.
Chiara . . . and then some in Congress resent letting younger people staying on their parents’ health insurance until they are 25. If we really DID live in a democracy, I have to wonder if many here deserve to live in one. CBK
Conservatives have no interest in serving working families. They prefer to serve up working families on a platter for the wealthy to exploit. That was the DeVos-Trump agenda.
So, how do we get working-class people in the United States to stop voting against themselves and for evil ***********s like Trump and McConnell?
Bob, you have identified the greatest puzzle in our politics: why do so many poor and working class Americans vote against their self-interest? The South is the poorest region in the nation and its very pro-Trump. Why do the people of S. Carolina elect a weasel like Graham? Why do the people of Kentucky vote for McConnell?
Diane: Indiana, a red state that underfunds education and other social needs, is called “The Mississippi of the North”.
Politicians here brag about our surplus budget. It’s a “Right to Work for nothing” place. the minimum wage is $7.25 an hour.
Yep, and Indiana wants Trump to be president.
I think Biden needs to “go big” with his plans for a more just society. If he can actually deliver on some good paying jobs in the rust belt, he will help restore some faith in a Democratic Party that can move us forward with substantive positive change. Democrats need to reach out to blue collar voters after years of ignoring them.
Who paid for the add? And what did it cost?
It was a General Motors ad: GM paid for it. Given the whole story, really, GM consumers paid for the ad–those who buy/lease the vehicles whose $$$ spent to buy/lease said vehicles, since the majority %age of that $$$ flows upward: GM CEO Mary Barra’s compensation was $21.6 million last year, making her the highest paid executive among the Detroit Three automakers.” (The Detroit News) It was earlier noted that, in 2018, she made “281 times the median GM worker (2018 salary=$21.87 million” Detroit Free Press. I couldn’t find out exactly how much this particular commercial cost, but sportingnews.com reports that “bidding for a 30-sec. commercial spot opened at $5.6 million.” (Which is what it cost last year, but was less, as per conditions caused by the pandemic–attendance issues, etc.)
So–there’s the ball park (so to speak).
Given that the American taxpayers bailed GM out in 2009 for $50 billion. Which ended up costing taxpayers $11 billion overall, I’d have to say that “We, the taxpayers paid for the ad and also paid Will Ferrell to do it”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-gm-treasury/u-s-government-says-it-lost-11-2-billion-on-gm-bailout-idUSBREA3T0MR20140430
Can’t speak for anyone else, but i’d prefer the moneyIi pay in taxes not go to monkeybrained, wealthy comedians who are not even funny.
Just my opinion, of course.
Actually I believe GM repaid the U.S. for the bailout.
It’s complicated. SDP is closer to the truth, actually pretty much on it. Worth Googling “GM recession funds.”
For a hundred years now, the servants of the oligarchs in the United States have lied to the people about what Socialism is. They have sown ignorance in service of rapaciousness. Even as we have watched Social Democratic governments arise in Europe and act as midwives to historically unprecedented equity and quality of life, here in the U.S., the oligarchs’ meretricious bobbleheads and action figures in Congress and the Executive have doubled down on their BIG LIES about Socialism, creating an imaginary bogeyman in the minds of a populace intentionally kept ignorant and indoctrinated. But the truth will out. The tide is turning. Just recently, a Gallop poll showed that over 60 percent of young adults in the United States have a favorable view of Socialism. Thanks, Bernie, for being the visionary and leader there.
Here’s the thing about knowledge: it is an inoculation against propaganda. The propaganda no longer works.
I have a friend who looks at the same poll and declares that the United States is done for, overtaken by ignorance.
I look at the same poll and conclude that young people are much more astute than the older generations who have been running our country (into the ground) for decades how.
When these young people support Bernie Sanders, they are quite clearly not supporting Soviet or Chinese communism. In fact, I’d bet that most of them only have a vague idea of what those are about.
The older generations — especially my generation, the baby boomers — have brought our country to the brink.
I would rename the Boomers “The Stupidest Generation” because these are the same people responsible for the Covid response, which is a giant cluster@#%& if ever there was one (and no, I don’t believe for a second that it’s just Trump).
Another apt name would be the “Me, ME, ME!! Generation.”
What continues to astonish me, Roy, is that Americans are so provincial, that they have before them the existence proofs of every other advanced, industrialized democracy in the world that actually provides medical care, for example, to all their citizens, and yet this profound ignorance about those societies remains. I lived for a time in a resort that got visitors from all over the globe, and I would invariably ask them about their healthcare back home. They didn’t describe the nonsense that gets circulated in the United States about incredibly long waits for care and substandard care and death panels and other such rot. They invariably said, “What’s not to like? You get sick, you go see a doctor. You need dental work, you go see a dentist. Universal access.” It’s pretty clear where the ignorance lies.
Bob . . . and there is a lot riding on that ignorance. CBK
There sure is. People have to be kept distracted and ignorant of how the rest of the world works. Only then can they believe the lie of exceptionalism.
Bob, I have to say that in all my years of schooling, I never had a course that looked at various modern societies beyond a very elementary examination. Even Modern European History (in high school) never got really “modern.” (We were a lot closer to WWII when I was going to school and Vietnam was the present reality.) If a large portion of our population never sets foot beyond our borders or their own neck of the woods, for that matter, I doubt they see much necessity to really understand other cultures/societies. Heck, we can’t even understand each other!
“This is what the Republicans have warned us about: Socialism! ”
Not just the Republicans.
Biden made a point of the fact that “I beat the socialist” in order to get the votes of those concerned about Socialism.
Diane, it appeared to me that you posted this primarily as an amusing diversion, a little entertaining satire; at least that’s how I received it. Did you anticipate such a blowback of anger directed either at socialism or the US’s limited implementation of social programs?
Just wondering – when I first looked at the ad & response I thought both were just good-spirited humor. I’m as concerned about government policies as anyone & recognize that there’s always room for improvement, but does everything have to be an opening for a heated debate over partisan ideologies?
Lenny,
I posted it because I thought it was humorous and made an important point. I think it is unconscionable that we can’t or won’t offer the same benefits to our own citizens. This past election, the Republicans screamed “socialism” about every program that actually helped anyone in need. Some of the people most fearful of socialism are the very people who would benefit the most. I always wonder why the poorest states elect people who believe in tax cuts for the rich and corporate welfare. Think McConnell, Graham, other Southern senators and governors.
Diane – I like the ad because it uses humor very effectively to make an important point. I was concerned that a number of posts on this page use apparent outrage to express the same point. If outrage solved problems, the US would be a utopia right now.
Speaking for myself, I think Americans have had enough outrage; the main product has been more outrage. I’m hoping with the new administration we can re-establish productive civil communication among those with opposing political/social viewpoints, starting with evaluating ideas on their inherent merits rather than who proposed it. It’s a long road back, but we have to start somewhere.
Thumbs up!
I’m the first one to acknowledge that we don’t, in USA, distribute income fairly. However I think our military budget is the elephant in the room. Our economy is multiples that of any individual Nordic or other Euro social democracy, and we spend double the % GDP on military of any of them. I picture us as the Yanks in reserve in 1941, w/mega-resources in reserve ready to blast away any challenge to puny Euro military budgets from Russia/ China to Western hegemony. Am I wrong?
And in a DEMOCRACY! So many Americans don’t understand this.
This is purely FYI in this context, from this morning’s Washington Post: CBK
“Drug companies seek billion-dollar tax deductions from opioid settlement
By Douglas MacMillan and Kevin Schaul/February 12 at 7:03 AM”
“Four companies that agreed to pay a combined $26 billion to settle claims about their roles in the opioid crisis plan to deduct some of those costs from their taxes and recoup around $1 billion apiece.” . . .
“In recent months, as details of the blockbuster settlement were still being worked out, pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson and the ‘big three’ drug distributors — McKesson, AmerisourceBergen and Cardinal Health — all updated their financial projections to include large tax benefits stemming from the expected deal, a Washington Post analysis of regulatory filings found.”
“In one example, Dublin, Ohio-based drug distributor Cardinal Health said earlier this month it planned to collect a $974 million cash refund because it claimed its opioid-related legal costs as a “net operating loss carryback” — a tax provision Congress included in last year’s coronavirus bailout package as a way of helping companies struggling during the pandemic.” END QUOTE