Iceland has been rich for several years now.
The accepted standard for a country to be considered to be a "rich" country -- as opposed to a poor one -- is the country's GNP per capita. According to this accepted standard, Iceland was the 6th richest country in the world in 2004 -- with a GNP per capita of $37,920 (in US$).
That's within 10% of the wealth of the U.S.A. (the 4th richest country)
Iceland is also considered to be a success of socialism. Icelanders supposedly have enjoyed a living standard close to that enjoyed by Americans. Some socialists (possibly ALL socialists) would say that the average living standard in Iceland has been even better than the living standard in America -- citing complete and total access to healthcare, or other things like that.
So is it?
Is Iceland a success of socialism? Doesn't bankruptcy indicate that something is wrong with the socialist model?
Iceland was about as rich as America (based on GNP per capita), and they went under. Why? How come America didn't fall soon after Iceland did? What is the difference between Iceland and America that made Iceland go bankrupt earlier or easier?
Answer:
It's because they had more socialism there.
Being a rich country didn't help them -- because they were socialist. The take-home message from this "best-example" of socialism is that it breeds poverty and despair. Starting out rich doesn't help you. It doesn't matter how much money you start with -- if you are socialist.
If you do not respect how money is made -- but you only redistribute or spread it around -- you will fail. Iceland is a great counter-example to politely share with Obammunists; to politely ask them to explain how all of their wealth eroded.
Note to self.
:-)
Ed
|
