Well of course they are fools, they seems to have no idea of economics and what is actually need to run a country, but that has been a general rule in Denmark is: 4-8 years with Socialist who fucks up the economic and then 4-12 years with liberals trying to fix the economic.
The socialist in my country seems to have any sense for realism and some of my Norwegian friends have the same idea :) of course our liberals are more what should we say red than others, they still seem more "adult"
So I would say yes it is do to socialism (boy my old government teacher is going to kill me), because the parties with a liberal point of view is better leaders in my opinion. But of course we have some nutheads on the right (Our political system is divide into LEFT - Center - Right, left being social/kommu) to.
And no I am not political active
Here's for the continuation of a continuing blue Sweden, a blue Norway come next year, and a blue Denmark asap (though I doubt Helle is in a rush..)
He he Gucci Helle is never in a rush
I read your link and it appears to be from a blog post. I have googled the 'happy country' expression and have found the following information on the current 'Happy Planet' survey.
I was moved to review your results above when I noticed the UK did not appear at all. Strangely, in the list on this link, the UK ranks at 41, whereas the USA doesn't appear until 105.
I believe that any national list has probably the desire to reflect it's own country high on such criteria. However, the seemingly independent link attached also has a further link embedded within it that describes the formula used to make these calculations.
I do not see a 'socialist/fascist/libertarian' pattern in these countries and their order on the list, but you may well be more knowledgeable than I on that front.
That's a horrible measure as the denominator used is resource consumption, thus the richer the country the less happy it will be, ceteris paribus. The Columbia University's World Happiness Report is a much more authoritative source.
I doubt if anyone here is going to bother reading the report, much less all the footnotes. I did look in it for a country-by-country list and didn't see one.
Sorry, this should be more easily digestible.
I see that the majority of the countries ahead of the US in the report are countries with far more socialism than the US.
Weeeeeell, the majority of the difference is that the countries on top have government supplied healthcare, which usually make up 12-15% of GDP. Ex-healthcare there is still somewhat higher government involvement in the economy, but not a major difference. By which I mean that 5-8% higher involvement isn't "major", and there is still private property rights and the majority of the productive capacity is under private ownership.
As mentioned elsewhere, North Korea is the only country which can be said to be socialist. In addendum I could say that Somalia is a country which has an almost perfect market economy. All other countries tend to be on a scale in between, with most countries having 35-50% government control.
Socialism is an economic idea (central planning, government ownership) as well as a multitude of political ideas of how to make that happen (leninism, troskyism, maoism). North Korea has a socialist economy, wholly centrally planned and with full government ownership, as well as a political Juche ideology which is a volatile mixture of leninism, maoism, nationalism, and self-sufficiency. (Not exhaustive lists.)
North Korea could perhaps best be described as a national socialist state.
There's a sense in which only a country which is socialist top to bottom can be called a socialist country. As the term is used here in the USA, however, having socialist tendencies can be enough for a country to be called "socialist."
Actually, North Korea is (or professes to be) a Communist country, and Communism traditionally has allowed for a so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat."