Deacon923
Scooter Banks
That's because those countries built their success and wealth through capitalism in low population non diverse states, thus are able to temporarily sustain highly socialized programs.
Plus the "happyness" metrics are skewed to favoring socialized countries.
A lot of wrong to unpack in this post, and I have limited time. So a few high points:
1. You obviously know very little about the history or economies of Europe. Read more.
2. This post highlights the fundamental flaw in the "socialism = failed Latin American state" talking point. Different aspects of an economy can be "socialized" and greatly benefit the population without some kind of crackpot Cuban planned economy. This is clearly demonstrated by the Nordic welfare states, and the universal education and health care systems common in Europe, Australia, Israel, Singapore, etc. Conservatives have been foaming at the mouth about the socialist slippery slope since pre-President Reagan recorded his famous rant about how Medicare was going to be the end of the free market. It's a crap argument. Socializing critical aspects of the economy leaves capitalism intact in the rest of the OECD - which was about the only thing you got right in your post.
3. I find the comment about "low population non-diverse states" interesting, as it points out that white people will support socialist policies only if the beneficiaries are perceived to be other white people. That is a pretty poor argument to make in defense of your preferred social model.
4. Re happiness - Pick your metric, as I said there are plenty to choose from. The Nordic and other economies with far more socialized elements out run the US on every metric except how much money billionaires can stack up in their Scrooge McDuck swimming pools. The US wins that one going away.