Also you can better make choices when you are secure.
You can also take more risks when you don’t have to worry that taking those risks might mean starvation/homelessness/dying of preventable causes/etc., and more risk-taking, in moderation, is always good for an economy, because that’s how you get innovation and massive long-term gains
This.
There is a difference between Scandinavian socialism and the Venezuelan boogeyman “socialism.” This is exploited by the right.
The Scandinavian model is basically thorough mandatory insurance, provided by the government. You do your thing, get as rich as you want, but your “premiums” go up based on your ability to pay.
The Venezuelan model (aka maoism-third-worldism or bolivarian socialism) is when the government decides who is deserving and who isn’t and allocates resources accordingly based on theories of exploitation.
One allows people to create wealth and value by freeing them from catastrophic downside risk. One cannibalizes existing wealth as punishment for thriving under the previous system. There are ZERO good reasons for them to share the same name besides accidents of history.
