NationStates Jolt Archive

The Sweden Myth
by Stefan Karlsson


Recently, the so-called Swedish model — that is, the Swedish economic system with high taxes and a big welfare state — has been celebrated again in the press.

The alleged recent success of the Swedish economy has allowed welfare statists both inside and outside of Sweden to argue that high taxes and an extensive welfare state are good for the economy. To fully understand this fallacy, we should review Sweden's economic history.

Until the second half of the 19th century, Sweden was fairly poor. But far-reaching free market reforms in the 1860s allowed Sweden to benefit from the spreading Industrial Revolution.

And so, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Sweden saw its economy rapidly industrializing, driven by the many Swedish inventors and entrepreneurs.

During that time, Sweden produced extraordinarily many inventions, given its small population, including: dynamite, invented by Alfred Nobel (who established the Nobel Prize); the self-aligning ball bearing, invented by Sven Wingquist (who used this to create the SKF company); the sun-valve, invented by Gustav Dahlén (who used it to found industrial gas company AGA); the gas absorption refrigerator, invented by Baltzar von Platen (which was later used by Electrolux).

In addition, there were countless non-inventing entrepreneurs during that period: car manufacturers Volvo and Saab, and telecommunications company Ericsson. Indeed, with just a few exceptions, nearly all large Swedish companies were started during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which was not only a period of strong growth, but also the time when the foundation for later economic growth was laid.

Another factor which continued Swedish prosperity was the fact that Sweden was able to stay out of both World Wars, and indeed all other wars as well. Sweden is in fact the country with the longest consecutive period of peace, having fought no war since 1809, when Sweden was invaded by Russia, losing Finland to the invader.

Sweden has thus enjoyed 5 more years of peace than Switzerland, which participated in the Napoleonic wars in 1814. As a result of its free market policies, the resourcefulness of its people, and its successful avoidance of war, Sweden had the highest per-capita income growth in the world between 1870 and 1950, by which time Sweden had become one of the world's richest countries, behind only the United States and Switzerland, and Denmark (who have since also fallen behind because of high taxes).

But the foundation for future trouble had already been created. In 1932, the Social Democrats rose to power in the face of the Great Depression. And like FDR in America and Adolf Hitler in Germany, they started to expand government power over the economy. Until 1932, government spending had been kept below 10% of GDP in Sweden, but the Social Democrats, under their leader Per Albin Hansson, wanted to change this and remake Sweden into a "folkhem" ("people's home"), a term Swedish Social Democrats adopted from the Fascists in Italy.

Even in the early 1950s, Sweden was still one of the freest economies in the world, and government spending relative to GDP was in fact below the American level.

But between 1950 and 1976, Sweden experienced an expansion in government spending unprecedented during a period of peace, with government spending to GDP rising from about 20% in 1950 to more than 50% in 1975. Virtually every year, taxes were increased while the welfare state expanded relentlessly, both in the form of a sharp increase in the number of government employees and ever more transfer payment benefits.

During the first 20 years, this relentless government expansion took place seemingly without ill effect, as Sweden benefited from rapid global growth — although Sweden's growth had already started to slip in relative terms, from well above average to just average. This changed in the 1970s after Olof Palme, from the left wing of the Social Democratic party became Prime Minister. Palme stepped up the socialist transformation in Sweden, rapidly increasing anti-business regulations and sharply increased payroll taxes.

The payroll-tax increases, along with increasing wage demands from unions, made Swedish businesses highly uncompetitive on the global markets, something which Palme decided to solve by devaluing the Swedish krona. As a result, price inflation rose sharply, leading to repeated devaluations. Popular discontent from the economic woes created by the global economic downturn, the massive tax increases, the increased regulations, and the increasing inflation enabled the center right to come into power in 1976, breaking 44 years of uninterrupted Social Democratic rule.

But because the center-right parties were unwilling to push for more radical free-market reforms, the economic woes, including the inflation-devaluation cycle, continued. For this reason, and because the three coalition parties — the conservative Moderate Party, the Liberal Party, and the Center Party — were unable to get along, the Social Democrats returned to power in 1982.

They immediately implemented one "big bang" devaluation of 16%, which they claimed would be the last. They had claimed the same thing before all the previous devaluations, including the 10% devaluation that the center-right government had decided upon the year before. This time it appears that they actually meant it, but as with The Boy Who Cried Wolf, no one believed them.

Inflationary expectations and thus union wage demands remained very high. And in 1985, the government decided to deregulate bank lending. While this reform was necessary in order to improve capital allocation, it had disastrous side effects given the fact that at the time, real interest rates were way below zero after tax and inflation. This caused a massive credit expansion, which in turn helped further aggravate consumer price inflation while also creating a massive stock- and real estate bubble. As the exchange rate remained fixed, Swedish competitiveness was quickly undermined.

After Palme was killed by an unknown assassin in February 1986, pragmatist Ingvar Carlsson became prime minister. Worried that Swedish growth had trailed most other countries, Carlsson's government implemented a number of free-market reforms. Among these were the lifting of all currency controls in 1989 and a tax reform that dramatically reduced marginal tax rates (although they also reduced a number of deductions, including deductions for interest payments). Although these reforms have arguably contributed to improving the long-term economic performance of Sweden, they would contribute to precipitating the deep economic downturn in the early 1990s.

Meanwhile, as the economy started slowing significantly in 1990 after a series of tightening measures, consumer price inflation slowed. With the combination of continued high nominal interest rates, reduced capital gains taxation (and with that, reduced deductions for interest payments) and falling price inflation, real interest rates started rising significantly, helping to end the asset price bubbles. On top of all of this came the oil price shock following Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and an economic downturn in key trading partners such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Finland. The end result was that Sweden slipped into a recession in late 1990.

As Sweden fell into a recession and its highly cyclical government budget balance started to deteriorate rapidly, investor confidence in the Swedish fixed-exchange-rate scheme started to deteriorate rapidly.

And with currency controls abolished a few years ago, the krona was fair game for currency speculators. Unlike in the past, the government was determined not to devalue, and they deemed a return to strict currency controls as unthinkable, so they had no choice but to defend the currency by raising interest rates. But as the currency speculators knew that these interest rate levels could not be sustained, they renewed their attacks, knowing that their gain from a collapsed currency regime would be far greater than the interest rate levels the Riksbank could offer. The end result was that real after-tax interest rates were pushed up into double digit levels — after having been negative just a few years earlier. That in turn deepened the recession further.

In the end, though, the fixed-exchange-rate scheme collapsed in November 1992. The dramatic increase in interest rates and the deep recession had at the same time created a large amount of bad loans, making almost all major banks in effect bankrupt. (The exception was Handelsbanken, known for its more cautious lending practices.) Only after the Swedish government pledged they would bail out the banks with whatever money they needed was a widespread banking collapse averted.

All told, the recession became Sweden's deepest by far since the Great Depression, with GDP in 1993 being 5% lower than in 1990, with employment falling more than 10%, and the budget deficit rising to more than 10% of GDP. By then Sweden had fallen to between 15th and 20th place in international income comparisons, a decline from which it has never
since recovered.

After this deep downturn, Sweden has performed much better for a number of reasons. The 20% decline in the value of the krona in late 1992 gave a strong boost to exports and together with the dramatic lowering of interest rates, this helped kick-start a cyclical recovery in late 1993. Moreover, a number of free market reforms implemented during Ingvar Carlsson and conservative Carl Bildt (who was Prime Minister between 1991 and 1994) had helped raise the structural growth potential of the Swedish economy.

Apart from the already mentioned reforms of reduced marginal tax rates and abolished currency controls, deregulated bank lending and significantly lower inflation, this included privatizations of several state-owned companies and deregulation of several key sectors, including the retail sector, the telecommunications sector and the airline industry. Also, when the massive budget deficit was eliminated, even the Social Democrats realized the need for deep spending cuts, which together with the typical cyclical decline in the burden of spending during booms helped reduce the extremely bloated burden of government spending somewhat.

All of this has helped Sweden recover in relative terms from the stagnation of the 1970s and 1980s and the deep economic downturn in the early 1990s. It is this relative recovery that is now seized upon by the Social Democrats and their sympathizers inside and outside of Sweden when they claim that the Swedish model of high taxes and a big welfare state is successful.

Yet as should be clear, the relative improvement of performance is due not to high taxes (lower now than previously), but to free-market reforms.

The reason Sweden no longer trails the rest of Europe is that these reforms, which have not been implemented in most continental European countires, have made the Swedish economy relatively freer.

And even with these reforms, Sweden has not, in fact, performed better than the rest of Europe. While headline GDP growth has been slightly higher, this advantage disappears when taking into account that Sweden's terms of trade have deteriorated significantly.

And if we exclude heavy-weight laggards Germany and Italy, Sweden has in fact continued to fall behind the Continent, event with Europe's dismal performance compared to most other parts of the world.

If we look beneath the aggregate production figures, we can see deep structural problems. The number of people employed is now 6% lower than in 1990, a weaker development than in any other western economy. By contrast, even with the weak job growth in recent years (by American standards), employment in the United States is 20% higher than in 1990.

And the number of people employed in Sweden is actually lower than in 1980, too. You have to go back to the mid-1970s to find employment numbers lower than the current ones. While total employment has been roughly unchanged since 1975, it masks a significant decline in male employment. And if you look only at the private sector, employment is now at a level lower than in 1950.

Social Democrats still often claim that Sweden has a comparatively high employment rate, but this claim is based on deceptive employment statistics that count as employed many who have been on long-term sick leave or in some other way on the receiving end of transfer payment programs, even though they don't actually work.

Moreover, the "stay at home mom" is very rare in Sweden. Because of the incentives created by the feminist construction of the Swedish welfare system, mothers mostly leave their children at government day care centers. Even if you believe that mothers who stay home to take care of their children are the victims of patriarchical oppression, you cannot deny the childcare takes a lot of work, but only those who take care of other people's children count as employed. By shifting childcare from the home to the public sector, the government further exaggerates Swedish employment figures.

The headline unemployment rate in Sweden is only 5–5.5%, but this number is extremely misleading as it only includes a small number of the people who the government pays not to work. Many unemployed are sent to so-called "labor market political activities" — activities whose only purpose is to reduce the official unemployment rate.

If we ignore this ruse, unemployment is 8%. And if you also include the enormous number of early retirees and people who live off sickness benefits, the real unemployment rate is more like 25%. The number of early retirees is 540,000, more than double the number of officially unemployed. Among non-Western immigrants, the real unemployment rate is higher than 50%.

All of this is exactly what we should expect from transfer payment benefits to people who don't work, from massive payroll taxes, income taxes, and value-added taxes. This has greatly inhibited the growth of a labor-intensive private-service sector that could have provided jobs for many of the unemployed immigrants.

During the most recent year, however, growth has picked up significantly in Sweden. To some extent, this reflects the global cyclical upswing, but there is also a domestic Swedish factor at work here, which has helped push Swedish growth higher than in most European countries. After the painful fiasco of the fixed-exchange-rate regime in 1992, Sweden instead adopted inflation targeting.

This monetary policy regime seems so far to have been significantly more successful, but the policy is creating new problems. Because of deregulation and increased competition in a number of sectors in recent years, consumer price inflation has been fairly low, indeed below the 2% target most of the time. Food prices, for example, have been falling as fierce competition from low-price chains like Lidl, Netto, and Willys, have forced the major supermarket chains to cut prices in order to keep their customers.

Low prices are good for consumers, of course, but according to the inflation-targeting dogma, too low a rate of price inflation is itself a problem — a problem that must be counteracted with increased monetary inflation. Thus the Riksbank has been forced to push down interest rates dramatically in order to boost money supply enough to help achieve a 2% consumer price inflation rate.

As consumer price inflation is now starting to creep back up toward 2%, it appears that they will be successful, but this will have come at the cost of unleashing an asset price bubble and household debt levels similar to the levels experienced in the late 1980s.

Money supply rose 11.5% in Sweden in the year to May, even higher than the 8.9% seen in the Euro-zone. It is the dramatic acceleration of monetary inflation in 2005 which has temporarily boosted Swedish growth. The timing of this boom is, it should be noted, very convenient for the ruling Social Democrats and their parliamentary allies, the Green Party and the communist Left Party, given the fact that they face an election this year in September.

Ultimately, this artificial boom will have to come to an end, and although the ensuing crisis will likely not be as deep as in the early 1990s, the seemingly impressive Swedish boom will certainly be revealed as a fraud — just as the whole story of the success of the Swedish economic model is a fraud.

source (http://www.mises.org/story/2259)


Let the flames - er, games - begin!

i will shorten my anti something rant into one word: CATS

I will say only one thing: number of people employed. Not unemployed, but employed.

Let's ignore facts like each country calculates employment differently and the fact that most European states are aging faster than they can produce new children. To ignore facts like different calculations for employment means the author is throwing around fallacy to try and make it sound like his opinion is right.

*invests in meatballs*

*sees The Sweden Myrth Debunked*
*shrugs*
*goes to bed*

If its Swedish and not female, blonde and thin i dont care!

I think there are more words in that article than people living in Sweden.. if anyone wants to provide a neat summary... :p

Sounds like a textbook case of a socialist success. Capitalism first, then redistribution.

I think there are more words in that article than people living in Sweden.. if anyone wants to provide a neat summary... :p
"Hi, I'm on the 'right-wing' in Sweden and am making up a fool-hardy article on why the 'left-wing' is fucking up through their evil socialist policies and what has really made Sweden prosperous is random pieces of free trade legislation. To prove my point I will use fallacies regarding employment levels, not unemployment levels, and completely ignore that many developments, good and bad, stem from the deregulation of the krona."

Where's Fass when you need him?

I miss that crazy Swede.

I was always wanting to ask him to explain this picture but never got round to it, and now he's gone.

http://robsog.typepad.com/robsog/images/swede.jpg
I mean wtf is it about? Is that his family? Why has he got a paper bag and an axe in his hands? What does he intend to do to his family? What's in the bag?
What are those two kids doing in the upper-right background? Are they fighting or fucking?

Man, those Swedes are weird.


To show I'm balanced and not anti-Swedish, I present this picture:
http://steveeray.com/sweden/sbt.jpg

Posting the entire text of an article--even with attribution--is a violation of copyright law, and posting it without adding anything to it in terms of commentary is considered spam according to the mods.

Sounds like a textbook case of a socialist success. Capitalism first, then redistribution.
And then it collapses under its own weight, which brings market reforms. As usual. Because socialism is inherently unworkable.

"Hi, I'm on the 'right-wing' in Sweden and am making up a fool-hardy article on why the 'left-wing' is fucking up through their evil socialist policies and what has really made Sweden prosperous is random pieces of free trade legislation. To prove my point I will use fallacies regarding employment levels, not unemployment levels, and completely ignore that many developments, good and bad, stem from the deregulation of the krona."
Could you point out the fallacies?

*invests in meatballs*
Lunatic, you're being too nice.

Whenever I post something like that with no commentary, people jump my shit.

So, everyone, regardless of the content thereof, I admonish you all to jump Minnesotan's shit.

Could you point out the fallacies?
Using employment levels instead of unemployment levels
Directly comparing employment levels to those of other countries despite the fact each country counts people employed or unemployed differently.

And then it collapses under its own weight, which brings market reforms. As usual. Because socialism is inherently unworkable.

And people prior to 1903 said a heavier-than-air craft could not fly.

And considering that there are Socialistic states in existance that haven not yet collapsed, it's like it's 1923 and you're still insisting that working airplanes don't exist...because they're all going to crash eventually.

Using employment levels instead of unemployment levels
Directly comparing employment levels to those of other countries despite the fact each country counts people employed or unemployed differently.

Wait a second.

If I post a whole article, cut and paste, without commentary, you jump my shit.

Why aren't you jumping on Minnesotan?

Where's Fass when you need him?

I miss that crazy Swede.
I can't say I 'miss' him, but I did notice the lack by a siginificant decrease in...well nevermind. We speak not ill of the DEATed, or retired.
Whatever happened to him?

I can't say I 'miss' him, but I did notice the lack by a siginificant decrease in...well nevermind. We speak not ill of the DEATed, or retired.
Whatever happened to him?
He's still here, under a different nation.

He's still here, under a different nation.obviously. I meant what happened to his nation?

Lunatic, you're being too nice.

Whenever I post something like that with no commentary, people jump my shit.

So, everyone, regardless of the content thereof, I admonish you all to jump Minnesotan's shit.
Cause its already been pointed out

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11524076&postcount=11

He's still here, under a different nation.
Ohhh...so I might still get an answer to my questions about that weird-shit book(?) cover.
Maybe it's an album cover.
God knows.
It's just weird.

Using employment levels instead of unemployment levels
He does use unemployment levels.


The headline unemployment rate in Sweden is only 5–5.5%, but this number is extremely misleading as it only includes a small number of the people who the government pays not to work. Many unemployed are sent to so-called "labor market political activities" — activities whose only purpose is to reduce the official unemployment rate.

If we ignore this ruse, unemployment is 8%. And if you also include the enormous number of early retirees and people who live off sickness benefits, the real unemployment rate is more like 25%. The number of early retirees is 540,000, more than double the number of officially unemployed. Among non-Western immigrants, the real unemployment rate is higher than 50%.


Directly comparing employment levels to those of other countries despite the fact each country counts people employed or unemployed differently.
I read the article, and nowhere does he directly compare the levels of two countries. Are you certain you actually read the article?

*sees The Sweden Myrth Debunked*
*shrugs*
*goes to bed*

I love the sweden myrth.

And people prior to 1903 said a heavier-than-air craft could not fly.
That's nice, but irrelevant.


And considering that there are Socialistic states in existance that haven not yet collapsed,
I contend that they have. They've either had to bring in market-based reforms, or they are suffering like North Korea and Cuba.

Wait a second.

If I post a whole article, cut and paste, without commentary, you jump my shit.

Why aren't you jumping on Minnesotan?
Because there is an inherent difference in the nature of the posts.
And he hasn't developed a chronic problem.

I read the article, and nowhere does he directly compare the levels of two countries. Are you certain you actually read the article?
He compares Sweden and America in a reference to America's rate.
I didn't read all of it anyway, I stopped caring half-way through and just scanned it.

Because there is an inherent difference in the nature of the posts.
And he hasn't developed a chronic problem.
Good think that someone else already jumped his shit.

That's nice, but irrelevant.



I contend that they have. They've either had to bring in market-based reforms, or they are suffering like North Korea and Cuba.

Oh, you mean COMMUNIST countries. Methinks you need more book lernin'.

Socialism represents a HUGE SPECTRUM of economic policies betwixt pure capitalism and communism.

He compares Sweden and America in a reference to America's rate.
No, he compares Sweden's rate to Sweden's rate previously, and America's rate to America's rate previously. Read. The. Damned. Article.


I didn't read all of it anyway, I stopped caring half-way through and just scanned it.
Thank you for admitting your ignorance. Next time, read the whole thing before you spout off. Thanks.

Oh, you mean COMMUNIST countries. Methinks you need more book lernin'.
There's no fundamental difference between socialism and communism. Methinks you need more economics lernin'.

No, he compares Sweden's rate to Sweden's rate previously, and America's rate to America's rate previously.

If we look beneath the aggregate production figures, we can see deep structural problems. The number of people employed is now 6% lower than in 1990, a weaker development than in any other western economy. By contrast, even with the weak job growth in recent years (by American standards), employment in the United States is 20% higher than in 1990.

To quote you..
Read. The. Damned. Article.

There's no fundamental difference between socialism and communism. Methinks you need more economics lernin'.

There are so many flavors of socialism, that even some socialists can't agree on which are really socialist, or mostly socialist. And so many believers in Communism who are in a complete state of denial about what Communism is, and whether or not true Communism has ever been attempted (much less implemented).

I would leave all of that to the people who want to hang out in the back of the bookstore and debate it. IMHO, Communism is not the same as Socialism, and Communism has been attempted, and it failed, just as Trotsky foresaw.

To quote you..
Yes, you should have read the article. Because he does, as I said, compare Sweden's level to Sweden's level previously, and America's level to America's level previously.

Learn. To. Read.

There are so many flavors of socialism, that even some socialists can't agree on which are really socialist, or mostly socialist.
Just like there are many flavors of xerdom. But they're all xer.

Yes, you should have read the article. Because he does, as I said, compare Sweden's level to Sweden's level previously, and America's level to America's level previously.

Learn. To. Read.

I guess I should quote what I just quoted.

If we look beneath the aggregate production figures, we can see deep structural problems. The number of people employed is now 6% lower than in 1990, a weaker development than in any other western economy. By contrast, even with the weak job growth in recent years (by American standards), employment in the United States is 20% higher than in 1990.
Maybe you failed English?

Oh, you mean COMMUNIST countries. Methinks you need more book lernin'.

Socialism represents a HUGE SPECTRUM of economic policies betwixt pure capitalism and communism.

At least traditionally, the communist and the socialist both have as their ultimate goal to abolish the bourgeoise and bring about the traditional class-less communist utopia. The only difference is that communists want armed revolution against the oppressor classes followed by a sort of transitional dictatorship, while socialists think it can be done within the constraints of a democratic society.

A social democracy is not socialist.

I guess I should quote what I just quoted.
Fine. But it compares Sweden's level with Sweden's level previously, and America's level with America's level previously.

I don't think you even know what the English language is.

I would point out that this is just as silly as the gun control arguments that point out that it works (or doesn't work) in one country, and therefore ALL countries should do what the country in question did.

Hey, Sweden IS NOT THE US. And the US IS NOT Sweden.

More different in so many ways than apples and oranges.

Fine. But it compares Sweden's level with Sweden's level previously, and America's level with America's level previously.
Then compares those.

Learn. To. Read.

Then compares those.
No, he just compares Sweden's level with Sweden's level previously, and America's level with America's level previously.

Honestly, I don't know why you have such a problem with that. It's like you're threatened by it somehow.

And then it collapses under its own weight, which brings market reforms. As usual. Because socialism is inherently unworkable.
Like everytihng else it seems to go in waves. Laissez-faire Markets aren't inherently workable either. Remember the reasons why they brought in socialist reforms in the first place. :)

Mind you I should probably say at this point, Sweden isn't a socialist country. Even at its most left-wing point, it always had a market economy with a strong private sector.

No, he just compares Sweden's level with Sweden's level previously, and America's level with America's level previously.
No, he doesn't. He compares the level of development in Sweden over the timeframe to that of the US.

Well, if Sweden is a failed system, I sure hope my government fail the same way. They seem to be doing alright for themselves.

Like everytihng else it seems to go in waves. Laissez-faire Markets aren't inherently workable either. Remember the reasons why they brought in socialist reforms in the first place. :)
Yes--the only reasons why socialist "reforms" take place: jealousy, hatred of those with a penny more, and an utter lack of understanding of economics.


Mind you I should probably say at this point, Sweden isn't a socialist country. Even at its most left-wing point, it always had a market economy with a strong private sector.
At its most left-wing point, the private sector was quite small. A number of businesses (and even entire industries) were under the control of the government.

No, he doesn't.
Yes he does.


He compares the level of development in Sweden over the timeframe to that of the US.
He compares the rate in Sweden from one timeframe to another, and compares the rate in the US from one timeframe to another.

Why are you so threatened by it?

Well, if Sweden is a failed system, I sure hope my government fail the same way. They seem to be doing alright for themselves.
Only after market reforms took place, though. Even still, with the early-retirement and permanent-disability/sick payments, Sweden's economic is suffering.

He compares the rate in Sweden from one timeframe to another, and compares the rate in the US from one timeframe to another.
Then he compares them to each other. In mentioning how much America has gained, he is comparing it to the gains of Sweden.

Yes--the only reasons why socialist "reforms" take place: jealousy, hatred of those with a penny more, and an utter lack of understanding of economics.
:rolleyes:

Socialism isn't based on hatred and neither is capitalism. Both are based on self-interest, albeit of different groups of people.

At its most left-wing point, the private sector was quite small. A number of businesses (and even entire industries) were under the control of the government.
Ericsson, Saab, etc were small?

Then he compares them to each other. In mentioning how much America has gained, he is comparing it to the gains of Sweden.
I don't see it that way. I simply see figures from each. If you want to compare them--perhaps it threatens you.

:rolleyes:

Socialism isn't based on hatred
Actually, it is. It's based on a hatred that reality isn't what the person wants it to be. So reality must be changed--molded--into what that person desires, no matter the cost.


Ericsson, Saab, etc were small?
Hmmmm? Oh, did you misread what I said? I think you did.

There's no fundamental difference between socialism and communism. Methinks you need more economics lernin'.
They're both on the left, but there are a lot of differences. In communism there is no government. Mind you, in communist countries there is a government that is huge and oppressive.

And people prior to 1903 said a heavier-than-air craft could not fly.


Only the stupid ones.

Actually, it is. It's based on a hatred that reality isn't what the person wants it to be. So reality must be changed--molded--into what that person desires, no matter the cost.



Hmmmm? Oh, did you misread what I said? I think you did.

All political idealogies want to change reality to what they want it to be

Actually, it is. It's based on a hatred that reality isn't what the person wants it to be. So reality must be changed--molded--into what that person desires, no matter the cost.
Capitalism moulds "reality" as well, so I'm not seeing your point.

Drop the hatred thing. There's no need to make this discussion wildly emotional.

Hmmmm? Oh, did you misread what I said? I think you did.
No need to speak like that.

the private sector was quite small.

The Swedish private sector was made of Saab, Ericsson, and numerous other small and medium businesses. Since Saab and Ericsson alone were huge, that negates the possibility of the private sector being small.

Wasn't SAAB started by the swedish government?

Lunatic, you're being too nice.

Whenever I post something like that with no commentary, people jump my shit.

So, everyone, regardless of the content thereof, I admonish you all to jump Minnesotan's shit.

I do not jump shit. I act silly. It's my thing. :)

They're both on the left, but there are a lot of differences. In communism there is no government. Mind you, in communist countries there is a government that is huge and oppressive.
No, there's a government in communism, despite what Marx thought and what the silly self-contradictory anarcho-communists believe. It's much like the difference between the supposed "peace and love" that xers say their religion preaches, and the actuality of the hatred and intolerance espoused by many of its followers from inception to present.

Wasn't SAAB started by the swedish government?
No, but the Swedish military is one of Saab's major clients.

Capitalism moulds "reality" as well, so I'm not seeing your point.
No, it doesn't. People adapt. Socialists mold. Conquer.


Drop the hatred thing. There's no need to make this discussion wildly emotional.
It's the truth.


No need to speak like that.
Speak like what? I do not know what you mean.


The Swedish private sector was made of Saab, Ericsson, and numerous other small and medium businesses. Since Saab and Ericsson alone were huge, that negates the possibility of the private sector being small.
No it does not. Not when you compare it to the government-run industries.

See what I mean about you misreading what I wrote? Yeah.

There's a "Sweden Myth?" I'm always the last to know.

Does it perchance contain pixies and gnomes and Sami people banging Nåjd-drums? No? Aww. You got my hopes up...

"The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the research and educational center of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and the Austrian School of economics."

Oh. Well, then. One of those anarcho-capitalist things. Right...

There's a "Sweden Myth?"

Not anymore. :)

Where's Fass when you need him?

I miss that crazy Swede.

I may be crazy, but I ain't dead. Not to my knowledge, at least.

I was always wanting to ask him to explain this picture but never got round to it, and now he's gone.
http://robsog.typepad.com/robsog/images/swede.jpg

I mean wtf is it about? Is that his family? Why has he got a paper bag and an axe in his hands? What does he intend to do to his family? What's in the bag?
What are those two kids doing in the upper-right background?

Hey, "Understand your'e Swede?" I can't even understand the writing, let alone the mildly disturbing and surrealistically coloured imagery.

Are they fighting or fucking?

I should hope they're fucking, because fighting is such a waste of time, unless of course it ends up in fucking... we can say that they're fuck-fighting.

To show I'm balanced and not anti-Swedish

"Anti-Swedish." Haha. Hilarious. Where do I sign up?

There's a "Sweden Myth?" I'm always the last to know.

Does it perchance contain pixies and gnomes and Sami people banging Nåjd-drums? No? Aww. You got my hopes up...

"The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the research and educational center of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and the Austrian School of economics."

Oh. Well, then. One of anarcho-capitalist things. Right...


The "Sweden myth" that I was taught was that everyone in Sweden was tall, blond, blue-eyed, fit, well-dressed and stylish in a subdued way, drove a Volvo with the latest technology, everyone was employed, lived well in their own single-family homes or fashionable apartments, had sex all the time (with men and/or women at their choice) with no hangups or guilt, and worked either making furniture that would make Mies van der Rohe weep for joy, or building cars, aircraft, and weapons that were very safe.

The "Sweden myth" that I was taught was that everyone in Sweden was tall, blond, blue-eyed, fit, well-dressed and stylish in a subdued way, drove a Volvo with the latest technology, everyone was employed, lived well in their own single-family homes or fashionable apartments, had sex all the time (with men and/or women at their choice) with no hangups or guilt, and worked either making furniture that would make Mies van der Rohe weep for joy, or building cars, aircraft, and weapons that were very safe.

I liked my idea of a Sweden myth much better. Yours doesn't even have magic. :(

I liked my idea of a Sweden myth much better. Yours doesn't even have magic. :(
It's the one they teach over here. And they only show Swedish men with tight bodies and enormous genitals.

Not anymore. :)

Well, if this foreign figment of the imagination survives its tattered state, I still vie for the inclusion of Snusmumriken and the Mumin into it. So what if they're finnish? They're Swede-Finns, after all.

It's the one they teach over here.

"Teach?" For some reason, I have a hard time thinking the US school system teaches that much about Sweden, at all. "Oh, you make good clocks and I like your chocolate" is not a rare "compliment" to be gotten from its products...

And they only show Swedish men with tight bodies and enormous genitals.

Don't hate me for adhering to that.

"Teach?" For some reason, I have a hard time thinking the US school system teaches that much about Sweden, at all. "Oh, you make good clocks and I like your chocolate" is not a rare "compliment" to be gotten from its products...

The US school system teaches us the marketing viewpoint - what products do you build, etc. So the Swiss get the clocks and chocolate remarks, and the Swedes get the furniture and erotica remarks.


Don't hate me for adhering to that.
Be happy with your fit body and great genitals.

No, it doesn't. People adapt. Socialists mold. Conquer.
As do capitalists.

It's the truth.
No it isn't. People have nothing to gain from hate, which is why movements based on it don't last long.

No it does not. Not when you compare it to the government-run industries.
The Swedish government size peaked at around 50% of GDP. At its smallest the private sector was as big as the government.

As do capitalists.
Only metaphorically.


No it isn't. People have nothing to gain from hate, which is why movements based on it don't last long.
Which is why religions all died out, right?


The Swedish government size peaked at around 50% of GDP. At its smallest the private sector was as big as the government.
GDP is meaningless.

The US school system teaches us the marketing viewpoint - what products do you build, etc. So the Swiss get the clocks and chocolate remarks, and the Swedes get the furniture and erotica remarks.

Alas, it seems too much to ask for that they remember our dongs and "Ivar bookcases" instead of the technological wonders that are clocks and the gustatory obsession that is chocolate. If you ask me, those kids need more dildos and less chocolate...

Be happy with your fit body and great genitals.

If only that could be made to fit onto a "flair" button.

"Teach?" For some reason, I have a hard time thinking the US school system teaches that much about Sweden, at all. "Oh, you make good clocks and I like your chocolate" is not a rare "compliment" to be gotten from its products...

One time when I lived in Germany I had planned a trip to Switzerland. My roommate had the day off, so I asked him to go to the bank and get me some Swiss francs. I get home from work and he hands me a bunch of Swedish kronas. Of course, the bank was closed, but my train left before the bank opened in the morning, so I had to exchange it all in Basel. Let's just say I was a bit perturbed that I had to exchange money twice.

Only metaphorically.
You're saying that capitalist actions aren't real?

Which is why religions all died out, right?
Religions aren't based on hatred either.

GDP is meaningless.
So how do you suggest that we quantify the size of the government vs the private sector? Rhetoric?

You're saying that capitalist actions aren't real?
I'm saying that conquering is only a metaphor that people use to describe certain things in capitalism.


Religions aren't based on hatred either.
Riiiiiight. No religious wars--ever, right?


So how do you suggest that we quantify the size of the government vs the private sector? Rhetoric?
No.

I may be crazy, but I ain't dead. Not to my knowledge, at least.
Hey, "Understand your'e Swede?" I can't even understand the writing, let alone the mildly disturbing and surrealistically coloured imagery.

Is it telling a Swede to understand what he/she is (by the looks of it, 'he' is a psycho and 'she' is a baby-spitting machine - look, she's barely 20 and already got 9 kids!)
Or is it telling the rest of us who happen to have our very own Swede, how to understand them. Kinda like a 'Swedes for Dummies' book. Must say I'm surprised - I didn't realise one could own their very own Swede.

I'm not terribly impressed.

The author fails to note that while the United States, the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth, is number 17 in terms of tackling internal poverty, Sweden is number 1. Nor does the author care that Swedish human development is higher than US figures, or that Sweden spends more on education than the United States, or that Sweden's income inequality, especially for the poorest 20%, is significantly better. He also ignores the fact that long term unemployment is only at .9% of the population... not the 25% he chooses to guesstimate(the US is at .7%).

Interesting also is that Sweden has more researchers in RnD and more patents granted to residents(per million people) than the US, and Sweden also spends - based on percentage, of course - nearly double what the US does on RnD. This says something about his insinuation that Sweden lost her freemarket induced inventive golden age, and is simply riding the innovation of the past.

On the economic front: It's average annual economic growth rate for 1990-2003 was at 2%. The United States, by comparison, massively outperformed Sweden, coming in at 2.1% Also, her terms of trade became more favorable between 1980 and 2005, not the 'significant deterioration' the author claims.

But I'm veering quite verbose, so I'll stop with the statistics. The truth is that the Swedish economy is not a myth. It has ups and downs like any economy, but it is not failing, and it is not going to crash at any moment. The sooner people learn to live with that, the better we'll all be.

Note - all my facts can be researched on one's own time by looking for the UN Human Development Report of 2005. I justify my frequent comparisons with the US for two reasons. 1)the United States is acknowledged as the world's strongest economy, and as such is an effective barometer, and 2) the author advocates freemarketism. As the US is a bastion of such neoliberal policy, a comparsion between their results and Swedish results can counter the author.

And then it collapses under its own weight, which brings market reforms. As usual. Because socialism is inherently unworkable.


Socialism is workable, just not very profitable, and there could be very few reforms as a socialist society would be dirt poor because there would be almost no industry. However, a socialist government could survive and provide people with the most basic needs (electricity, food and running water) however, economically it cannot compete with capitalist societies.

I'm not terribly impressed.

The author fails to note that while the United States, the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth, is number 17 in terms of tackling internal poverty, Sweden is number 1. Nor does the author care that Swedish human development is higher than US figures, or that Sweden spends more on education than the United States, or that Sweden's income inequality, especially for the poorest 20%, is significantly better. He also ignores the fact that long term unemployment is only at .9% of the population... not the 25% he chooses to guesstimate(the US is at .7%).

Interesting also is that Sweden has more researchers in RnD and more patents granted to residents(per million people) than the US, and Sweden also spends - based on percentage, of course - nearly double what the US does on RnD. This says something about his insinuation that Sweden lost her freemarket induced inventive golden age, and is simply riding the innovation of the past.

On the economic front: It's average annual economic growth rate for 1990-2003 was at 2%. The United States, by comparison, massively outperformed Sweden, coming in at 2.1% Also, her terms of trade became more favorable between 1980 and 2005, not the 'significant deterioration' the author claims.

But I'm veering quite verbose, so I'll stop with the statistics. The truth is that the Swedish economy is not a myth. It has ups and downs like any economy, but it is not failing, and it is not going to crash at any moment. The sooner people learn to live with that, the better we'll all be.

Note - all my facts can be researched on one's own time by looking for the UN Human Development Report of 2005. I justify my frequent comparisons with the US for two reasons. 1)the United States is acknowledged as the world's strongest economy, and as such is an effective barometer, and 2) the author advocates freemarketism. As the US is a bastion of such neoliberal policy, a comparsion between their results and Swedish results can counter the author.
Good points, well made. Except for the bolded part. It's true that the US advocates freemartism. The US is, however, a bastion of protectionism. Just think of the blocking of the selling of ports a few months ago. Not to mention their tariffs on such goods as steel, lumber (illegal tariffs). So they don't really act as they preach on that front.

I
On the economic front: It's average annual economic growth rate for 1990-2003 was at 2%. The United States, by comparison, massively outperformed Sweden, coming in at 2.1% Also, her terms of trade became more favorable between 1980 and 2005, not the 'significant deterioration' the author claims.

Actually, average US real GDP growth came in at 2.9% per annum over that same period; of course, that's not really the point of the comparison.

I seem to recall reading an article in The Economist that showed Sweden having one of the lowest effective tax rates in the world despite having one of the highest official rates; the system is so efficient and the services rendered of high enough quality that it reduced their tax burden by eliminating other expenses.

In comparison, the US had a higher effective tax rate than Sweden despite being in the middle of the world's tax brackets due to its complexity and inefficiency.

Good points, well made. Except for the bolded part. It's true that the US advocates freemartism. The US is, however, a bastion of protectionism. Just think of the blocking of the selling of ports a few months ago. Not to mention their tariffs on such goods as steel, lumber (illegal tariffs). So they don't really act as they preach on that front.

Leave it to a canadian to bring up lumber tarrifs.:p

I was speaking of more domestic Free Market policies - deregulation, privitization, lax(or nigh on nonexistent) labor laws, lower taxes, minimal social safety net, etc. The US idealizes most of these and advocates all of them.

Actually, average US real GDP growth came in at 2.9% per annum over that same period; of course, that's not really the point of the comparison.

I seem to recall reading an article in The Economist that showed Sweden having one of the lowest effective tax rates in the world despite having one of the highest official rates; the system is so efficient and the services rendered of high enough quality that it reduced their tax burden by eliminating other expenses.

In comparison, the US had a higher effective tax rate than Sweden despite being in the middle of the world's tax brackets due to its complexity and inefficiency.

That's something I didn't know. Kind of cool actually, though I'm not all that suprised that through her byzantine tax law, the US's tax system isn't terribly efficient.

About growth, I just quoted the UN. My point was more that Sweden wasn't being massively outperformed, which I'd say holds true using either figure.

That's something I didn't know. Kind of cool actually, though I'm not all that suprised that through her byzantine tax law, the US's tax system isn't terribly efficient.

I couldn't find the article but I did find the report that the information came from:

C.D. Howe Institute Report 2005 (http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/commentary_216.pdf)

About growth, I just quoted the UN. My point was more that Sweden wasn't being massively outperformed, which I'd say holds true using either figure.

No, it's not. The difference between the two in GDP growth terms is fairly significant, but you also have to add in all of the externalities that affect those numbers. For example, is that 1% of additional GDP growth outweighed by the higher poverty rate and income inequality in the US?

I'm not terribly impressed.

The author fails to note that while the United States, the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth, is number 17 in terms of tackling internal poverty, Sweden is number 1. Nor does the author care that Swedish human development is higher than US figures, or that Sweden spends more on education than the United States, or that Sweden's income inequality, especially for the poorest 20%, is significantly better. He also ignores the fact that long term unemployment is only at .9% of the population... not the 25% he chooses to guesstimate(the US is at .7%).

Interesting also is that Sweden has more researchers in RnD and more patents granted to residents(per million people) than the US, and Sweden also spends - based on percentage, of course - nearly double what the US does on RnD. This says something about his insinuation that Sweden lost her freemarket induced inventive golden age, and is simply riding the innovation of the past.

On the economic front: It's average annual economic growth rate for 1990-2003 was at 2%. The United States, by comparison, massively outperformed Sweden, coming in at 2.1% Also, her terms of trade became more favorable between 1980 and 2005, not the 'significant deterioration' the author claims.

But I'm veering quite verbose, so I'll stop with the statistics. The truth is that the Swedish economy is not a myth. It has ups and downs like any economy, but it is not failing, and it is not going to crash at any moment. The sooner people learn to live with that, the better we'll all be.

Note - all my facts can be researched on one's own time by looking for the UN Human Development Report of 2005. I justify my frequent comparisons with the US for two reasons. 1)the United States is acknowledged as the world's strongest economy, and as such is an effective barometer, and 2) the author advocates freemarketism. As the US is a bastion of such neoliberal policy, a comparsion between their results and Swedish results can counter the author.

You beat me to the punch, and did it more effectively than I would have to boot. The Swedish myth has little or nothing to do with economic productivity, which almost everyone freely admits falls somewhat behind the boom years of the U.S., and everything to do with how that productivity is distributed. The Swedes have the highest standard of living of anyone in the world, they live longer than we do, they have significantly lower infant mortality, and they suffer lower rates of disease and have later onsets for age-related diseases than Americans do. By most standard metrics, they live longer and more happily (or at least, less unhappily) than we do, which might indicate that simply bumping up productivity for productivity's sake isn't doing what we think it's doing.

You beat me to the punch, and did it more effectively than I would have to boot. The Swedish myth has little or nothing to do with economic productivity, which almost everyone freely admits falls somewhat behind the boom years of the U.S., and everything to do with how that productivity is distributed. The Swedes have the highest standard of living of anyone in the world, they live longer than we do, they have significantly lower infant mortality, and they suffer lower rates of disease and have later onsets for age-related diseases than Americans do. By most standard metrics, they live longer and more happily (or at least, less unhappily) than we do, which might indicate that simply bumping up productivity for productivity's sake isn't doing what we think it's doing.


I guess we'll skip over my previous post that comparing the US and Sweden is comparing two nations that cannot be effectively compared.

No, it's not. The difference between the two in GDP growth terms is fairly significant, but you also have to add in all of the externalities that affect those numbers. For example, is that 1% of additional GDP growth outweighed by the higher poverty rate and income inequality in the US?

I'll give you that a .9% difference is not to be dismissed out of hand. But my point, again, is that we're not dealing with runaway versus standstill - or in more blunt terms, sucessful vs. unsucessful - economies.

Out of curiousity, did you check Sweden's figures using the same source you got your US growth figure from? I would find it odd if the United Nations was that wrong on the growth of the United States, unless a similar undervaluing was present in all figures.

I guess we'll skip over my previous post that comparing the US and Sweden is comparing two nations that cannot be effectively compared.

It was sandwiched between a post about socialism and a post about enormous genitals, so it kind of got skipped over. That being said, I would say that you can compare the U.S. and Sweden, but you have to have the proper metric. That was the core of my post; I think that the metric that they are using to compare the Swedish economy unfavorably to the United States' economy is misleading and not what actual proponents of the "Swedish myth" actually say.

The Crafty Commie Leftist Government here has switched some of the lazy people who could work to the cripple and invalid list.:p