I remember Jon Stewart did some skit making Sweden look like paradise . . . in Stockholm.
Apparently there's a huge disparity of wealth. Stockholm County makes up about 22% of Sweden, but it's per capita income is 59% greater than the rest of Sweden. Stockholm County's averages 363,000 Krona per capita ($53,200) . . . quite a decent living. But the other 78% of Sweden averages 228,440 Krona ($33,500) . . . not so great. People who go to Sweden most likely go to Stockholm, so obviously it's going to seem a lot better there. That's like going to New York and thinking America's full of skyscrapers. It's just not like that. So when people use Sweden as an example for nanny-state success, start asking which Sweden they're talking about.
33’500 per capita? And this is supposed to be the breaker of the case for free markets? Quite low expectations, lefties.
"Swedish socialist is a redundancy"- walter block
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Wow, I live in Sweden, and I do not live in Stockholm, and the difference in income isn't that noticeable since the cost of living in the rest of Sweden is lower than the cost of living in Stockholm. Also, there are some places that were abandoned because lots of people moved to Stockholm where there were more jobs, so those places now consist of mostly old people who are living off of their pensions, and losers who choose to stay at a place where there is no future. Anyway, it's definately possible to get a high paying job in any city in Sweden, doesn't have to be Stockholm. Also, Sweden is not as socialist as you might think... We're not as inflationist or interventionist as the USA for example.
"Stockholm County makes up about 22% of Sweden..."
Ignoring other factors, I would expect the largest city of a country - and a capital to boot - to allow for a larger income. In any country.
As for the nanny-state success, you can point out the situation is a bit more complicated than that.
Mises Wiki | Economic Resources and Books (search engine)
Sweden has much going for it, socialism is probably not one of those things though. It has almost become a stereotype to label Sweden as the socialist paragon, and UK and US as the capitalist bastions. On closer inspection the difference between the two in terms of tax rates, welfare benefits, universal "free" healthcare, housing, food etc. is hard to tell. If I were a Swede I would find it frankly insulting to attribute ones success to some government nanny as opposed to ones own work and abilties.
I wonder what Jon Stewart would say if they started to tax him, like they once did to ABBA.
I've dealt with Swedish companies, some based around Stockholm (Vaseby mostly) and other around the country (Partille, for example). The excellence of their products, their investments in R&D, their commitment with satifying demanding customers is unquestionable, whatever they are in Stockholm or in some corner of the countryside. I've grown to seriously respect the Swedish for their commitment to complete customer satisfaction, the first pillar of the free market and capitalism.
I have also come to appreciate the fact that Sweden took extremely serious measures, starting around 1993, to make the country more competitive, even if this meant fighting popular opinion which demanded "free stuff" on a scale which was threatening to bankrupt the country. It takes some real guts to do that.
Pete Sidor:As for the nanny-state success, you can point out the situation is a bit more complicated than that.
WOW! That Mises wiki is really good. Congrats for the editors of that page. I was just about to mention how, according to the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom, Sweden has a higher property rights score, business freedom, trade freedom, monetary freedom, financial freedom, investment freedom, and freedom from corruption than the United States. Basically, Sweden scores higher on every measure of freedom except fiscal freedom, labor freedom, and the government spending score. So, basically, if Sweden just curtailed their labor regulations, like their Danish neighbors, and cut government taxing/spending, then Sweden would be freer than the US! So much for "Swedish socialist." Sorry Walter Block.
Political Atheists Blog
Arvin:Wow, I live in Sweden, and I do not live in Stockholm, and the difference in income isn't that noticeable since the cost of living in the rest of Sweden is lower than the cost of living in Stockholm. Also, there are some places that were abandoned because lots of people moved to Stockholm where there were more jobs, so those places now consist of mostly old people who are living off of their pensions, and losers who choose to stay at a place where there is no future. Anyway, it's definately possible to get a high paying job in any city in Sweden, doesn't have to be Stockholm. Also, Sweden is not as socialist as you might think... We're not as inflationist or interventionist as the USA for example.
Sorry if I in anyway offended you, although I doubt that I did. I wasn't saying Sweden was a BAD place, but that it's not the utopia leftists describe it as. The way they describe it is that everyone is happy and life is easy. Seems unlikely. When people here go on trips to Europe they love it because they go to tourist attractions in wealthy cities. That's what they think of when they think of Europe. It's not necesarrily awful everywhere else, but they tend to glorify Europe through associations such as Paris=France, Stockholm=Sweden, Rome=Italy. And when people say Europe is socialist (which is not absolutely true), it triggers these ideals of easy-living and luxury and makes socialism seem like a "nice" concept. This bothers me.