I cannot reitterate that my discussion here is not against capitalism. It is against the idea that the free market will govern us any better than any other system run by the same corrupt, unsympathetic, self-righteous humans. Im trying to say to you that I agree with you, except that I think we need a well thought out system of governance with numerous checks and balances to power; everchanging and evolving to fix problems that were unforseen. Regardless of wether a "state" does that or not, I find it neccesary.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
GDP growth in Sweden was on average one percentage point below the OECD average (1.7 compared to 2.7 percent a year) and growth in GDP per capita was 0.6 percentage points below the OECD average. In 1970 Sweden had the fourth-highest per capita income level in the OECD. By 1990, the Swedish income level was tied at ninth position in the OECD, even though 1990 was an extreme boom year in Sweden with an unemployment rate of 1.5 percent. By 1998 the Swedish income level had fallen to a tie for eighteenth position among the OECD countries. The comparability with other rich OECD countries increases if we exclude the two developing countries Mexico and Turkey (plus the most recent members: Poland, South Korea, Hungary,). [2] In such a comparison, Swedish PPP-adjusted per capita income had fallen to 6 percent below the OECD average already in 1990, when the economy went through the last stage of an unsustainable boom. In 1998 Swedish per capita income was 15 percent below the average for the twenty-three richest OECD countries. In summary, the data presented here distinctly show that Swedish economic growth has been below the OECD average since 1970. The accumulated effect of the slower growth rate is large. From 1970 to 1998, fifteen countries ("natural experiments," to use Korpi's terminology) surpassed or caught up with Sweden in terms of GDP per capita, while Sweden did not overtake a single one. Given this stagnant growth, Sweden can only see further relative declines in their standard of living, compared to the rest of the developed world. If average GDP declines by only 1%, for an extended period of time, it compounds, and has very profound effects. The statistics come from Mangus Henrekson, a professor at the Stockholm school of economics. Sweden’s GDP decline is currently at 9.3-10%, the information is hazy due to the opaque nature of Swedish statistics. This number is far below the projected 6.2% decline expected.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
krazy kaju:Many leftists often point to the "superiority" of Scandinavian "socialism."
Only if they have a false understanding of what socialism actually is, as you have pointed out neither Denmark or Sweden are socialist countries. What they are, however, are fine examples of mixed economies. On the one hand the government takes a large slice of the average working persons wage to provide services, but on the other hand the bulk of buisness in Sweden is private.
In the US we are now seeing the debate that Sweden had in the 1970’s. Should you have a Big Government, statist state or should you keep the system as it is but put into place legislative frameworks for the citizens to make their own choices within these frameworks or should you take away choice altogether because a small minority cannot make rational choices?
I am extremely disturbed that the US seems to be going the way of Sweden in the1970’s. It led to disaster from a point of economic power and prosperity but also for individual liberty. In Sweden there used to be a saying that Sweden have a capitalist economic system for corporations but have socialized the individual. It was before 1990 a near perfect corporatist state.
Up until 1968 the political opposition in Sweden, mainly Folkpartiet, the Responsible Liberal Party, had been in fierce opposition to socializing polices. However the SocialDemocrats changed tactics and abandoned pure socialism to what Nobel Laureate and party leader Bertil Ohlin called “central directive and regulation socialism”.
During the student and worker uprising of 1968, intellectuals became infatuated with Maoism, all parties en Sweden became radicalized and the opposition against socializing policies and corporatism stopped. Sweden’s decline started, taxes were raised by 50 % overnight and the Public Sector tripled in size.
Sweden was in 1970 the world’s third strongest economy and declined to the 17th, our welfare system could not be sustained because of lower growth the lead to lower tax revenues than calculated. Entrepreneurs and venture capital had been run out of the country because of the extreme, punitive tax system and the constant attention of the Swedish Tax Authorities. In fact tax evasion and avoidance had become a national pastime for all and the Shadow Economy sector prospered.
By the 90’s and small and medium sized business owners had all but been eradicated, as result Sweden still has least small and medium sized business owners in all of the developed countries (OECD). Not only that in Sweden because of the corporatist polices of strong interaction between labor and large corporations and government not one single new job has been created in the Private Sector, all new jobs were created in the Public Sector.
So should the US steer the course that Sweden did 1970-1992 semi-socialized statism, massive intervention as well as high taxes or should we adopt polices Sweden applied after its banking sectors financial meltdown in 1990-1992 and that lead to the Swedish model being the envy of most US liberals i.e. tax cuts, deregulation and abandoning the corporatist model of cooperation between labor and large corporations ?
From Bertil Ohlin’s Memoirs “Socialistisk skordetid kom bort”(”The Socialists crop was never harvested”) 1940-1951 Bonniers 1975.
Bertil Ohlin was not only a party leader but also a professor of Economics as well as Nobel Laureate. He won the prize for the Heckscher-Ohlin theorem.. He was the founder of The Stockholm School of Economics a forerunner to Keynes.
In particular, responsible liberalism saw it as a danger to the liberty of its citizens the development of the growth of an increasingly centralized political power. The SocialDemocrats [Swedish Big Government statists,] were always adherents of such practices that increased the political influence. Only when a very strong case could be presented could we in Folkpartiet [Swedish Responsible liberal party] agree to such measures. We preferred makings laws that put a framework in place and with full freedom within thisframework. The SocialDemocrats always wanted to increase what they called “the Societies influence” and minimized the individual’s right to self-determination both in private as well as in business life. Instead of the old “nationalization policy, pure socialism” we now saw on the horizon the beginnings of a new “central directive and regulation socialism” [In the US called Statism] emerging which, however – it must be stressed – was strongly opposed by us and the other parties in opposition and only developed very slowly after1948.
Esuric: Sweden’s GDP decline is currently at 9.3-10%, the information is hazy due to the opaque nature of Swedish statistics. This number is far below the projected 6.2% decline expected.
Sweden’s GDP decline is currently at 9.3-10%, the information is hazy due to the opaque nature of Swedish statistics. This number is far below the projected 6.2% decline expected.
Let me get this straight. What is this 9.3-10% GDP decline? That can't be annual.
Lord Shore-Twilly: krazy kaju:Many leftists often point to the "superiority" of Scandinavian "socialism." Only if they have a false understanding of what socialism actually is, as you have pointed out neither Denmark or Sweden are socialist countries. What they are, however, are fine examples of mixed economies. On the one hand the government takes a large slice of the average working persons wage to provide services, but on the other hand the bulk of buisness in Sweden is private.
Denmark and Sweden are countries that suffer from lower growth due to a large welfare state, but make up for it with a nearly non-existent regulatory system.
Political Atheists Blog
Have any of you two fine gentlemen any practical experience from Denmark or Sweden, or have you just decided from some table, that things balance and that this is a pretty neat place?
There are AS economists in Sweden and Denmark that have written about this on mises.org.
Most people from the those places that have never been anywhere else just believe what they are taught in school: that they are better than everyone else. I've met many Swedes. They are always some degree of holier-than-thou.
The ones that have left are a different story.
Here is Yngwie Malmsteen's take on Sweden in the 70's.
Jacob Hedegaard: Have any of you two fine gentlemen any practical experience from Denmark or Sweden, or have you just decided from some table, that things balance and that this is a pretty neat place?
Have you looked at the studies, statistics, and articles that I posted in the OP?
What he says about it being barren makes it seem rather similar to any of the infamous communist experiments. There's always a lack entertainment. When you factor in that bias toward expansionary spending, it goes some way to explaining why they don't fall apart as fast as we would expect.
krazy kaju: Norway, the least successful Scandinavian nation
Really? I've always regarded Norway the most successful Scandinavian nation...
If you do the simple math from oil production stats, Norway pumps 2/3 barrel of oil per day per person. Notwithstanding that, it's a wreck.
Yes, I have...
All I'm saying is, that it must be wonderful to be able to sit in America or somewhere else in the world and decide, that Scandinavia is a pretty nice place.
In other words, I can't stand desktop-intellectuals, who dosn't have the slightest idea what they're talking about!
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jacob, what is your point?
Caley McKibbin: If you do the simple math from oil production stats, Norway pumps 2/3 barrel of oil per day per person. Notwithstanding that, it's a wreck.
Without the oil, Norway would have developed other industries. So why subtract it from the equation, claiming Norway to be the least successful Scandinavian country when they're out of debt and have the highest standard of living, income etc. in the region?
Yet with all your oil money do you have long red hot dogs?
That is the question.
I didn't claim that. I'm claiming that oil windfall created the illusion that they have some magical formula. If I found a briefcase on the ground with a million dollars in it I would be called "lucky".
Caley McKibbin:I'm claiming that oil windfall created the illusion that they have some magical formula.
In a libertarian society, those oil money would be the property of those persons who found it, and not the people of the nation, right?
loweleif: Yet with all your oil money do you have long red hot dogs? That is the question.
I lol'd
Caley McKibbin: I didn't claim that. I'm claiming that oil windfall created the illusion that they have some magical formula. If I found a briefcase on the ground with a million dollars in it I would be called "lucky".
Canada has a similar situation. We have massive resources we barely refine before selling off.
alimentarius: In a libertarian society, those oil money would be the property of those persons who found it, and not the people of the nation, right?
Right, because there is no such concept of "people of the nation" in a libertarian society.
Which means that Norway would have been a poor country with just a very, veryy rich elite, hadn't it been for their welfare state?
'
Non sequitur.
If the Norwegians are rich because of the oil, they would not be that rich if the oil was in the hands of a few people. right?
Why would that be?
their costs of purchasing oil would be cheaper than if the oil did not exist.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Jon Irenicus: Why would that be?
Why would Norwegians benefit more from this oil than any other people, if it was owned by pravate people?
What would give the people within an imaginary zone called "Norway" entitement to it? Why should a person who lives 1 inch from the border not benefit? Why not people in Timbuktu?
They've some sort of entitlement to it? Absent it, they cannot produce wealth? They cannot work in or invest in the oil firms? They will not trade with the now wealthier owners? Do you see why this is silly?
Caley McKibbin: Jacob, what is your point?
Simply this: The statistics you're refereing to is rubbish. It doesn't yield any truths whatsoever. Well, it maybe indicate that Venezuela is below Singapore, but the very ranking itself is mere fun and games and not to be taking litterally.
One of the key issues is the lack of weighting the factors. Eventhough I agree that weighing would be maybe even more troublesome, the lack of weighting is minimizing the usefullness of the index severly. And the trouble is, when people start to refer to DK or other countries as being in the top ten or alike, then they basically haven't understood what the index shows, which is WAY less than some people make it out to.
If I recall correctly conscription is in the index as well, but surely no one would claim that conscription vs. non-conscription has an effect on the economy equal to say an index over how easy it is to start a company. As with all the other factors.
Sure, Denmark scores high on economic freedom on various statistics, but don't pretend you know this country, just because you can cite some half-wit table.
And as far is Norway goes... Norway is FAR better off than Sweden and Denmark! They put their oil-money in a fund for future investments. Denmark and Sweden have extreemly expensive systems which are sensitive towards business cycles. Denmark ex. will this year have an enormous budget deficit, which 'no one' saw coming just a year ago, and all the politicians ramble on about is how to prohibit muslim women from wearing a burka.
Nothing would give the people of Norway entitlement to it, I'm simply saying that Norway are good at distributing this wealth. I'm not saying that it's moral, just that it has made the Norwegian people among the most prosperous in the world.
i cant see that any of this has a point ali
alimentarius: Nothing would give the people of Norway entitlement to it, I'm simply saying that Norway are good at distributing this wealth. I'm not saying that it's moral, just that it has made the Norwegian people among the most prosperous in the world.
So you believe that wealth distribution creates wealth thereby making people more prosperous?
alimentarius: I'm simply saying that Norway are good at distributing this wealth. I'm not saying that it's moral, just that it has made the Norwegian people among the most prosperous in the world.
I'm simply saying that Norway are good at distributing this wealth. I'm not saying that it's moral, just that it has made the Norwegian people among the most prosperous in the world.
That is a non-sequitur.
Jacob Hedegaard:So you believe that wealth distribution creates wealth thereby making people more prosperous?
In this case, yes. Or would the Norwegians be just as prosperous if the right to their oill was given to private interests?
Does the Norway gov allow anyone else to explore for oil?
Btw, I don't use Heritage Foundation tables. I use the Fraser Institute version.
That one is based Walter Block's old project, which he explains here.
It isn't "their" oil, and who knows? They might even be more prosperous.