Why does this thread focus almost entirely on Sweden? It's almost only Norway that is on top of these rankings.
alimentarius: Why does this thread focus almost entirely on Sweden? It's almost only Norway that is on top of these rankings.
Sweden is the only part of Scandinavia that looked good statistically from the beginning. What do Norway rankings look like for 1971?
Illuminatus?: Praxeology seems to be an economist/philosopher trying to be a behavior psychologist. Economists are notoriously for trying to be psychologists. Economic behavior is behavior but still human behavior and best explained by the science of human behavior, Skinners Behaviorism. If you want to see how seriously wrong economists can go when they try to be psychologist just look upon the newfangled discipline of "Behavioral Economics" an attempt to reintroduce old school Keynesianism and/or central planning in form of the Enlightened Choice Architect. Nearly pseudo science! Praxeology is a start to explain human economic behavior but it is a rudimentary explanation compared to Skinners Behaviorism (Radical Behaviorism). As far as I know it Hayek’s praxeology has not been upheld in psychological research on human behavior. It’s a very useful tool to start with and that was my main reason to start looking to Austrian Economics. I saw it as a rudimentary for of the science of human behavior. You might compare Mises/Hayek to Freud. Maybe a more easy to understand comparison is astrology to astronomy or alchemy to chemistry. The other reason was that Austrian Economics started out with individual behavior that then could be multiplied. It didn’t do top down. My argument is not against praxeology but against the use of metaphysical concepts such as absolute morality in economic debate. We can never know the origins of morality only see the status it has today. However we are just as we speak starting to find out the origins of morality through genetic research, neuroscience, neuro- and evolutionary psychology. Soon we will be able to find in our genes and brains if there is such thing as constant morality. But until then the vote is out. Apparently when it comes to anarchy and anarcho-capitalism we are talking at cross purposes. I’m talking about a society and economy totally based on anarchy and anarcho-capitalism. You are talking about economic microcosms such as newspaper delivery. What has the abolishment of slavery to do with the abolishment of the total structure of society? Slavery was a miniscule part of the states use of force. It was disgraceful but still an anomaly.
Praxeology seems to be an economist/philosopher trying to be a behavior psychologist. Economists are notoriously for trying to be psychologists. Economic behavior is behavior but still human behavior and best explained by the science of human behavior, Skinners Behaviorism. If you want to see how seriously wrong economists can go when they try to be psychologist just look upon the newfangled discipline of "Behavioral Economics" an attempt to reintroduce old school Keynesianism and/or central planning in form of the Enlightened Choice Architect. Nearly pseudo science!
Praxeology is a start to explain human economic behavior but it is a rudimentary explanation compared to Skinners Behaviorism (Radical Behaviorism). As far as I know it Hayek’s praxeology has not been upheld in psychological research on human behavior. It’s a very useful tool to start with and that was my main reason to start looking to Austrian Economics. I saw it as a rudimentary for of the science of human behavior. You might compare Mises/Hayek to Freud. Maybe a more easy to understand comparison is astrology to astronomy or alchemy to chemistry. The other reason was that Austrian Economics started out with individual behavior that then could be multiplied. It didn’t do top down.
My argument is not against praxeology but against the use of metaphysical concepts such as absolute morality in economic debate. We can never know the origins of morality only see the status it has today. However we are just as we speak starting to find out the origins of morality through genetic research, neuroscience, neuro- and evolutionary psychology. Soon we will be able to find in our genes and brains if there is such thing as constant morality. But until then the vote is out.
Apparently when it comes to anarchy and anarcho-capitalism we are talking at cross purposes. I’m talking about a society and economy totally based on anarchy and anarcho-capitalism. You are talking about economic microcosms such as newspaper delivery. What has the abolishment of slavery to do with the abolishment of the total structure of society? Slavery was a miniscule part of the states use of force. It was disgraceful but still an anomaly.
nandnor:Youre totally straw manning Mises and Rothbard here. I suggest reading some of the start of Human action(it addresses your arguments).
But you don't have to know anything about a subject to discuss it. He said so.
So do you think Sweden is socialist and if so why?
I am a Swede, residing in Sweden since birth, and personally I like to refer to Sweden as socialist. I realize that this is problematic, as the word is generally used to refer to countries that have had to suffer through communist revolutions, such as the Soviet union, Cuba or China. However, the current (and former) situation in Sweden, i.e. the super-extensive welfare state, is very much in line with what Marx described as the dictatorship of the proletariat. The by far biggest party in Sweden, that has dominated Swedish politics since the dawn of time, the social democrats, have always claimed social democracy to be synonymous with democratic socialism. Their agenda has always been socialism and they have been able to rule the country almost uninterruptedly for a very long time. The very few liberalizations in their politics over the years, mainly in the mid-90s, have come out of necessity, not out of ideological conviction. The state really runs everything, even if it tries, quite successfully, to remain unnoticed. Although it is probably more in line with the Zwangswirtschaft of nazi Germany than the 100 % planned economy of Soviet Russia. Because we did not have a sudden violent revolution, the social democrats have been able to create an invisible machinery of slavery that is entirely dependent on the false belief of the governed that they are free. There is a widespread myth that there are private alternatives to everything in Sweden, but that is simply not true.
Look at the governmental indoctrination apparatus for example. Everyone believes that there are massive amounts of private schools out there. But these "private" schools are merely "privately owned" schools that receive public funding and are only permitted to teach the right things to children and young adults. There are very strict and elaborate guidelines and directives that all schools have to follow and there is no option to reject public funds and teach alternative theories and views. The educational system is highly relevant as it the single most powerful tool the regime holds to subjugate the population and still keep it somewhat productive. (Direct and apparent slavery is much less productive.) It is where the social democrats put most of their effort when starting to construct their welfare state (much in line with Marx' suggestions) and it is the reason it managed to grow so enormous. By the 60s the minister of education even stated directly that the promotion of knowledge was a secondary goal of the public education and that things like creating good citizens was of higher priority and much more important. The education has been in line with that statement ever since. The schools now have much the same function as the churches had in the past. They teach us not to think for ourself, not to be selfish, not to question (especially authority), and to always obey the monarch. This has successfully both led to the entire population's suffering from a collective Stockholm syndrome and a very powerful league of intellectual Hitler Jugends, of all ages, that simply do their best to attack, physically or otherwise, anyone that questions the status quo. They don't even even try to use arguments anymore, they just run around with whistles making incredible noise, so that no one can ever hear any uncomfortable truths in public.
Of course, the state controls the media too, which is a major tool of indoctrination as well. While there are state-owned publicly funded TV and radio channels (SVT and SR) that spew propaganda 24/7, mostly directed at children, the state influence over the media does not end there. There is also a very extensive system of tax money being handed out to newspapers, magazines and even painters, writers and musicians, as long as they meet certain criteria. It is officially handed out to promote diversity in news and culture, to protect those industries from the supposed homogenizing effects of the free markets and commercial interests. However, in practice the money only ever goes to left-wing newspapers and "socially progressive" culture (a lot of unusual and weird porn). And I'm sure everyone in here knows how that affects the structure of incentives. They have used all of these tools to effectively trick people into believe that up is down and left is purple. They have managed the incredible task of making everyone believe that he or she is a net benefactor of the welfare state, even though they see everyone around them, including themselves, getting poorer and poorer, with constantly growing debts. It is incredible really, because even relatively wealthy families seem to believe that they wouldn't afford to send their children to school if there was no public education, that they wouldn't afford health care, or even food, if it weren't for the financial aid that everyone gets. Literally everyone gets welfare money in one way or the other, there is money you get for having children, there is money you get to pay for your rent, there is money you get automatically if you are a student, there is a little money to be had everywhere. And these meager amounts of money overshadow all the money that they have to pay.
They believe they are free, that they are privileged and that they are rich compared to the rest of the world. In fact, most people actually believe that they live in the best, happiest and richest country in the world, and the only reason some statistics might show otherwise is that there are a few super-rich individuals that mess up the statistics, hiding the the fact that the vast majority lives in extreme poverty. (Most Swedes view America in this way.) That's why the myth of the perfect political system of Scandinavian socialism has been able to spread across the world, because the citizens themselves believe in it. Talking to a Swede about politics, you're likely to hear them saying "In Swiden wi häv ö system. Here naw wan is poor änd everyfing is fri". The indoctrination is even more effective than in North Korea, because I don't think that deep down, the North Koreans don't believe that Kim Jong Il is the world's number one golfer, even if they have to pretend that they do.
People believe that they do not pay taxes (it's the employers that pay the "employer's fees"), that they have the best health care in the world, the best schooling in the world, the best everything. But as soon as you just scratch the surface a little, you see that the schools make people both stupider and unhappy, that it is impossible to get any health care at all in Sweden, because of the gigantic lines, that public transportation works even worse than it did in Atlas Shrugged, that unemployment is way way higher than the official numbers, that the state monopoly on gambling does not reduce gambling addiction merely because the state gets the revenue, that alcohol monopoly does not reduce alcoholism, does not make alcohol cheaper and of higher quality, that the roads are broken, that the infrastructure is built with incompetence making it completely useless, that the street lights do not work at night, that the roads do not get plowed in the winter, that no one ever goes to the public libraries that have loads and loads of employees, just sitting around drinking coffee all day, houses are abandoned and falling apart, that rent controls make it impossible to get an apartment in a city, not easier, that people are unemployed, not employed, because it is almost illegal to fire people, that the public obligatory pension funds have been looted many times over and that the current retired people now are dependent on tax revenue from today's young workers, even though they have worked their whole lives to "save up" for their retirement in the public pension system, that no one in the public sector ever does any work whatsoever, because it is simply not required of them, that the average Swede pays over 70% in taxes, that immigrants come here, not because they want to work, but because they know they don't have to, that the money of people who did not write a will goes to Palmecenter, an institution devoted to spreading the ideas of socialism in the third world, i.e. where it would do the most damage, that people can't even afford to buy a car or go to the dentist (despite dental care's being public and tax funded), that you can easily get abortions, breast implants and sex change operations for "free", but you can't even get an appointment when you're actually sick, that a very very large portion of the Swedish population has college degrees in subjects that are completely useless on a free market (gender studies for example) and would be unemployed if the state didn't make up fake jobs for them to make them feel better, that the schools technically aren't allowed to pass students that don't support democracy (which in Swedish terminology means socialism), that the private sector hasn't grown since the 70s and that virtually no new wealth has been created since, cementing the status quo and making social mobility virtually non-existant, that people who work often earn less than people who are on welfare, that even the traditional "right" has been so influenced by the social democrats that they have completely taken over their retoric, doing nothing but trying to be more socialist than the socialists themselves, raising environment taxes, calling for more gender and race quotas in the private sector, blaming everything that's wrong in the world on "bonuses", that the social democrats will rule together with the communist party after the election in september, and so on and so on.
I have no idea where I was getting at when I started writing this, I guess I just felt the need to rant for a while. Bottom-line, socialist or not, Sweden sucks.
Jrgen, I regret to inform you that most of what you said is true everywhere else.
Yes, I suspect as much. However, I believe that Sweden has taken everything that is wrong further than most countries.
Alimentarus,
Sweden is used because it's the preime focus for US left liberals and we use it because it i a prime example what happens if you implement those ideas the left liberals want, total collaps of the economy and functional socialism.
Norway is not an Scandinavian welfare state because of organic growth, they only have oil, pure luck i.e their economy has nothing to do entrepreneurship. Before the oil wealth the Norwegians were like theMidwest in the US religious fundamentalist that were farmers with som very rich shipowners as well as fishermen. Most Norwegians compared to the other Scandinavian welfare states of Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands backward and poor before the oil wealth.
Jrgen,
The Sweden you describe is the Sweden I grew up in and run my small businesses, what Swedish politician Per Ahlmark called the "Crazy Quarter of a Century" (1968-1993). I was born in the early 60's and I remember the Swedish school and the Swedish state television, the utter propaganda against free Enterprise in general and towards entrepreneurs in particular. My mother paid 85 % in marginal taxation as an employee and her friends that ran businesses paid 102 % in marginal taxation. The Public Sector more than trebled in size and massive entitlement programs were instituted. During this time nearly all entrepreneurs and large business owners were run out of the country. (A correction there has been now new job created in the private sector in Sweden since 1950)
However because of the crisis in the tax system and entitlement system in the mid 80's as well as the bank crisis in 1991-92 Sweden changed course and is today one of the most free market economies nearly applying all of the Chicago School economics. Unfortunately the entitlement system is such that even though it was very much trimmed is still so large that it demands a taxation of over 50 % of GDP, as seen in the US nobody wants to raise taxes but neither do they wish to cut benefits.
In Sweden we used to have a saying wich went: "- In Sweden we did not socialize the economy but instead socialized the individual"
This is why I even though I dislike the extreme dogmatism, close to fanaticism of most Rothbardian followers on this site I am interacting in calling for action on the US not taking the turn Sweden took 1968 towards functional socialism and an entrenchment of the welfare state. The Obama administration is acting and using the exact same rhetoric as was used in Sweden in the early 70's.
The US should in fact do the reforms Sweden did in the early 90's:
Massive tax reforms cutting marginal taxation rates by half, took away all government subsidies and tax breaks for housing. Deregulated the fiancial sector and went from a hands on supervisory authority to one that demanded transparency for the market. Instituted spending caps and deficit caps. Reformed and privatized social security and introduced school vouchers. (The teaching of alternative views is OK by the Swedish school code as long as its not based on political or religious dogma or contrary to science i.e. Creationism, Intelligent Design or that the earth is flat etc. You can't start a socialist school in Sweden that teaches Marx views or a school teaching fundamentalist Christian or Muslim views. The schools can be owned and operated by socialists and religious kooks.)
I abhorred the Swedish tax system system so I did it my lifes work to advocate for flat taxes for business owners and to have them pay fair taxes, the taxes they needed to pay for what the consumed in Sweden. I did this by becoming a very esoteric tax planner. I moved Swedish small business owners wealth and corporate hedquarter to offshore centers all according to Swedish and international legislation. Their tax burden was all below the marginal rate i.e. they paid an average income tax of 25 % instead of plus 50 %, no wealth tax, no capital gains tax and no inheritance tax.
I became so disenchanted with Sweden that I emigrated to the US to give my children a better life. However much to my dismay I found the US much less open, much more regulated and found the bureaucracy and supervisory agencies to be extremely corrupt and venal. In fact for a small and medium sized business man to run business, Sweden compared to the US is heaven, excluding personal taxation. In fact Sweden is a corporate tax haven. That is before mentioning the atrocious legal system in the US in general and its contract and tort law in particular. (Hayek didn't get it when he extols Common Law, he never understood the simplicity, clarity and transparency of Germanic Law for business purposes.). US contract and tort law is basically antithetical to running a business. The horrendous costs and risk doing business because of the need of a squadron of lawyers and consultants. I also have had huge problems with the extreme narrow minded social conservative culture, the religiousness and gun craziness coupled with a very jingoistic view on the US . I thought that low taxes was the only thing that mattered but now I'm not so certain. But I can believe nothing worse than a social conservative culture combined with high taxes. So my youngest child just told me "Dad if it turns for worse let's move to Singapore"
Jrgen at least you can vote with your feet and/or your money as I did. You can do what most Swedish entrepreneurs and large business owners did during the crazy functional socialist years between 1968-1993, leave the country or do as all small and medium sized business men did, move your money and holding company outside Sweden to Sweden to offshore centers. Have a plan for your exit.
Do something and stop bitching!
Don't become like the narrow minded ideological purists on these pages. Live and interact in the real world and make real change!
If you must know, I am right now in the process of leaving the country. Why that has any relevance whatsoever, I don't understand. Unless you're one of those statists who actually accept the idea that governments can legitimately own land by merely pointing at it, and subsequently bossing everyone, who agreed to be bossed around by being dumb enough to have ancestors who settled there millennia ago, around. So yes, I will "vote" with my feet (I don't have money, I live in Sweden), but that does not mean I will somehow agree to being robbed by the state in my new country of residence. Voting with your feet is a horrible expression, as it implies that cripples consent to gang rape by not being able to flee fast enough and therefore cannot legitimately complain afterwards.
Alright, to the part of your post that did not involve attacks on my person. The Sweden I describe is not a Sweden of a distant (pre-'93) past, but the Sweden of today. While it is true that the so called "right" liberalized the economy somewhat in the early 90s. So did the Persson regime in '96. However, even after these reforms, Sweden was still a social democratic country and the socialist elements in Swedish politics have only grown since. Even with the "New Moderates" in charge, we seem to keep taking one step forwards and two backwards.
Oh, and I know that the taxes were way more progressive in the 70s than they are today (with Astrid Lindgren being the most prominent example of people with 100+% marginal tax). However, in spite of the income tax becoming less progressive and some minor tax cuts for certain groups the last couple of years, the average Swede still pays over 70% of his income in taxes. And yes, lots businesses were driven out of business, or out the country in the 70s, but today they simply aren't started in the first place. It was not the big businesses that were driven out of they country. They were the ones cheering on the never-halting regulation of their respective markets. All of the biggest businesses of today were all started before the 60s, simply because big businesses brought forth rules and regulations making it impossible for small and medium sized business to operate in Sweden. The big businesses were doing just fine, despite higher taxes and more regulations. They didn't have to worry about competition anymore...
I don't reject your argument if you are trying to say that things were even worse in the 70s and 80s than they are today. Because yes, in many ways that is true (at least no more "solidaristic wage policy"). However, when you call Sweden one of the most free market economies, things simply get absurd. If you look at the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom for example, you'll see that out of the countries with sufficient data (which is most of them), Sweden is the second from the bottom when it comes to fiscal freedom, the third from the bottom when it comes to government spending, and pretty far down among the crap countries when it comes to labor freedom. Even if, for example, the bureaucracy isn't all that burdensome when starting up a new business, it is impossible to do anything properly in the complex web regulations, subsidies and tax cuts. Secondly, and just as important, it is not easy to run businesses in fields where the government runs tax funded alternatives with slightly lower fees, or subsidizes private businesses that meet certain criteria. If it is ever okay to use the term "unfair competition", then this is when. I don't really agree with your equation of Chicago school economics and free markets either, but that's a different question.
On the changes that were made in the early 90s, I agree that some of the reforms were decent. However, if the marginal tax for some, or even all, is lowered, that doesn't mean that the overall tax levels are lower. It simply means that the taxation is less progressive. And when you're talking about the deregulation of the financial market, you should really be talking about a reregulation of the financial market. They changed the rules, they didn't take them away. And the spending and deficit caps, those are just words. Maud Olofsson (C) has repeatedly criticized the opposition of having budget propositions that disregard these caps, and the opposition has simply responded "those are your rules, not ours". School vouchers... We now have the right to choose which public indoctrination camps to send our children to. It doesn't matter if they claim that there are now "private alternatives". If all the schools are still, by law, required to teach marxism, problem remains. If the schools are still funded by tax money, the incentives are still perverse. As you say, you can't start schools teaching things that do not adhere to the politically established directives. And this is exactly the problem. Where you are wrong, however, is where you say that you can't start a socialist school. Teaching socialism is not prohibited, it's a requirement.
And please explain to me how they privatized social security.
About the rhetoric Obama is using, you should hear the rhetoric being used right now in Sweden. While the social democrats are using the same Marxist argumentation as they always have, but slightly more radical, it is the left-ward movement of the traditional centre-right parties that is the most worrying. They are now constantly talking about the dangers of bonuses, greed, gender quotas in the private sector, environment taxes, the greatness of the Swedish model (both when it comes to the extensive welfare state and the rights given to labor unions that no other organizations share), the greatness of LAS (labor protection laws). In other words, from both sides, you hear a unified monotonous noise of socialist propaganda, really reinforcing the feeling of living in a one-party state in Eastern Europe.
Sure, the US is no paradise either. I don't think you will get any argument there. However, if you're looking to move away from social conservatism, I strongly recommend against moving to Singapore, even if they have a freer economy.
Lastly, I have been active doing everything I can to promote the ideas of freedom. I do not have any money to do this with, but I have devoted tremendous amounts of time talking to people, online and offline. This is the only way anyone could ever hope to achieve freedom, as all things are governed by ideas. But thanks for implying I do nothing worthwhile without knowing anything about me other than one post I wrote on a forum. I'm sure you've done so much more for the world, devoting your life to promoting oxymorons like "fair taxes".
Illuminatus?:In Sweden we used to have a saying wich went: "- In Sweden we did not socialize the economy but instead socialized the individual"
"Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings" – Adolf Hitler
Illuminatus?:I became so disenchanted with Sweden that I emigrated to the US to give my children a better life. However much to my dismay I found the US much less open, much more regulated and found the bureaucracy and supervisory agencies to be extremely corrupt and venal. In fact for a small and medium sized business man to run business, Sweden compared to the US is heaven, excluding personal taxation. In fact Sweden is a corporate tax haven. That is before mentioning the atrocious legal system in the US in general and its contract and tort law in particular.
Yes, economic fascism has swept the world.
Illuminatus?:Don't become like the narrow minded ideological purists on these pages. Live and interact in the real world and make real change!
Well said. "From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step."
"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."
The quip about voting with your feet and my criticisms, nor your person per se, were in fact very real. My family had to escape from the communists. My grandfather was designated "an enemy of the state" for owning a business. He has on the KGBs list for execution as well as his whole familiy. My great grandfather was put on show trail by the Nazis. So being able to vote with your feet and your money is a very important safeguard. you know when a country turns to authoritarian and totalitarianism when exchange controls are implemented and travel restrictions.
When to comes to my criticism of the misean/rothbardian crowd is that it is all talk, all ideology and no action. the only action they talk about is "human action". They do noting and don't intact since any compromise and gradula change is seen as a capitulation to the idea of the state. They yearn for the pure anarchic society but have no means whatsoever of going there. I have a friend that for a year worked with the Ron Paul campaign and he said he was completely disenfranchised with the utopian rothbardians. Even Ron Paul was not libertarian. Horror, he compromised, wasn't ideologically pure
As i have lived in Sweden and started my working life when the changed occured in the late 80's and now live in the US I think I have some insights and capabilities in comparing Sweden pre 1990, post 1990 and the US up 'til 2008.
I do agree wiht you put my point was in running a business and business taxation, not about fiscal policy and overall taxation. When it comes to running a business from a regulatory, tax, legal and pure business perspective Sweden is one of the most free in the world, far more freer than the US. When it comes to overall taxes plus 50 % of GDP and government spending plus 50 % of GDP it is the highest in the world. 80 % of the Swedish population pay 60 % of their income in taxes and mandatory fees. The top 20 % pay more. Thus my quip of socializing the individual, Sweden during 1968-1993 was in fact as close as you can get to a corporatist state aka fascism. Very close to Argentina under Peron, had not the reforms taken place Sweden would today be where Argentina is. Sweden today is more like Chile.
The rhetoric in Sweden is probably the same as it was during the bad 1980's in Sweden now but my point is that it is even worse in the US. The US is now on the verge of becoming Sweden anno 1968 instead of implementing the necessary tax, welfare and spending cap reforms implemented in Sweden in the 90's.
The Swedish pension reform is in fact the wonder of the developed world (OECD), no developed country beside Sweden have solved the solvency, solvency and underfunding of its Social Security system. Sweden went from a completely insolvent PAYGO system to a fully funded and fully solvent system. Every Swedes pensions is actuarial calculated and each Swede has has his own private pension account divided into 2 compartments, one is a guaranteed defined contribution portion and on top a private stock broker account linked to fund supermarket, some 750 mutual funds. The pension system is run like a mutual insurance company. (When I talk about private I don't mean it in the purist rothbardian sense i.e 100 % free from taxes and government laws and regulation).
The difference between me and most on this forum is that they as you "promote the ideas of freedom [and they] have devoted tremendous amounts of time talking to people, online and offline [and delude themselves that this is ] the only way anyone could ever hope to achieve freedom, as all things are governed by ideas"
They're not talk is cheap, action is everything. In fact talking to the already born again is useless. The only way to get change done is by action, 1 ideologue and a 1,000 followers that take action gets something done. 1,000 ideologues intellectually masturbating get nothing done but creating dissent, fractions and the need for ideological purity. As I said the only way to get change done is by action. Action demands that you get your hands dirty in the real life and real politics. You need to embrace compromise, gradualism and to work within the system of today to be able to achieve the system you want tommorrow. Once again I'm not a rothbardian anarchist purist that believes that 1 % force equals 100 % force. I accept taxes to pay for the extended Night Watchman state which for me include mandatory education, pension and health insurance requirements. You're welcome to call me a statist and fascist! However 99.99 % of the general population sees me as a radical libertarian.
The welfare state seems to work well economically in Europe and provides the needs of its citizens. It's pretty hard to tell socialists that it would be even better without the welfare programs. They do not care about the lost opportunities as long as everybody is taken care off. That is why it is so hard to de-legitimize it. Can you give suggestions?
I would just like to add what I think are excellent articles to this list
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/933
http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_2_oh_to_be.html
Kenneth:The welfare state seems to work well economically in Europe and provides the needs of its citizens.
Huh? Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Iceland are all collapsing. What exactly are you talking about? Even France is cutting back.
I accept taxes to pay for the extended Night Watchman state which for me include mandatory education, pension and health insurance requirements. You're welcome to call me a statist and fascist!
Am I welcome to call you a thief?
Sun. 10/02/21 17:55 EST.post #4Per Bylund, a Swedish anarchist, debunks the image of wonderful, socialist Sweden as a model of state prosperity and efficiency:The Recycling Myth
Someone asked me about Norway's high per capita income in a convo. This was my response:
Norway has a relatively free market, but they also have incredible natural resources.
http://www.nationmaster.com/time.php?stat=ene_oil_pro&country=no
In 2007, Norway produced 2,565,000 barrels of crude oil per day. That's 936,225,000 barrels of crude oil a year.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WTOTWORLD&f=W
In 2007, crude oil prices went between $50 to $90. The average of that is $70. So 936,225,000 bbls of crude times $70 equals $65,535,750,000 a year.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:NOR&dl=en&hl=en&q=norway+population
In 2008, Norway had a population of about 4,769,274. So divide the $65,535,750,000 a year by the population of 4,769,274 and you get $13,741.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita
The GDP per capita of Norway was $58,141 in 2008. Subtract that by the $13,741 that the production of oil contributed to Norway, and you get $44,400 per capita. The USA's GDP per capita is over $46,000. So if all of Norway's oil dried out tomorrow, their per capita income would fall below that of the United States.
This analysis is, of course, imperfect. The times don't match up exactly. It does not measure several other things, for example the oil production of the United States (which is neglible, considering that the US imports 2/3rds of its oil) or the amount of total energy resources that Norway exports (coal + natural gas + crude).
But what this analysis does show is that a large part of Norway's prosperity is simply because depends on fossil fuel energy extraction and production. It doesn't matter whether or not Norway is socialist or capitalist or anything in between, ultimately, the country is on some of the best real estate in the world. Norway is no different in this regards from Brunei or Qatar or Kuwait. All of these countries have a high GDP per capita solely because they are oil exporters.
Political Atheists Blog
Esuric:Even France is cutting back.
France is another luck shot. Where the Norwegians income per capita is $14,600/year from oil alone, a large chunk of the income in France is from tourism. People bring money from afar and dump it into french wallets by the truckload just to see some crappy old buildings and experience snippy french hospitality.
krazy kaju:So if all of Norway's oil dried out tomorrow, their per capita income would fall below that of the United States.
It's not like the oil is drilling itself out of the ground and transporting it to the rest of the world. There is no doubt that the oil is providing them some leverage, yet you still need a functioning and efficient market to reap its market value. I think your initial factor is the more critical one, namely, that Norway has a relatively free market in contrast to popular myths.
krazy kaju:But what this analysis does show is that a large part of Norway's prosperity is simply because depends on fossil fuel energy extraction and production.
I would be more cautious in drawing any such conclusions.
Nobody should expect there to be a 1 to 1 correlation between some inaccurate freedom indexes and GDP/capita, which itself isn't accurate. Wealth is a function of accumulation over time. Tomorrow, Norway can become totally socialistic, yet it will still rank high the following day. What are we to conclude then?
krazy kaju: It doesn't matter whether or not Norway is socialist or capitalist or anything in between, ultimately, the country is on some of the best real estate in the world.
That's an odd statement for you to make. Do you think that a socialist regime could be prosperous as long as it sits on valuable resources ? In that case, a capitalistic society should be totally poor if it is located on a rock (Hong Kong)?
DD5, allow me to clarify. By "socialist" I meant the "social democracy" style of socialism, not actual socialism (government control of the means of production). Obviously, any truly socialist economy, regardless of its natural resources, cannot become prosperous (example: USSR, even though it wasn't completely socialist).
And yes, Norway does have a much more functioning market economy than most people realize. This market system is the key to making the extraction of Norway's rich natural resources actually profitable.
Lastly, if it wasn't for Norway's rich natural resources, I don't believe they would be nearly as prosperous. The Norwegian economy is far too regulated to be of any importance, when you overlook their crude oil and natural gas industries. If it wasn't for the immense purchasing power that all of Norway's natural resources provided, what would be of Norway's economy? Norway would be something like a much colder and much less hospitable Greece.
krazy kaju:This market system is the key to making the extraction of Norway's rich natural resources actually profitable.
Not really. The state can purchase equipment and sell product on international markets. That is how Hussein's Iraq worked with no taxes.
What I mean is that there is a market for the oil, the capital equipment, the labor, etc. Without these markets, Norway's economy would be in the tank.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
That Norway’s GDP wealth is a function of its oil becomes very obvious if you study GDP figures. Oil rich countries led 2008
1. Qatar 87,717
2. Luxembourg
3. Norway
4. Brunei
If one wants to measure the impact of functional socialism, the social democracy of the Obama administration, you should compare Switzerland with Sweden. The Norwegian and Swedish model is what I call functional socialism, “central directive and regulation socialism”. Ronald Reagan called it “control and regulations socialism”. Sweden and Norway are also near perfect examples of the corporatist fascist state economics, the running of the country by the state in cooperation with labor unions and confederations of employers. (By fascist economic policies I don’t mean its pejorative meaning but its text book meaning.)
Sweden and Switzerland had after WWII an identical starting point, a workforce that were intact, no devastation of factories and great natural resources and industries.
Switzerland’s GDP today is USD 42,948 and Sweden’s is 35,934 i.e. the cost of the functional socialism Sweden had and the way the US is now taking is a reduction of GDP some 20 % over time, in Sweden it took 20 years before the economy collapsed. Had the US chosen functional socialism the US instead of being no 6 on the GDP PPP chart been no 15. Sweden is no 17. It corresponds to the drastic fall Sweden had during the fully functional socialist years between 1970-1990 a fall from no 4 to no 17.
Because of Sweden’s corporatist and functional socialist polices the very rich, top 1 % was left intact, income redistribution did not affect them i.e. Sweden has one of the world’s highest wealth GINI factors, measuring wealth inequality, far more wealth inequality than the US. On the surface income GINI, income equality, is low in Sweden but it is a false perspective, income mobility is only between in the 9 lower deciles. To move to the top deciles is very difficult. In the US social and wealth mobility to the top deciles is much higher.
Sweden reversed the disastrous functional socialist policies however they cannot retract the public sector, government subsidies dependence and the extreme taxation it demands. Public spending as well as taxation is above 50 % of GDP. As a result of having tax even low income earners, Sweden has one of the world’s most regressive taxation systems whilst the US has one of the most progressive taxation systems. Sweden can be seen as an example of the “Road to Serfdom” Hayek warned us about, the point of no return.
Excellent post! Thank you Illuminatus.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Drace:Cmon.. Socialists don't even classify the Scandinavian countries as socialist.
I've debated with plenty that regularly use Scandinavian countries as examples of working socialism or social democracy.
That's why this thread is called "The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism." Firstly, the Scandinavian countries are not socialist nor are their governments as interventionist as some claim. Secondly, the Scandinavian countries are not as successful as some claim.
A dead give away to the nature of the falseness of this post is the start. "Many leftists."
I think it might be a very good idea to do a wiki-style summary of this whole thread, with quotations by users, links, statistics and so on. There's loads of good debate and information in this thread worth delivering in an easy-to-access style.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Esuric:France is another luck shot. Where the Norwegians income per capita is $14,600/year from oil alone, a large chunk of the income in France is from tourism. People bring money from afar and dump it into french wallets by the truckload just to see some crappy old buildings and experience snippy french hospitality.
French hospitality, wtf is that ?
And I lol'd when I read the first quote. Welfare state seems to work well? Nowadays, the big debate here in France is wether we're all going to die or not. The state has a HUGE debt, and each year the debt grows bigger and bigger. There's absolutly no jobs for young people AND too old people. Young people around 20 suffer from unemployment, the rate is about 20 or 25%. I've actually tried to find a job last summer. There's none. Appart from grape harvesting in september... (to make wine and champagne ;)).
There's no more money for retirements, the retirement system is completly socialized : everybody pay for everybody, ie. bosses pay for their employees, employees pay for people who never worked etc. The gov want to increase the retirement age, from 60 to 63, and the left-wing opposition and the labour unions are pissed off and have already striked several times because of this.
In France, the minimum wage is 8€. About 30% of this wage goes to the state. But the worst is that your boss must pay about TWICE as much as what you earn to the state : if you earn 8€/hrs, he has to pay 8€ taxes to the state. That's why there's no job, who the f*ck would hire and pay 16€/hrs for a 20 years old guy who never worked in his life and with no degree or any experience ?
Another figure I learned today at school : 30% of families income come from the state, the state gives money directly to "poor" families. Yeah, you heard right. 30% And my teacher actually thinks it's not enough (I'm in economics college). WTF is going on in this country ?!
There's also lot of crimes. In very poor areas it's really scary.
Well, can't finish this post I've got to go :)
People from that part of the world have a distorted view of America. I met a couple from Holland when I was touring Havana Cuba. I said I was shocked how run down this country is. Imagine the scene: little indoor plumbing, sewage in the streets, buildings crumbling before your eyes. The couple was a little surprised at what I said because they thought that most cities in America were as run down as Cuba.
The couple was a little surprised at what I said because they thought that most cities in America were as run down as Cuba.
LOL
Even most places in Latin America are far better than Cuba.
Thedesolateone:I think it might be a very good idea to do a wiki-style summary of this whole thread, with quotations by users, links, statistics and so on. There's loads of good debate and information in this thread worth delivering in an easy-to-access style.
If you know how to do that....
The Scandinavian model in general and Sweden in particular has been the dream, utopia, of many US Democrats and left liberals. The comprehensive Social Democratic Welfare state with state intervention in everything, with the great social engineer at the helm.
As I've written before is that if US tried to emulate the comprehensive welfare model with high over al taxation the US would not become like Sweden it would become like Greece. Greece is now collapsing in a similar way that California is. Huge bureaucracies with very corrupt polices, extremely large Public Sector Unions that have gotten outrageously high benefits paid by cheap money, loans. US public service employees have wages and benefits nearly 200 % of the average private sector worker, Greece is about the same.
In Sweden it would create massive strikes if public Sector Employees would earn more on average than the comparable Private Sector worker. .In Sweden the formula has been 80 % i.e. Public Sector employee gets 80 %.
You should also read the most interesting essay by Brooks in today NY times.
Roughly a century ago, many Swedes immigrated to America. They’ve done very well here. Only about 6.7 percent of Swedish-Americans live in poverty. Also a century ago, many Swedes decided to remain in Sweden. They’ve done well there, too. When two economists calculated Swedish poverty rates according to the American standard, they found that 6.7 percent of the Swedes in Sweden were living in poverty.
In other words, you had two groups with similar historical backgrounds living in entirely different political systems, and the poverty outcomes were the same.
A similar pattern applies to health care. In 1950, Swedes lived an average of 2.6 years longer than Americans. Over the next half-century, Sweden and the U.S. diverged politically. Sweden built a large welfare state with a national health service, while the U.S. did not. The result? There was basically no change in the life expectancy gap. Swedes now live 2.7 years longer.
Again, huge policy differences. Not huge outcome differences.
… we should all probably calm down about politics. Most of the proposals we argue about so ferociously will have only marginal effects on how we live, especially compared with the ethnic, regional and social differences that we so studiously ignore.
@Illuminatus?
But...But...But...That's racism!
/sarc
Apropos of nothing, I just optioned a screenplay to a production company in Sweden. The producer said the film industry is financed at least partially by public funds. I thought it a bit ironic that me the Libertarian is getting his work paid for by a country using public funds. I was also surprised that Sweden of all countries wanted my script because it's a screwball comedy and I never thought of Swedes as having a sense of humor. [no bashing, please. I freely admit I'm provincial.]
Sorry for the interuption. Continue.
They are Swedes, not Germans, your getting your Europeans mixed up. ;)
Sorry if someone already asked this, I haven't read the whole thread, starting from the beginning it's like a freaking book.
When you say "business freedom" does this mean it is easier to start a business because there is less bureaucracy? Could it mean that their business regulations are different?