<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HbTEzhaXZ3w&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HbTEzhaXZ3w&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
This guy is not going to win any Nobel prizes by stating the obvious. 1. Re: "tipping pont" balance between taxation and benefits in Sweden. This is kind of obvious, some people will not work if they can get 80% of unemployment benefits without working. Over the long run, the unemployment insurance system needs to be budget neutral. 2. Deregulation of Swedish telecom improved service and economic growth. Nothing wrong with deregulating industries that provide actual goods and services. There is something terribly wrong with totally deregulating financial systems that specialize in concentrated wealth (big inv. banks) and imaginary wealth (derivatives). 3. Swedish health care system "parasitic" of gains and innovation from a US "competitive" health care system. First, there is nothing competitive about the US health care system when no patients know the price of any treatment and mainly those allowed or can afford to be in the system benefits. In addition, the gains in innovation in US health care is arguably predominately from fundamental scientific research funded in large parts by the US taxpayers. So it may be true that the Swedes benefit from US sciences, it is not true that the benefit is the result of a "competitive" US health care system.
No, most US healthcare innovations come from private dollars, from private corporations, and private universities. LOL. According to you, it's just a coincidence that the system with the most incentives and rewards for innovation actually produces the most innovation. But instead claim that it's due to taxpayer funding, of which it has notably less of than the competition. Eh, I guess logic is over rated anyhow.
Did y'all catch that part?.. about NONE of the top 50 Swedish companies being formed since 1970.. you know.. before '70... , back in their Laissez Faire time.. before they went Socialist.
I think you need to check your facts... Sweden went socialist in 1932, so it's not entirely clear where you get your idea of 1970s being a laissez faire time. Moreover, from what I know of Sweden, the guy in the video seems to be describing pre-90s Sweden, which was quite inefficient indeed. During the early 90s, after a relatively painful crisis, the Swedish economy actually reorganized quite extensively. That reorganization has worked quite well. In 2004, Sweden was ranked 3rd in the world, both for the international competitiveness of its business community and for its prospects for future growth. Most importantly, Sweden's public debt/GDP is 38% and is likely to shrink going fwd. So Swedish taxes might be high, but at least the budget is reasonably balanced (3.3% deficit) and allows them to make provisions for the aging of their population. Do we know many countries that are in a position to do that right about now?
Clearly life in Sweden is intolerable, much worse than in the US. Where are their Tea Party, their red shirts?
Most nations are pussies and will just get shafted, rather than revolt. Sweden, while being a lovely place, and socially one of the most free on Earth, is very much a nation full of pussies. Many cultures altogether lack the liberal ideals underlying the French and American Revolutions, rendering them impotent statist Tories. Sweden does have many cultural treasures, that the rest of the world could, and really should, learn from ( concept of "lagom" would be number 1), but they aren't the passionately liberal types that were behind the French and American Revolutions. ( I can say this with impunity, I am of Swedish ancestry). Liberal philosophy was behind the French and American Revolutions, and was responsible for the subsequent success of America following the revolution. The degree to which liberal ideals affected national outcomes can be seen when comparing the USA to France, where their liberal revolution ultimately failed. I mean "liberal" in the classical sense, obviously. Not the neo liberalism of the people who have hijacked the term and use it today. Socialistic policies work better in Sweden than in other places because, for whatever reason, workers are much more efficient, and levels of corruption are notably lower than other socialist destinations. This is the case throughout Scandinavia.
very interesting post. It looks like liberalism in the U.S. is about to fail as the statists and corporatists have done an excellent job deceiving the public. It amazes me how many neo liberals mistakenly think they are classical liberals.
That's not quite true. There was a major shift towards socialism in Sweden in the 60s. Before that, government intervention in the economy was very limited, even though the SAP were in power. Anyway, almost all of the major companies in Sweden were founded before 1932, during the laissez faire time (late 19th century, early 20th century).
I disagree, but, regardless, it's invalid to claim that 70s were "laissez faire" time in Sweden. So what? Almost all of the major companies worldwide, not just in Sweden, were founded before 1932. Look at the constituents of the DAX, the FTSE and even the Dow. I don't see how this sort of argument is supposed to demonstrate the unique uncompetitiveness of the Swedish economy.