If you're actually serious about this, I would absolutely love to hear how you define: a) "passionately liberal types"; b) success of America following the revolution that was due to liberal philosophy; c) failure of the liberal revolution in France;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism Passionately liberal types- people who are philosophically liberal and are passionate enough about to revolt and reform a nation based on liberal principals. Yes, America was more or less the only major power in the world at that time which was based on liberal principals besides France. Then, of course, the French Revolution was ultimately defeated. Yes, the French Revolution, which was based on classical liberal ideals, and was defeated when Napoleon lost at Waterloo.
I know what "classical liberalism" is and I know its history. What I don't understand is why we're discussing 18th and 19th century America and France in the context of the original question. I thought your point is that Sweden didn't follow the liberal tradition, which is why it's such an inefficient and static country. Do you truly believe that, in the modern world, the only place where classically-defined liberalism triumphed is the US?
I don't see him claiming that (although I can see why you interpreted it that way). You have to watch the video to understand the context, though. Just to get the facts straight, none of the top companies in Sweden were founded after the 70s. Two, as far as I know (H&M and IKEA) were founded in the 40s. The rest were founded during the "laissez faire" time. Most of them were big companies already in the 30s. Anyway, it would probably be more accurate to say that Sweden has got no new large companies since the 70s. All companies that are large today were large in the 70s as well, and almost all of them were large back in the 30s too. Well, the same period happen to be a laissez faire period in most of Europe and the US as well. But it is not true in most developed countries that there has been no addition of large companies since 1970, and almost no since the 30s. The Swedish corporate structure is remarkable in that we have a (proportionately) large number of really big companies, and a large number of small companies (although many of them are farmers), but there is almost nothing inbetween. There is almost no growth of new companies to replace the old big corporations when they die off.
The point is that Sweden has become less efficient and more static since it's departure from liberal policy. No, I believe that classic liberalism has triumphed in the vast majority of the places that it has been implemented. However, in recent history the only world powers which have maintained fidelity to liberal policies are the United States and France. Until France lost to Wellington and went back to Tory policies. So, in recent history the US is the only nation to use classical liberalism as it's theoretical framework. Hence, the comically disproportionate progress of the US compared to Europe and the rest of the world. Sure, there are exceptions- Switzerland, Hong Kong, Monaco etc. But as I said the only world power, besides France's failed revolution. Hence France is no longer a "world power". Sweden used to have very liberal policies, and made tremendous strides during that period. I think Sweden is a remarkable country. It's a shame to see it mired in it's current state of bureaucracy and statism. The US's departure from liberal policies over the last decade or so is particularly worrisome to me. For the last 100 or so years the US has had socially authoritarian tendencies (I always thought of it as an over reaction to the "wild west" period), but now that the fiscal side of things has also become notably less liberal, it's troubling. What do you think?
Yes, I see that my interpretation of the comment was possibly too narrow. I also agree with the conclusion you make regarding large companies in Sweden. However, you're wrong about the other developed countries. Specifically, in the DAX there's only one constituent company, SAP, that was founded in the 70s. In the FTSE 100, there's a couple, such as ICAP and Tullow Oil, but again the majority date from late 19th/early 20th century, i.e. the industrial revolution and its aftermath. In my view, the age of large companies, in Sweden and worldwide, doesn't have much to do with the business environment and more to do with a variety of factors, such as survivorship bias, social history etc. What this means, in my opinion, is that you shouldn't use that statistic as some sort of a measure of the inefficiency of the Swedish economy. Moreover, I would like to present evidence to the contrary: http://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii/main/reports/2009-10/FullReport_09-10.pdf Above is the link to the Global Innovation Index 2009-10 Report. Sweden is ranked 2nd, which isn't too shabby, I would think. There's also this: http://www.gemconsortium.org/download/1272192808491/GEM Global 2009 Report.zip It's a link to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2009 Report. According to that, Sweden ranks fourth (after Israel, South Africa and the US) in terms of venture capital as a %age of GDP.
Well, Sweden is often used as an example of a country that has become rich under the left. The point that Norberg, at least, is trying to make is that Sweden didn't become rich under the SAP. Already before the start of the socialist reform programs, Sweden was one of the richest countries in the world, along with the US and Switzerland. We are still well off, but much less so than the US and the Swiss, and we are nowhere near being one of the richest countries anymore. I am afraid that I haven't had time to read your links, but I will give some general feedback anyway. Yes, Sweden does have skilled engineers and is often in the top in international comparisons, e.g. number of patent applications. But we are also often near the bottom when it comes to turning patents into viable companies. Regarding venture capital, the reliance on VC funding is primarily a consequence of the difficulty of private capital formation (for tax reasons). I certainly don't think that is a good thing. Lack of risk capital is generally considered to be a big problem in Sweden. Almost all of the VC capital here is institutional, and a large part of it is focused on LBOs or even regular stock market investments. Some of the larger VC firms in Sweden would probably be called hedge funds in other parts of the world. Most of the more traditional VC companies of the Internet bubble days no longer exist or are financially crippled.
I'm deeply saddened that Sweden has been unable to add anything, recently, to the global pool of gadgets. The Swedes appear to be doing little more than just living comfortably.
Well, it's difficult for us to discuss things when they're defined in such a nebulous and vague fashion. For example, what specifically, in your view, makes you think Sweden "departed from liberal policy"? What, on the other hand, tells you that the US has "maintained fidelity to liberal policies"? For example, in my opinion, one of the central tenets of classical liberalism (and some say its very reason for existence) is anti-clericalism. How do you think the modern US of A compares with Sweden in that regard? Furthermore, how do you define "comically disproportionate progress of the US compared to Europe"? Over what period? How do you define "current state of bureaucracy and statism" in Sweden? What does it mean for a nation to be a "world power"? My point is that you're operating with extremely subjective quantities and are expressing opinions. I disagree with many of them, but, at this point, the best we can do is have an argument over ill-defined concepts and terminology. That would be a waste of our time.
toho, thank you for your reasoned response and for helping me understand the Swedish economy better. It's extremely useful to me, especially professionally. Reason I am skeptical about Norberg's argument is that, as far as I know, much of the wonderful growth experienced by Switzerland and the US throughout the 90s and the 00s was due to the increasing "financialization" of their respective economies. For example, according what I have found, by 2007 finance contributed arnd 15% of Swiss and smth like 10% of US GDP. In light of the above and the crisis, do we still believe that the significant outperformance and dynamism exhibited by these two economies in contrast to Sweden is all that? I'd suggest that, given what a real fiscal nightmare the payback is turning out to be, the jury is still out on the subject of who outperformed who in the long run. At any rate, do you agree with what Norberg is saying?