Sweden’s big state works because it is Swedish, not because it is big, says Johan Norberg, a liberal economist.
Anyone want to inform Polly?
Sweden’s big state works because it is Swedish, not because it is big, says Johan Norberg, a liberal economist.
Anyone want to inform Polly?
I’ve spent a bit of time and Scandinavia and Finland and my friedns who know of my libertarian leanings are initially surprised to hear me spekaing well of the governments of those countries. At which point I too remind them that just because it works there doesn’t mean it will work here and that difference is down to the people and culture.
@Winston. Indeed. Sweden is a foreign country. They do things differently there.
Sweden were running a state eugenics programme until the 1970s, and then only reluctantly stopped it because of condemnation. Just saying.
Although Sweden has crippling personal taxation levels, corporate tax is lower than that of the USA, so at least in that sense they are not quite the big state leviathan one pictures.
Things might not be quite so rosy for those living there. Per Bylund has written several articles for LewRockwell.com arguing against many aspects of the Swedish State (in particular see ‘The Terrible Effects of Public Schooling’)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/bylund/bylund-arch.html
I heard that Sweden, except for its enormous welfare state and high taxes, imposes very little in the way of regulations on the people, so the rest of the economy is very market driven… and that this is what makes it competitive with governments like Anglos or continental Europeans who are getting increasingly obsessed with micromanaging everything from on high. Ikea didn’t come out of Sweden for nothing… can anyone confirm?
“Ikea didn’t come out of Sweden for nothing… can anyone confirm?”
Yes, I can confirm that Ikea came out of Sweden.
“I heard that Sweden, except for its enormous welfare state and high taxes, imposes very little in the way of regulations on the people”
I never came across German-style rules, it’s true.
“Sweden were running a state eugenics programme until the 1970s, and then only reluctantly stopped it because of condemnation. Just saying.”
Sweden also charges you £10 to see a GP. The systembolag (government alcohol store) is a hoot, too.
Tim, you moonlight in the weirdest places.
“But the tangled webs we weave in the name of Eros can indeed leave us all victims.” Hrmph. Snrfl.
Ikea also moved out of Sweden (at least its HQ) when corporate (and private) taxes in Sweden became too high …
From the week’s Charlemagne in the Economist.
“HERE are three Europeans, talking about the best way to help car workers in the recession. For the first, the state must use “all means necessary” to preserve key industries: ie, give carmakers billions of euros. In return, it is “quite normal” to ask them to halt lay-offs, to keep existing factories open and if possible to “bring production home” from lower-cost countries.
A second European says that governments should focus on ensuring individual workers are employable, not propping up uncompetitive firms. For him, the problem with the car industry lies in “the overproduction of cars that nobody wants to buy.” That leads him to a blunt conclusion: save the workers, not the factories that turn out such clunkers. In his words, “when a ship is sinking my main aim is to save the sailors, not the ship.”
That robust second view is echoed by our third European. It is natural for labour-intensive jobs to go to low-cost countries, he says. Higher-cost countries can make things only if they innovate, focus on high-end products and ensure they are the “best in class” worldwide. But if firms are not competitive they should not survive. “Nobody is helped by having people employed in companies that aren’t viable.”
The first European is Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president. The second is Sweden’s centre-right prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, who recently refused to rescue a loss-making carmaker, Saab (though when a Swedish-led consortium agreed to buy Saab from General Motors, his government was ready to offer loan guarantees). And the third is Aleksandar Zuza of a Swedish trade union, IF Metall, which represents production workers at Saab. Speaking for his centre-left trade union, Mr Zuza grumbles that Mr Reinfeldt is too negative about Saab. GM starved the brand of investment, he adds, and Saab should be given a fighting chance under new owners. But if Saab is not competitive in a couple of years, he adds, “that will be that”. In other words, the Swedish left and right basically agree: and both are a lot more liberal than the (nominally centre-right) president of France.”
Its a subscription service, hence no link.
Judging from their newspapers there are two class of citizens in Sweden. females the dominant and the rest are men.
Where else can a man be arrested for being muscular?
And try this:-
Being a man ‘bad for the environment’
Published: 29th August 2007 09:10 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/8322/
Men are worse for the environment than women, spending more on petrol and eating
more meat, both of which create greenhouse gas emissions. These are the
conclusions of a new report by the Swedish Foreign Ministry.
“Three out of four cars in Sweden are today driven by men. Around ten percent of
all drivers, mainly main, account for 60 percent of car journeys,” report author
Gerd Johnsson-Latham told Svenska Dagbla
The team behind the report argues that Sweden ought to giver greater
consideration to the gender perspective when making planning decisions on
matters such as public transport.
P J O’Rourke made the same point in Eat The Rich, I think.
Tim adds: He did indeed, quoting Milton Friedman making the same point…..