Sweden: textbook case of why Obamanomics failed

[Listening]

Sweden is today one of the world's economic success stories; but that wasn't always the case, in the 70s and 80s they doubled their overall tax burden, socialized a bunch of industries, increased regulations over it's markets, expanded it's public systems, and shuttered it's borders. The result? Economic stagnation, high UE, and a fast rising public debt; and by 1990 real wages only increased by 1% over those 20 years - bigger gov't did not turn out to be the answer. Remember ABBA, Bjorn Borg, Ingmar Berman? Famous and wealthy Swedes, they and others left home for more friendly financial climes.

So, in the 90s they cut taxes, de-regulated their markets, and went to a sound money, low inflation monetary policy. They divested themselves of the aforementioned industries, granted independence to it's central bank, and introduced a school voucher system that improved choice and competition in education. They cut the public pension system and introduced private pension programs; UE benefits, sick leave, and early retirement benefits were all streamlined to encourage work. The result: fewer people on the public dole, which is a big reason for their sound financial situation today. Another reason: they partially privatized their Social Security system.

In 2006, they cut property taxes, even for the rich guys. In 2005, they abolished inheritance taxes. Both policies were done to encourage entrepeneurs to come to Sweden to create new businesses or expand existing ones. Private providers were allowed to enter the healthcare market, thereby introducing competition into what was a very socialistic medical system (single payer). Same thing for the utilities and agriculture industries, prices are now determined by market forces without gov't intrusion.

So, what happened? Sweden started running surpluses instead of deficits. Their gross public debt dropped from 78% in 1994 to 35% in 2010, and they weathered the Great Recession a lot better than we did, in 2010 their growth rate was 5.5% but ours was 2.7%.

They still have an unemployment problem, pretty much like everyone else. Some say that is due at least in part to a high minimum wage imposed by the powerful Swedish unions; Sweden has not been able to do much to reform labor laws, as Germany did 10 years ago. There's no doubt the US is a far larger economy, and what worked for Sweden then may not work for us now. But IMHO, what we've been trying so far under Obama has not worked very well; it's time to change course and try some alternative approaches.
The American Spectator : Free Market Sweden, Social Democratic America

I love it when right wing bloggers give an "opinion" as "fact" and use cherry picked "statistics" to back up their "facts".

The Swedish healthcare system gives everyone who lives or works in Sweden equal access to heavily subsidized healthcare. The system is taxpayer-funded and largely decentralized, and performs well in comparison with other countries at a similar level of development.

Health care - SWEDEN.SE

Republicans want to cut medicare and are running on "let him die".

No one is left behind; the Education Act states that children in need of special assistance at school should receive it. The law also says there must be equality in education for all children, wherever they live in Sweden and regardless of ability or disability.

Swedish education - SWEDEN.SE

Mitt Romney says we need less teachers and a larger class size. Rick Santorum said education is for snobs.

Economists and politicians have long pointed to Sweden as a role model because of its successful combination of generous welfare benefits and high-tech capitalism. It constantly places near the top in international rankings of competitiveness, innovation and standard of living. Taxes are high, but the streets are clean.

Swedish economy - SWEDEN.SE

Republicans say "every man for himself" and they don't want to invest in this country. Iraq, yes, here, no.

Most liberals agree with Sweden. Most Republicans agree with third world dictators running Banana Republics.

Do feel better having electonically jacked-off ?

Why don't you run along. This is an economic's forum. Not a place for you to come blather your bulls**t.

 

[Listening]

It's funny that whenever I have mentioned the economic success of Sweden in the past, the 'nuts around here would pile in and say Sweden is too small to compare to the US, but,

of course, when some propagandists from the Spectator say essentially the same thing, all of the sudden it's brilliant.

Wrong forum asshole.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The premise of this thread is that we should be using Sweden as a model.

Then how about we start with this model in one of our most problematic areas:

Healthcare in Sweden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Listening]

What has better results ?

Robust free market institutions and smart, efficient regulation, coupled with strong social spending. I'm glad someone raised Sweden's example.

Uh, that has not been established...and please no conclusive statements without the backing.

The assertion is that certain changes that were more free market in nature improved Swedens situation. That is how I read the OP.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's funny that whenever I have mentioned the economic success of Sweden in the past, the 'nuts around here would pile in and say Sweden is too small to compare to the US, but,

of course, when some propagandists from the Spectator say essentially the same thing, all of the sudden it's brilliant.

Wrong forum asshole.

Can't argue the topic, eh? Maybe you're the one in the wrong place.

 

[rdean]

Sweden is today one of the world's economic success stories; but that wasn't always the case, in the 70s and 80s they doubled their overall tax burden, socialized a bunch of industries, increased regulations over it's markets, expanded it's public systems, and shuttered it's borders. The result? Economic stagnation, high UE, and a fast rising public debt; and by 1990 real wages only increased by 1% over those 20 years - bigger gov't did not turn out to be the answer. Remember ABBA, Bjorn Borg, Ingmar Berman? Famous and wealthy Swedes, they and others left home for more friendly financial climes.

So, in the 90s they cut taxes, de-regulated their markets, and went to a sound money, low inflation monetary policy. They divested themselves of the aforementioned industries, granted independence to it's central bank, and introduced a school voucher system that improved choice and competition in education. They cut the public pension system and introduced private pension programs; UE benefits, sick leave, and early retirement benefits were all streamlined to encourage work. The result: fewer people on the public dole, which is a big reason for their sound financial situation today. Another reason: they partially privatized their Social Security system.

In 2006, they cut property taxes, even for the rich guys. In 2005, they abolished inheritance taxes. Both policies were done to encourage entrepeneurs to come to Sweden to create new businesses or expand existing ones. Private providers were allowed to enter the healthcare market, thereby introducing competition into what was a very socialistic medical system (single payer). Same thing for the utilities and agriculture industries, prices are now determined by market forces without gov't intrusion.

So, what happened? Sweden started running surpluses instead of deficits. Their gross public debt dropped from 78% in 1994 to 35% in 2010, and they weathered the Great Recession a lot better than we did, in 2010 their growth rate was 5.5% but ours was 2.7%.

They still have an unemployment problem, pretty much like everyone else. Some say that is due at least in part to a high minimum wage imposed by the powerful Swedish unions; Sweden has not been able to do much to reform labor laws, as Germany did 10 years ago. There's no doubt the US is a far larger economy, and what worked for Sweden then may not work for us now. But IMHO, what we've been trying so far under Obama has not worked very well; it's time to change course and try some alternative approaches.
The American Spectator : Free Market Sweden, Social Democratic America

I love it when right wing bloggers give an "opinion" as "fact" and use cherry picked "statistics" to back up their "facts".

The Swedish healthcare system gives everyone who lives or works in Sweden equal access to heavily subsidized healthcare. The system is taxpayer-funded and largely decentralized, and performs well in comparison with other countries at a similar level of development.

Health care - SWEDEN.SE

Republicans want to cut medicare and are running on "let him die".

No one is left behind; the Education Act states that children in need of special assistance at school should receive it. The law also says there must be equality in education for all children, wherever they live in Sweden and regardless of ability or disability.

Swedish education - SWEDEN.SE

Mitt Romney says we need less teachers and a larger class size. Rick Santorum said education is for snobs.

Economists and politicians have long pointed to Sweden as a role model because of its successful combination of generous welfare benefits and high-tech capitalism. It constantly places near the top in international rankings of competitiveness, innovation and standard of living. Taxes are high, but the streets are clean.

Swedish economy - SWEDEN.SE

Republicans say "every man for himself" and they don't want to invest in this country. Iraq, yes, here, no.

Most liberals agree with Sweden. Most Republicans agree with third world dictators running Banana Republics.

Do feel better having electonically jacked-off ?

Why don't you run along. This is an economic's forum. Not a place for you to come blather your bulls**t.

Hilarious. I quote the "truth" about Sweden. You live in the "Land of Milk and Cookies".

Nothing I said can be disagreed with. At least not in a serious manner.

If you want to know about Sweden, go there.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What has better results ?

Robust free market institutions and smart, efficient regulation, coupled with strong social spending. I'm glad someone raised Sweden's example.

Uh, that has not been established...and please no conclusive statements without the backing.

The assertion is that certain changes that were more free market in nature improved Swedens situation. That is how I read the OP.

Which could just as easily mean that Sweden has moved from an extreme closer to an economic sweet spot somewhere around the center/left,

which would still be somewhere far to the left of where we are.

 

[Listening]

The premise of this thread is that we should be using Sweden as a model.

Then how about we start with this model in one of our most problematic areas:

Healthcare in Sweden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please leave.

That isn't the premise of the thread. My guess is that you didn't read the OP.

What is being claimed (and why am I explaining this to your sorry ass I'll never know) is that Sweden improved it situtaiton by reversing its direction with regards to certain activities as listed in the OP.

The conclusion is that we should be looking at that and doing the same because (buried in there somewhere) the assumption is that Obama is following Sweden on the tailspin path.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Could we put this in the economics forum ?

I'd prefer to not have people like Franco litter it with his cat turds.

In case you missed it, the OP is a political attack on president Obama and his policies, or at least what someone thinks his policies are. That makes the thread political.

 

[Listening]

Robust free market institutions and smart, efficient regulation, coupled with strong social spending. I'm glad someone raised Sweden's example.

Uh, that has not been established...and please no conclusive statements without the backing.

The assertion is that certain changes that were more free market in nature improved Swedens situation. That is how I read the OP.

Which could just as easily mean that Sweden has moved from an extreme closer to an economic sweet spot somewhere around the center/left,

which would still be somewhere far to the left of where we are.

And that would be a great topic to discuss.

Not that you are at all capable of doing it in a rational way.

I have started asking questions.

You, like your asswipe associated immediately have all the answers.

It's not wonder he's seen as the board moron and you are candidate to take his place.

 

[Listening]

Could we put this in the economics forum ?

I'd prefer to not have people like Franco litter it with his cat turds.

In case you missed it, the OP is a political attack on president Obama and his policies, or at least what someone thinks his policies are. That makes the thread political.

I purpose asked that it be moved to the economics forum. That is where it is.

Either stay with the forum focus or go back to dropping your turds in the political forum.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The premise of this thread is that we should be using Sweden as a model.

Then how about we start with this model in one of our most problematic areas:

Healthcare in Sweden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please leave.

That isn't the premise of the thread. My guess is that you didn't read the OP.

What is being claimed (and why am I explaining this to your sorry ass I'll never know) is that Sweden improved it situtaiton by reversing its direction with regards to certain activities as listed in the OP.

The conclusion is that we should be looking at that and doing the same because (buried in there somewhere) the assumption is that Obama is following Sweden on the tailspin path.

We are already far to the right of Sweden even if Sweden has moved towards the center. That does not translate into a valid argument that we should be moving even farther to the right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Uh, that has not been established...and please no conclusive statements without the backing.

The assertion is that certain changes that were more free market in nature improved Swedens situation. That is how I read the OP.

Which could just as easily mean that Sweden has moved from an extreme closer to an economic sweet spot somewhere around the center/left,

which would still be somewhere far to the left of where we are.

And that would be a great topic to discuss.

Not that you are at all capable of doing it in a rational way.

.

I don't see you responding to it.

 

[Listening]

The premise of this thread is that we should be using Sweden as a model.

Then how about we start with this model in one of our most problematic areas:

Healthcare in Sweden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please leave.

That isn't the premise of the thread. My guess is that you didn't read the OP.

What is being claimed (and why am I explaining this to your sorry ass I'll never know) is that Sweden improved it situtaiton by reversing its direction with regards to certain activities as listed in the OP.

The conclusion is that we should be looking at that and doing the same because (buried in there somewhere) the assumption is that Obama is following Sweden on the tailspin path.

We are already far to the right of Sweden even if Sweden has moved towards the center. That does not translate into a valid argument that we should be moving even farther to the right.

If someone had made that claim, that might be valid.

However, what was brought up were incremental changes. Your claim about a sweet spot is one that is worth looking at.

As part of the larger discussion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Could we put this in the economics forum ?

I'd prefer to not have people like Franco litter it with his cat turds.

In case you missed it, the OP is a political attack on president Obama and his policies, or at least what someone thinks his policies are. That makes the thread political.

I purpose asked that it be moved to the economics forum. That is where it is.

Either stay with the forum focus or go back to dropping your turds in the political forum.

Nothing I've said is off topic.

 

[Listening]

Which could just as easily mean that Sweden has moved from an extreme closer to an economic sweet spot somewhere around the center/left,

which would still be somewhere far to the left of where we are.

And that would be a great topic to discuss.

Not that you are at all capable of doing it in a rational way.

.

I don't see you responding to it.

Why don't you define it first ?

I am not arguing points in this forum like I do in the political forum. I'd prefer to get some data before reaching conclusions.

 

[Listening]

In case you missed it, the OP is a political attack on president Obama and his policies, or at least what someone thinks his policies are. That makes the thread political.

I purpose asked that it be moved to the economics forum. That is where it is.

Either stay with the forum focus or go back to dropping your turds in the political forum.

Nothing I've said is off topic.

You've basically said nothing.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Please leave.

That isn't the premise of the thread. My guess is that you didn't read the OP.

What is being claimed (and why am I explaining this to your sorry ass I'll never know) is that Sweden improved it situtaiton by reversing its direction with regards to certain activities as listed in the OP.

The conclusion is that we should be looking at that and doing the same because (buried in there somewhere) the assumption is that Obama is following Sweden on the tailspin path.

We are already far to the right of Sweden even if Sweden has moved towards the center. That does not translate into a valid argument that we should be moving even farther to the right.

If someone had made that claim, that might be valid.

However, what was brought up were incremental changes. Your claim about a sweet spot is one that is worth looking at.

As part of the larger discussion.

The OP included the 'failure' of Obamanomics in his thread, and claimed the model of Sweden is the proof of why it failed.

If I can't question the validity of the premise of the central theme of his thread title without having to listen to you tell me I'm off-topic,

what IS the topic?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I purpose asked that it be moved to the economics forum. That is where it is.

Either stay with the forum focus or go back to dropping your turds in the political forum.

Nothing I've said is off topic.

You've basically said nothing.....

I've made the only point in this thread so far that you've found reason to describe as 'great'.

Go argue with your other self then if one of you doesn't think I've said anything.

 

[Listening]

Not that it is a measure..I am looking for a comment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

U.S. GDP is 15,010,000,000 for 310 million people. (48.4 per person)

Sweden is 538, 237,000 for 9.3 million people. (57.8 per person)

Did I do that right ?

O.K. I need some help here.

I got the GDP from Wiki as linked above (this was 2011).

Then I looked up Sweden on Wiki and they show a GDP of 379,400,00. That is quite a difference.

Can anyone help me out here ? Am I looking at this wrong.

Also, I am trying to find Sweden's historical GDP.