Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Would population and size of the country ( land mass ) enter into the equation?
For the same reason Socialism has failed in every attempt ever tried. It is unsustainable.
Sweden is doing pretty well.
It hasnt worked. Any more than communism worked despite the fact the Soviet Union was extant for over 70 years.Finland. Norway. Denmark. Germany.
So I guess "failed in every attempt ever tried" is false.
That was't my point. I respect your knowledge, Toro....and just asking. Why has socialism worked in those countries?
There are many reasons.
Those countries tend to be friendly to capital, allow the price system to work and are free trading nations, despite having high taxes and extensive social programs. They also have strong senses of civic duty. They are highly educated. But more importantly, people work hard for other reasons besides compensation.
For the same reason Socialism has failed in every attempt ever tried. It is unsustainable.
Sweden is doing pretty well.
No, actually they aren't. High deficits. High taxes. Stagnant economy. Of the top 10 Swedish companies, all of them were started prior to 1918. THey have a declining population bolstered only by influxes of Muslims, which threaten the character of the country.
No, Sweden isn't doing well at all. None of the old European countries is
It hasnt worked. Any more than communism worked despite the fact the Soviet Union was extant for over 70 years.That was't my point. I respect your knowledge, Toro....and just asking. Why has socialism worked in those countries?
There are many reasons.
Those countries tend to be friendly to capital, allow the price system to work and are free trading nations, despite having high taxes and extensive social programs. They also have strong senses of civic duty. They are highly educated. But more importantly, people work hard for other reasons besides compensation.
I just returned from a trip to Germany. They are in terrible shape. Everything you write about them was true maybe 40 years ago. Not anymore. Prices and economic activity are controlled in hundreds of ways. There is petty government intervention in every aspect of economic life. Labor is the worst example. Everybody is entitled to so much time off and so many benefits and protections that no one can afford to hire someone. So unemployment has improved to double digits.
They are living off of capital acquired during the German Miracle period after WW2 when the country was rebuilt from Marshall Plan money and truly capitalist friendly policies.
Sweden is doing pretty well.
No, actually they aren't. High deficits. High taxes. Stagnant economy. Of the top 10 Swedish companies, all of them were started prior to 1918. THey have a declining population bolstered only by influxes of Muslims, which threaten the character of the country.
No, Sweden isn't doing well at all. None of the old European countries is
You are getting your facts wrong. Debt to GDP of Sweden is 40%, better than us.
https://www.riksgalden.se/templates/RGK_Templates/TwoColumnPage____2749.aspx
Deficit of 4%, better than us.
Sweden GDP - real growth rate - Economy
GDP growth is close to us. Unemployment is less than us.
Sweden GDP - real growth rate - Economy
Taxes are high? Yes, but that's the point. They have become one of the richest countries on the planet with a high tax rate.
This isn't an argument about which is better - I'd rather live in America than Europe. This is an argument against "socialism always fails." That is just ideological nonsense which belongs on bumper stickers of cars worth less than $500.
Any others besides Sweden?
Finland. Norway. Denmark. Germany.
So I guess "failed in every attempt ever tried" is false.
That was't my point. I respect your knowledge, Toro....and just asking. Why has socialism worked in those countries?
It hasnt worked. Any more than communism worked despite the fact the Soviet Union was extant for over 70 years.There are many reasons.
Those countries tend to be friendly to capital, allow the price system to work and are free trading nations, despite having high taxes and extensive social programs. They also have strong senses of civic duty. They are highly educated. But more importantly, people work hard for other reasons besides compensation.
I just returned from a trip to Germany. They are in terrible shape. Everything you write about them was true maybe 40 years ago. Not anymore. Prices and economic activity are controlled in hundreds of ways. There is petty government intervention in every aspect of economic life. Labor is the worst example. Everybody is entitled to so much time off and so many benefits and protections that no one can afford to hire someone. So unemployment has improved to double digits.
They are living off of capital acquired during the German Miracle period after WW2 when the country was rebuilt from Marshall Plan money and truly capitalist friendly policies.
Ideological rhetoric.
"Truly capitalist policies" during that time period included unions sitting on boards of German companies and national wage settlements across entire industries. Right.
GDP growth since 1970 in Germany has been 2% p.a.
Google - public data
Yet we're to believe that the last 40 years is all due to the first 20 years after WWII. You betcha!
No, actually they aren't. High deficits. High taxes. Stagnant economy. Of the top 10 Swedish companies, all of them were started prior to 1918. THey have a declining population bolstered only by influxes of Muslims, which threaten the character of the country.
No, Sweden isn't doing well at all. None of the old European countries is
You are getting your facts wrong. Debt to GDP of Sweden is 40%, better than us.
https://www.riksgalden.se/templates/RGK_Templates/TwoColumnPage____2749.aspx
Deficit of 4%, better than us.
Sweden GDP - real growth rate - Economy
GDP growth is close to us. Unemployment is less than us.
Sweden GDP - real growth rate - Economy
Taxes are high? Yes, but that's the point. They have become one of the richest countries on the planet with a high tax rate.
This isn't an argument about which is better - I'd rather live in America than Europe. This is an argument against "socialism always fails." That is just ideological nonsense which belongs on bumper stickers of cars worth less than $500.
Your argument is that because Sweden, which invests close to nothing in defense, has an economic profile which is not as bad as ours that makes that a success? I'd call that defining deviancy down.
They have high unemployment, relatively high inflation, high government debt and low productivity.
What was GDP growth from 1950 to 1970?
Your argument is that because Sweden, which invests close to nothing in defense, has an economic profile which is not as bad as ours that makes that a success? I'd call that defining deviancy down.
They have high unemployment, relatively high inflation, high government debt and low productivity. The fact that they are better than some other countries is irrelevant. And the fact that they are currently better off than the U.S. is a non argument. Through most of the past 30 years the U.S. has created the equivalent of the entire Swedish economy every 5 years.
Your views have great credence in the White House and Democratic Party because those entities despise the U.S. and the wealth it has brought its citizens, who enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. This is because they are bascially elitists who cannot believe that poor blacks or other minorities could ever achieve the same level of wealth as rich white guys.
Your argument is that because Sweden, which invests close to nothing in defense, has an economic profile which is not as bad as ours that makes that a success? I'd call that defining deviancy down.
They have high unemployment, relatively high inflation, high government debt and low productivity. The fact that they are better than some other countries is irrelevant. And the fact that they are currently better off than the U.S. is a non argument. Through most of the past 30 years the U.S. has created the equivalent of the entire Swedish economy every 5 years.
Your views have great credence in the White House and Democratic Party because those entities despise the U.S. and the wealth it has brought its citizens, who enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. This is because they are bascially elitists who cannot believe that poor blacks or other minorities could ever achieve the same level of wealth as rich white guys.
No, my argument is that biased ideologues who look at the world through ideological prisms distort simple facts and keep repeating inaccuracies even though they are demonstrated to be wrong are unreliable interpreters of events, i.e. Sweden's inflation is about the same as America's.
Your argument is that because Sweden, which invests close to nothing in defense, has an economic profile which is not as bad as ours that makes that a success? I'd call that defining deviancy down.
They have high unemployment, relatively high inflation, high government debt and low productivity. The fact that they are better than some other countries is irrelevant. And the fact that they are currently better off than the U.S. is a non argument. Through most of the past 30 years the U.S. has created the equivalent of the entire Swedish economy every 5 years.
Your views have great credence in the White House and Democratic Party because those entities despise the U.S. and the wealth it has brought its citizens, who enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. This is because they are bascially elitists who cannot believe that poor blacks or other minorities could ever achieve the same level of wealth as rich white guys.
No, my argument is that biased ideologues who look at the world through ideological prisms distort simple facts and keep repeating inaccuracies even though they are demonstrated to be wrong are unreliable interpreters of events, i.e. Sweden's inflation is about the same as America's.
Sweden Inflation rate (consumer prices) - Economy
Scandinavian countries have built rich societies. If by "fail" you mean the economies growth 0.75% slower than us, then yes, they "fail." But that does not change the fact they have built rich countries. And apart from the hard ideologues, most people would not view that as "fail."
Your argument is that because Sweden, which invests close to nothing in defense, has an economic profile which is not as bad as ours that makes that a success? I'd call that defining deviancy down.
They have high unemployment, relatively high inflation, high government debt and low productivity. The fact that they are better than some other countries is irrelevant. And the fact that they are currently better off than the U.S. is a non argument. Through most of the past 30 years the U.S. has created the equivalent of the entire Swedish economy every 5 years.
Your views have great credence in the White House and Democratic Party because those entities despise the U.S. and the wealth it has brought its citizens, who enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. This is because they are bascially elitists who cannot believe that poor blacks or other minorities could ever achieve the same level of wealth as rich white guys.
No, my argument is that biased ideologues who look at the world through ideological prisms distort simple facts and keep repeating inaccuracies even though they are demonstrated to be wrong are unreliable interpreters of events, i.e. Sweden's inflation is about the same as America's.AW, NO!!!!!!!!!
You've cracked the 'Baggers Da Vinci Code!!!!!!!
It is not inaccurate to say that Sweden has a largely stagnant economy with high taxes, low business formation, and high government deficits that will increasingly appear unsustainable.
There is nothing ideological about any of that. It is pure economics.
It is not inaccurate to say that Sweden has a largely stagnant economy with high taxes, low business formation, and high government deficits that will increasingly appear unsustainable.
There is nothing ideological about any of that. It is pure economics.
It is ideology because I keep posting links to data that refute your arguments and you keep repeating yourself, even though you are factually wrong.
You can see all the data here.
1. Gross domestic product
Real GDP growth on a purchasing power parity basis from 1970 to 2009 for the US was 3.6% v 2.9% for Sweden. From 1980 to 2009, it was 2.8% and 1.9% respectively. From 1990 to 2009, it was 2.6% and 1.8% respectively. This decade, it has been 2% and 1.7% respectively.
America does better, right?
Well, this is almost due entirely to population growth. Over the past 40 years, GDP growth per capita for the US has been 2.9% versus 2.8% for Sweden. Over the past 30 years, it has been 1.8% and 1.7% respectively. However, since 1990, per capita GDP has grown faster in Sweden at 1.7% versus 1.6% in the US. And this decade, Swedish real per capita GDP has risen by 2% compared to 1.2% in the US.
The idea that Sweden is a stagnant economy is simply wrong.
How fortuitous for me and unfortunate for you that I picked up Steve Forbes' new book on the free market. Because right there I read on p.23 of their PM Frederik Reinfeldt, who writes that:
At the beginning of the 1970s Swden also had the fourth highest GDP per capita measured in purchasing power parity. Sweden was blooming.
But he adds that the wealth that "took a hundred years to build was almost dismantled in 25 years." as growth fell off, unemployment rose and the quality of welfare declined.
In fact, of Sweden's 10 largest corporations, none of them was founded after 1918.
Forbes notes that Sweden fell from 4th to 18th place among nations in the OECD.
So whatever dynamism has returned in fact is due to the return of more fiscally conservative politiicans to Sweden.
Sorry, QED and all that.
How fortuitous for me and unfortunate for you that I picked up Steve Forbes' new book on the free market. Because right there I read on p.23 of their PM Frederik Reinfeldt, who writes that:
At the beginning of the 1970s Swden also had the fourth highest GDP per capita measured in purchasing power parity. Sweden was blooming.
But he adds that the wealth that "took a hundred years to build was almost dismantled in 25 years." as growth fell off, unemployment rose and the quality of welfare declined.
In fact, of Sweden's 10 largest corporations, none of them was founded after 1918.
Forbes notes that Sweden fell from 4th to 18th place among nations in the OECD.
So whatever dynamism has returned in fact is due to the return of more fiscally conservative politiicans to Sweden.
Sorry, QED and all that.
Look.
At.
The.
Data.
Yourself.
You'll find it does you a world of good.
Sweden's economy better not ever stagnate, lest they turn into Greece with snow and blonde hair.It is not inaccurate to say that Sweden has a largely stagnant economy with high taxes, low business formation, and high government deficits that will increasingly appear unsustainable.
There is nothing ideological about any of that. It is pure economics.
It is ideology because I keep posting links to data that refute your arguments and you keep repeating yourself, even though you are factually wrong.
You can see all the data here.
1. Gross domestic product
Real GDP growth on a purchasing power parity basis from 1970 to 2009 for the US was 3.6% v 2.9% for Sweden. From 1980 to 2009, it was 2.8% and 1.9% respectively. From 1990 to 2009, it was 2.6% and 1.8% respectively. This decade, it has been 2% and 1.7% respectively.
America does better, right?
Well, this is almost due entirely to population growth. Over the past 40 years, GDP growth per capita for the US has been 2.9% versus 2.8% for Sweden. Over the past 30 years, it has been 1.8% and 1.7% respectively. However, since 1990, per capita GDP has grown faster in Sweden at 1.7% versus 1.6% in the US. And this decade, Swedish real per capita GDP has risen by 2% compared to 1.2% in the US.
The idea that Sweden is a stagnant economy is simply wrong.
Sweden's economy better not ever stagnate, lest they turn into Greece with snow and blonde hair.It is not inaccurate to say that Sweden has a largely stagnant economy with high taxes, low business formation, and high government deficits that will increasingly appear unsustainable.
There is nothing ideological about any of that. It is pure economics.
It is ideology because I keep posting links to data that refute your arguments and you keep repeating yourself, even though you are factually wrong.
You can see all the data here.
1. Gross domestic product
Real GDP growth on a purchasing power parity basis from 1970 to 2009 for the US was 3.6% v 2.9% for Sweden. From 1980 to 2009, it was 2.8% and 1.9% respectively. From 1990 to 2009, it was 2.6% and 1.8% respectively. This decade, it has been 2% and 1.7% respectively.
America does better, right?
Well, this is almost due entirely to population growth. Over the past 40 years, GDP growth per capita for the US has been 2.9% versus 2.8% for Sweden. Over the past 30 years, it has been 1.8% and 1.7% respectively. However, since 1990, per capita GDP has grown faster in Sweden at 1.7% versus 1.6% in the US. And this decade, Swedish real per capita GDP has risen by 2% compared to 1.2% in the US.
The idea that Sweden is a stagnant economy is simply wrong.
