Socialist Sweden, Norway vs the rest...

Tipp Man

Correct me if i'm wrong but didn't Sweden have a banking collapse (similar to our own) in the 1990's based on a property bubble?

Didn't Sweden's GDP take a big tumble in that time?
didn't their unemployment go through the roof?
Didn't they have to implement budget cuts to get some kind of handle on their out of control government spending?

Or did i just dream all that up?

Swings and roundabouts - they suffered in the 1990's we started to prosper. We are suffering now whilst they prosper (or at least remain stable).

Of course the common denominator in both situations is governments spending way more than they should be and cheap credit leading to property bubbles

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

zero_hope

America has a much freer market than Sweden and a higher GDP yet on a casual stroll through the streets in Seattle you see bums, drug addicts, morbidly obese people everywhere you look.

I prefer a bit lower GDP if the tradeoff is a healthier people with a longer life expectancy.

I also prefer living in a country where fries are not considered to be vegetables.

SamHarris

zero_hope wrote: »

I've been reading what the pundits on this site have been saying about capitalism vs socialism. According to them the more market based economies you have the better these countries should perform. I guess this is why countries such as Sweden and Norway are going down the drain while countries such as Ireland, USA and UK with much less regulation are going down the drain.

O wait... Seems like reality is getting in the way of these pundits theories... but remember folks when the map and reality differs we should always follow the map.

Em... Sweden is very much not socialst. Indeed the last 2 decades of unprecedented prosperity were ushered in by careful liberation.

Norway sits on more oil per head than anywhere else on earth. If my neighbour sat on a diamon m ine and could then spend alot of money on luxuries, I would not assume it is because of his administerial acumen, as you seem to.

SamHarris

zero_hope wrote: »

America has a much freer market than Sweden and a higher GDP yet on a casual stroll through the streets in Seattle you see bums, drug addicts, morbidly obese people everywhere you look.

I prefer a bit lower GDP if the tradeoff is a healthier people with a longer life expectancy.

I also prefer living in a country where fries are not considered to be vegetables.

It was pizza and very much a political than gastonomic choice.

Go to Conneticut then.

Suryavarman

There is a reason why Sweden is booming. Something to do with a large increase in the money supply. It's seems to have contributed towards a housing bubble as well. Where have we heard all this before?

SamHarris

You really should have done some research before you posted Sweden, it certainly is very far from a socialist economy. It is an urban myth I have heard many times before, and was surprised when I started reading the economist and they often used it as an example of careful privatisation that pays major dividends.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden

"According to OECD, deregulation, globalization, and technology sector growth have been key productivity drivers.[22"

"Sweden's industry is overwhelmingly in private control; unlike some other industrialized Western countries, such as Austria, Italy or Finland, state owned enterprises were always of minor importance."

The only thing socialst about it is high taxes and a large social safety net, if that is socialism to you and not temepered Capitalism - given where the ownership and productivity comes from - then you have no idea what your talking about.

Norway IS much more socialist than the rest of the western world. It is also the most rescource rich countries on earth per head of population. Not exactly a model everyone can follow, Im afraid Its economy is growing at .4%- hardly booming considering oil prices.

The entire premise of this thread is flawed on one side and just untrue on the other, Ill be going now.

zero_hope

Suryavarman wrote: »

There is a reason why Sweden is booming. Something to do with a large increase in the money supply. It's seems to have contributed towards a housing bubble as well. Where have we heard all this before?

Yes, I do agree with you that house prices in Sweden are unsustainable at the current level but in Sweden they have taken steps to reign in on speculation. Current rules limit mortgages to 85% of the market value of the home a person wants to buy. http://www.thelocal.se/31700/20110128/ Now there are ways to get around this, you can get a cash loan to cover the 15% deposit but that is at a much higher interest rate. Unlike Ireland Sweden is taking steps to reign in on speculation whereas Fianna Fail did everything it could to pour petrol on the flames.

SamHarris

Wait. Im kind of curious. Now that it has been pointed out to you that Sweedens prosperity, according to all scources, was its deregulation and indeed its embrace of the capatilist system - given the tone of your first post, using it as an example that should be followed, are you prepared to admit how wrong your ideology is and has been proven to be time and again?

I await with baited breath...

zero_hope

SamHarris wrote: »

Wait. Im kind of curious. Now that it has been pointed out to you that Sweedens prosperity, according to all scources, was its deregulation and indeed its embrace of the capatilist system - given the tone of your first post, using it as an example that should be followed, are you prepared to admit how wrong your ideology is and has been proven to be time and again?

I await with baited breath...

Sweden was prosperous in the seventies and eighties, had less unemployment and much more generous welfare spending back then and yet it was the envy of the world.

Duke Leonal Felmet

zero_hope wrote: »

SamHarris wrote: »

Wait. Im kind of curious. Now that it has been pointed out to you that Sweedens prosperity, according to all scources, was its deregulation and indeed its embrace of the capatilist system - given the tone of your first post, using it as an example that should be followed, are you prepared to admit how wrong your ideology is and has been proven to be time and again?

I await with baited breath...

Sweden was prosperous in the seventies and eighties, had less unemployment and much more generous welfare spending back then and yet it was the envy of the world.

Let me help you with the backpedalling.


*pedal, pedal, pedal*

SamHarris

zero_hope wrote: »

I've been reading what the pundits on this site have been saying about capitalism vs socialism. According to them the more market based economies you have the better these countries should perform. I guess this is why countries such as Sweden and Norway are going down the drain while countries such as Ireland, USA and UK with much less regulation are going down the drain.

zero_hope wrote: »

Sweden was prosperous in the seventies and eighties, had less unemployment and much more generous welfare spending back then and yet it was the envy of the world.

O wait... Seems like reality is getting in the way of these pundits theories... but remember folks when the map and reality differs we should always follow the map. :rolleyes:

SamHarris

Further claiming Norway does well because of its social and economic policies is like claiming the Saudis do the same.

It is not the power of their education, their innovation or their economic accumen that makes them head of alot of quality of life surveys - it is there massive rescouces.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This was during the period when its GDP per capita was tumbling from 4th in the world to 18th, right?[/Quote]

hehehe, oh dear.

Tabnabs

SamHarris wrote: »

Further claiming Norway does well because of its social and economic policies is like claiming the Saudis do the same.

It is not the power of their education, their innovation or their economic accumen that makes them head of alot of quality of life surveys - it is there massive rescouces.

Actually you're completely wide of the mark. The Norwegians have always known that the oil is a limited pot of gold and their education, innovation, economic acumen and quality of life is all far in excess of Irish and most other countries worldwide.

I can think of quite a few successful Norwegian companies in Ireland for example, but struggle to think of any Irish companies in Norway.

The oil fund is more like a silver spoon in the mouth than a fat wallet in their pocket.

SamHarris

Tabnabs wrote: »

Actually you're completely wide of the mark. The Norwegians have always known that the oil is a limited pot of gold and their education, innovation, economic acumen and quality of life is all far in excess of Irish and most other countries worldwide.

I can think of quite a few successful Norwegian companies in Ireland for example, but struggle to think of any Irish companies in Norway.

The oil fund is more like a silver spoon in the mouth than a fat wallet in their pocket.

No. Its 25% of the GDP. Thats many times more than what Ireland has to cut after the crash. It is the pillar of the entire system, absolutly no doubt about that - not merely a silver spoon. More than half of what they spend on social services.

Their innovation is around 20th in the world. According to indexes. Not bad at all but very far from explaining their wealth. And thats taking into account the lack of credit in most Western countries the last few years which has hammered innovation everywhere -the US,as an example, slipped from 1st to 7th but will almost certainly climb back, it always does, once money begins to flow again. If you compare cash flows to levels of innovation Norway is not in the same league as other western European nations. One of the prices paid for an amazing social system.

karma_

I think the major problem that libertarians have with Norway is that it maintains control over it's own oil production and uses that money for the benefit of the state, they would much rather have the Norwegians sell off their majority share and have the profits going into the coffers of private industry. If only Ireland had a natural resource that it could exploit in a similar fashion... oh... wait.


Also, how is that not a form of socialism?

zero_hope

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I am pretty sure Sweden's big tumble happened in the nineties when they had a rightwing government with Mr Carl Bildt as prime minister and Mrs Anne Wible who was minister of finance from 1991-1994... For some reason this was the period when Sweden came crashing down from the sky above. Huge amounts of jobs were lost during this time and employment levels NEVER recovered to what they were in the seventies and eighties and this was during a time when a centre right government was managing things...

karma_

zero_hope wrote: »

I am pretty sure Sweden's big tumble happened in the nineties when they had a rightwing government with Mr Carl Bildt as prime minister and Mrs Anne Wible who was minister of finance from 1991-1994... For some reason this was the period when Sweden came crashing down from the sky above. Huge amounts of jobs were lost during this time and employment levels NEVER recovered to what they were in the seventies and eighties and this was during a time when a centre right government was managing things...

This does not fit the posters narrative, as we all know, recession is always caused by socialism, nothing else.

Duke Leonal Felmet

karma_ wrote: »

I think the major problem that libertarians have with Norway is that it maintains control over it's own oil production and uses that money for the benefit of the state, they would much rather have the Norwegians sell off their majority share and have the profits going into the coffers of private industry. If only Ireland had a natural resource that it could exploit in a similar fashion... oh... wait.


Also, how is that not a form of socialism?

Oh right, the 650bn worth of oil and gas all those dole sponges keep reminding us of.

Shame it doesn't exist.

zero_hope

karma_ wrote: »

This does not fit the posters narrative, as we all know, recession is always caused by socialism, nothing else.

Also remember, it was a social democratic government serving until 2006 that was responsible for cleaning up the mess that was left after the previous centre right government.

karma_

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Oh right, the 650bn worth of oil and gas all those dole sponges keep reminding us of.

Shame it doesn't exist.

This is another typical tactic used by libertarians on this board, deflect from the point and pick up and latch onto a throwaway statement at the tail of the post.

Just what exactly doesn't exist? Irish natural resources? And why then bring up dole spongers?

Do I have to be a dole sponger to want to see resources used in a way which benefits the state to a higher degree?

Over to you.

Dr Galen

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Oh right, the 650bn worth of oil and gas all those dole sponges keep reminding us of.

Shame it doesn't exist.

Let's leave the silly insults out of Duke. There is a way to make a point.

Lets also not take things OT and into discussing the existence or otherwise of the resources off our coast too much.

Cheers

DrG

Duke Leonal Felmet

Dr Galen wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Oh right, the 650bn worth of oil and gas all those dole sponges keep reminding us of.

Shame it doesn't exist.

Let's leave the silly insults out of Duke. There is a way to make a point.

Lets also not take things OT and into discussing the existence or otherwise of the resources off our coast too much.

Cheers

DrG

I agree. Such discussions are a waste of time.

SamHarris

zero_hope wrote: »

Also remember, it was a social democratic government serving until 2006 that was responsible for cleaning up the mess that was left after the previous centre right government.

Have you forgotton already how it was its liberisation over that period which caused the enorous prosperity? Do you even know what socialism is? The figures are right THERE that say how much its production is in private hands. Its own government credits its careful privatisation for their wealth.

You should really stop arguing that Sweden is a model for the rest of the world with regards to socialism, no one even believes its socialist (including those in power there) except you. I have a feeling you are the type of person, however ,that because the system was not the type that you subscribe to which brought the proseperity that instead of changing your opinion of the system, you will change your opinion of the country.

Please read about it before continuing, its turning away from socialism in 1994 is very well documented. Its growth from that is often used to argue in similiar small countries for further privatisation.

SamHarris

karma_ wrote: »

I think the major problem that libertarians have with Norway is that it maintains control over it's own oil production and uses that money for the benefit of the state

You honestly cant think of many other places that do the exact same thing?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Batsy

zero_hope wrote: »

I've been reading what the pundits on this site have been saying about capitalism vs socialism. According to them the more market based economies you have the better these countries should perform. I guess this is why countries such as Sweden and Norway are going down the drain while countries such as Ireland, USA and UK with much less regulation are going down the drain.

O wait... Seems like reality is getting in the way of these pundits theories... but remember folks when the map and reality differs we should always follow the map.

Ireland is going down the drain. I don't know about the USA and UK.

zero_hope

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Having lived in Sweden for over 20 years I think I'm more qualified to judge what actually happened than some accountant type who only look at numbers.