Seems reasonable.
That was a long way around saying that they realized socialism doesn’t work and are slowly getting rid of their foolish ideas.
How did the state come to own Absolut in the first place?
Excellent article.
Very good explanation of how Sweden is not socialist.
I had an interesting conversation with a person who went to work in sweden for a couple of years. She said she was questioned extensively about her relationship and when she was planning on becoming pregnant. Most of her interview was spent on it, in fact.
I am not clear in the details, but there is a long absence granted.
It’s interesting how i can’t ask if someone is pregnant here.
Technically, communism is when the government owns the means of production AND distribution.
Socialism is private production and government distribution.
And with anything else, it’s a matter of degree, i.e., how much of the economic production and distribution does the government “run”.
E.g., progressive tax rates, instead of one tax rate for all, is a socialist distribution scheme.
“Sweden’s free market is not burdened by the U.S.’s excessive regulations, special-interest subsidies and crony bailouts.”
Truth.
Our economic freedom is weaker and weaker, as the government manipulated the economy, regulates more, and takes money from earners to subsidize businesses - picking favored political cronies.
Per capita GDP fell. Sweden’s growth fell behind other countries. Inflation increased.
...
More evidence that economic growth doesn’t cause inflation.
In fact, it’s the opposite.
I hope Trump kicks the Federal Reserve’s ass.
The government claims it is no longer stupid and socialist.
Now they are just stupid.
Socialism is when the govt controls some, not all businesses. It sounds like Sweden was socialist having control of the railway, vodka, health care. Communism is when govt controls all of it.
That’s because Sweden’s Islamic masters won’t allow her to be socialist.
[”Sweden is not socialist — because the government doesn’t own the means of production.]
I think he’s confusing Communism with Socialism.
All set for islamization.
From what I gather they heavily tax the individuals but not the corporations, so that the corporations remain competitive and thus create jobs and keep people employed.
The basis of this taxing scheme is that you can’t be trusted to spend and save your money wisely, so we’ll take half of it, provide you with some essential basics that you on your own would not prioritize (stuff like education, health care, unemployment insurance, etc.) and leave you the other 50% to spend as you wish.
Not socialism, but a nanny state. It can work if you have a conscientious population and administration that’s not out to game the system, which may have been the case with native Swedes, but I’m not sure how it’ll work out as the invaders become a big chunk of the population.
bmp
Sweden used to work, because Swedes (not the recent arrivals) are hard working and proud of it. They don’t mind extra taxes to take the bite out of retirement, maternity, layoff, illness. It works for Swedes.
Enter non-working individuals from a place with a corrupt government and a very low expectation of trustworthiness. The Swedish system falls apart rapidly.
As long as the new arrivals stay, Sweden is heading for perdition.
All modern societies are a mix of Socialism, Capitalism, and Corporatism the arch enemy of Capitalism.
To ascribe credit or blame to one of the big three for the entire economy is a major error in logic. The question needs to be asked: In which specific industry sector in which demographic situation is one of the three a better, or worse choice.
Example 1. The US has moved from Socialist Prisons to Corporatist prisons. That move has proved to be costly to both the prison budget and to society. Socialism is iherently more suited to run the prisons because the prison mentality is Socialism.
Example 2. When LBJ created Medicare and Medicaid it was mostly Socialist... aka FFS-Fee For Service. Since LBJ, both R and D and both the Federal and state levels have seen tha the Socialist FFS approach has major inefficiencies. Both R and D have moved toward Corporatism, aka Managed Care or MCO/CMOs. The ACA was a major increase in Corporatism (not Socialism). The ACA is not Socialism for the poor down trodden masses.
The ACA is taxpayer money to big pharma, to big hospital corps, to big insurance and to big IT. None of the poor get the ACA money. They only get a warm feeling in their heart that someone cares about them enough to tell them pretty fairy tales.
Which direction shoul Medical Care, and Health Care go in the futue? Among the ACA crowd, the key phrase is “Social Determinants”. That means the government bureaucrats should step in to tell you whether a gun in your house, or Juul in you house or pot in your house or bacon in your house is good or bad for your health.
I remember seeing part of a program a few years back where Oprah was on a trip to Sweden and was doing a travelogue-type show about it.
The part I saw was her going into a Swedish home and interviewing the occupant, a housewife. Her intent was clear. To show her American audience how well these folks lived under socialism.
But she was caught off-guard when she noticed that the house didn't have many "things" in it like consumer-buying American homes do. Not much furniture. Few pictures on the walls. No major appliances. It was like a sparsely furnished, austere apartment. Minimalist lifestyle.
She asked the woman why they didn't have many things in their home. Was it due to their frugal, egalitarian lifestyle in Sweden?
She obviously wasn't expecting the lady's answer because she did a beeline out the door and on to something else in her travelogue.
And what was the Swedish homemaker's answer that so spooked Leftist Oprah?
"We don't have many things because we can't afford them. Our taxes are too high to buy much else besides the household essentials."
Blew Oprah's defense of socialist Sweden right out of the water. It was a classic moment to see.