Often when discussing economic policy, someone will bring up Sweden. Sweden, Sweden, Sweden, Sweden, Sweden, Sweden. It's apparently utopia in terms of a balance between free stuff and freedom according to the snowflake crowd.

But what's the real deal? I'll likely never get there to find out for myself.

John Stossel did a video for ReasonTV on YouTube talking about this. Can't post it as I'm at work, but look up "Sweden is not a socialist success".

I don't think it's a Utopia any longer. Socialism can actually work somewhat OK(for a while) in a relatively homogenous society with a strong work ethic. As that changes and the societal contribution is no longer relatively equal, it falls apart. I think they are at that point.

Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lxD-gikpMs

I was wondering about this same thing. It seems that the social programs in Nordic countries exist because these countries have learned that Capitalism must be encouraged in order to pay for them. Here are links to a couple articles that gave me a better understanding.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...ialist/#2a8b787374ad


https://www.intellectualtakeou.../sweden-socialist-no

Sweden is not really socialist, but does have many very socialist programs and policies. THat is why the Left points to them as a "success".

But, like all socialist things, it was a success for a while. Now, the social fabric seems to be crumbling. For example: Many big industries, like the Kockums shipyard, have left Sweden. I saw a documentary that was all glowing about how when Swedish workers became unemployed, they could take a whole two years off, with benefits, to be retrained. But they never addressed WHY they were becoming unemployed. When I visited there, about 20 years ago, the Middle Eastern immigrant problem was already "concerning". Now it seems completely out of control.
Lots of youtube stuff on these topics.

Sweden also has something around 60% for an income tax rate. They have a very homogenous society, the opposite of our “melting pot” and have a population of 10 million (vs. our 320m)

Suicide rate was about 17.5/100,000 again vs. ours of 14/100,000. There was a bigger problem with that in the past but that is looking better.

Recently, IIRC, there have been issues with muslim immigration and violence against the locals. There was also a story of muslims leaving because they didn’t like the cold winters.

YMMV (all of above subject to correction by those knowing more that I do)

A couple of things to take into consideration when touting Sweden as a great example of the benefits of high taxation to provide social programs:

• Population: Norway-5mil, Finland-5mil, Sweden-10mil
  
• Ethnicity in said nordic countries: homogenous, ie Japan.
  
  

I'm not sure of the exact details about Sweden, but I heard someone once point out that so many of the European countries the Left points to in terms of socialistic success are not really Socialist. They are capitalist with massive welfare programs, paid for by enormous taxes and the fact they have no military to pay for. They outsource their national defense to the United States.

A car we pay $25k for costs about $55k there.

I have a hard time listing to anyone when they say, "well such and such has been doing it". Good for fucking them. They're not the USA, no other country is. Most countries that have "succeeded" with socialist programs likely don't have the disgusting underbelly of people that we have who have zero desire to work or contribute, they want to be subservient to the government and get their free shit.

In regards to "utopia", Switzerland is a success story when it comes to income equality, tax distribution, education, etc. But Switzerland uses a strict capitalistic system, not a high taxation, spread the wealth free-shit method. The top 10% earners pay less than 25% of the tax burden. Unemployment is extremely low. The education system ranks only behind the top Asian countries, while Sweden (and the U.S.) ranks in the lower ranks. And they are very selective of foreigners that settle into their country.

Sweden is like Mexico compared to Switzerland.

Yaron Brook has a useful discussion on how Sweden is a slow motion disaster supported solely by their dwindling pre-socialist wealth.

Sweden and those other countries' "socialized" health care, retirement and education "benefits" are paid for with a high tax burden on everybody. We Americans would not find that level of taxation acceptable. I think we had a little problem with taxation back in the 1770s.

When you have no military budget to speak of, a relatively small and efficient government, and everybody contributing, it can work. For a while.

If ever some people stop contributing but keep benefiting, the entire thing crashes.

Those northern European countries aren't "socialist," per se, but social democracies based on capitalist economies. We may think they're broken, but the populations that put those systems in place are very, very happy with their countries. In fact: Whenever "happiness" surveys are done, those countries are always at the top of the list.

One news story I once read/saw put it like this: "The French don't mind their onerous tax burden, because they feel they're getting their money's worth." Not many Americans can make that claim.

But, as noted: If their governments are running at a deficit, as seems to (increasingly?) be the case, I suspect the populaces' happiness may be short-lived. Their handling of immigration isn't doing their budgets any favours, either.

https://tradingeconomics.com/s...onal-income-tax-rate

WE probably need to realize that one of the reasons that socialism can be "successful" in many old world countries and Asia is because the people in those countries really are different and have different values. They were/are satisfied being "subjects", serfs, slaves, peasants and peons. They really do want a "Dear Leader" or "Big Brother" to "take care" of them. Americans really are different. THese are all statistically-associated differences, and it also explains why socialism has become so much more acceptable as America has accepted so many third world refugees.
Recall that the America of prior centuries had no social welfare net, so no one immigrated for "benefits". THey immigrated for opportunities. They didn't demonize wealth or "the rich", they wanted to BECOME WEALTHY THEMSELVES.

quote:

Originally posted by Leemur:
A car we pay $25k for costs about $55k there.

Mrs M-11's grandmother was from Sweden. "When we buy a car in Sweden, we buy one for the gov't, too. That's why they have to last so long."

My wife has a friend who's a nurse from Sweden or Switz - can't remember which...

She said (after working healthcare in both U.S. and over there) that socialized healthcare would never work in U.S. We are so much larger than they are is part of it. She also recognizes that Americans would not be willing to wait months and months for an appointment like Euro-folks are accustomed to doing.

Also told of several cases where older people were refused treatment over there. "You're too old to be worth the gov spending X dollars on you to cure or treat that particular ailment." Go ahead and pass on and let us spend money on the young....