Sweden’s “Third Way” Mixed Economy Model

C

Cypress

Well-known member
The dystopian Euroweenie liberal social welfare state hellhole of Sweden is worth reviewing, and comparing to the largely unregulated anarchocapitalist vision preferred by Trumpettes.

Sweden’s “Third Way” Mixed Economy Model

Sweden is the best example of an economic system in between the extremes of free market capitalism and government-owned and controlled socialism.

The modern image of Sweden is of an egalitarian economy with a high standard of living, a high level of social welfare spending—and a correspondingly high level of taxes.

One of the primary forms of economic organization that Sweden created, and is still alive today, is the cooperative. Cooperatives share expenses, expertise, risks, and rewards of economic activity. By their very nature, they tend to even out the vagaries of the larger market. This promotes a rather egalitarian outcome in terms of income distribution.

The abolition of feudalism—serfdom and slavery were outlawed in 1335—also eliminated one of the major class divisions in society and limited how unequal income and wealth could become. Countries that have much longer histories of feudalism, such as France and Spain, tend to have much more hierarchical social structures and much more unequal distributions of income.

The most controversial aspect of Swedish government policy is the country’s extensive welfare state and income redistribution. Swedish citizens receive free health care, free education through university, high levels of unemployment benefits and pensions, and generous family leave for parents of newborns. The Swedish government also redistributes income in a more comprehensive way than any other government in the world. Sweden ranks 5th in the high-tax category; only Finland, Denmark, France, and Belgium rank ahead of Sweden.

High taxes can legitimately be said to limit freedom. The Swedish government limits the freedom of Swedish citizens to spend their own money.

However, the Swedes have decided democratically to give up some of their individual economic freedom to live in a more egalitarian and economically secure society. Swedish elections are fought over the size and comprehensiveness of their welfare state.



Source credit: Professor Edward F. Stuart, Northeastern Illinois University
Click to expand...
 
Norway is More "Socialist" than either Venezuela or communist China.

Norwegian workers are heavily protected, with 70 percent of workers covered by union contracts, and over a third directly employed by the government. The Norwegian state operates a gigantic sovereign wealth fund, and its financial assets total 331 percent of its GDP (as compared to an American figure of 25 percent).

Meanwhile, its state-owned enterprises are worth 87 percent of GDP.

Of all the domestic wealth in Norway, the government owns 59 percent, and fully three-quarters of the non-home wealth (as most Norwegians own their home).

Reliable statistics on the Venezuelan economy are hard to come by, but Norway is unquestionably more socialist than Venezuela according to the above definition.
Indeed, it is considerably more socialist than supposedly-communist China, where only 31 percent of national wealth is owned by the state.

Norway is not some destitute hellscape. Indeed, not only are Norwegian stores well-stocked with toilet paper, it is actually considerably more wealthy than the U.S., with a GDP of over $70,000 per person. Even when you correct for the moderately large oil sector (which accounts for a bit less than a quarter of its exports), it still has a cutting-edge, ultra-productive economy — far from some petro-state living off oil rents like Dubai.

Socially, it routinely ranks as the happiest (2017) or second-happiest (2018) country in the world. The rest of the Nordics are also usually among the top five as well — even more remarkable when you factor in the phenomenon of seasonal affective disorder and the extreme northerly position of the Scandinavian peninsula.

On a snapshot of other quality-of-life measures, Norway boasts:

A life expectancy of 81.7 years.
An infant mortality rate of two per 1,000 live births.
A murder rate of 0.51 per 100,000.
An incarceration rate of 74 per 100,000.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/29/what-the-right-gets-wrong-about-socialism/
 
Actually, the Scandinavian model, and collectively all of the modern Kenyan-Marxist social welfare states of western Europe and North America can be traced back to the intellectual foundations of 19th century liberalism.

Liberals and Liberalism

Liberalism became the ideology of the 19th-century middle class. It was an attractive statement of coherent principles founded on the interdependence of personal and collective responsibility between the individual and the state.

Liberalism, as applied to politics, comprised a complex mix of freedoms, most prominent of which were based on utilitarian values Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832). He believed in government providing the greatest good to the greatest number. Bentham sought tangible ends: He became a proponent of prison and legal reform, including abolition of the death penalty. So Bentham saw an important role for government in creating and delivering programs to relieve the suffering of others.

But it was John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) who became the most powerful voice of British liberalism in the mid-19th century. Mill’s philosophy was a combination of rationalism, romanticism, and intellectual culture that accompanied middle-class values, such as the cultivation of feelings and the improvement of character. Mill’s most influential work, On Liberty (1859), addressed the idea of freedom, defending the individual’s right of self protection, freedom of speech and expression.

Mill also argued for an enlarged franchise, as many liberals believed that giving even those without property access to the vote would make them more responsible and better citizens. In addition they advocated penal reform and the universal abolition of slavery. Mill called for the emancipation of women in his most controversial work, The Subjection of Women (1869). Mill again referred to the rights of the individual, the “natural freedoms” possessed by all humankind—male or female—against the “despotism of custom” that limited the rights of women to freely participate in society.

Generalizing from the platforms and speeches of English and continental leaders, all 19th-century liberals would hold to these basic principles: civil liberty; economic liberty; personal liberty; social liberty; religious liberty; freedom of trade, speech and association; national and international liberty; domestic liberty (that is, freedom and mutual responsibility between husband and wife and the rights of children); the equality of all citizens under the law; and popular sovereignty and the rule of law enacted by free representative assemblies. These were the dreams of 19th-century liberals.

Liberals did more than theorize: they captured seats in parliaments and national assemblies and formed active, powerful, and often ruling political parties. Liberalism was in essence a middle class movement, dedicated to free trade, extension of the franchise, assault on privilege, and the call for responsible government. In England, the great Reform Bill of 1832 extended the franchise and reduced unrepresentative parliamentary influence. Power was beginning the shift to the prosperous middle classes.

Source credit: Professor Kenneth R. Bartlett. University of Toronto
Click to expand...
 
Hello Cypress,

Cypress said:
Norway is More "Socialist" than either Venezuela or communist China.

Norwegian workers are heavily protected, with 70 percent of workers covered by union contracts, and over a third directly employed by the government. The Norwegian state operates a gigantic sovereign wealth fund, and its financial assets total 331 percent of its GDP (as compared to an American figure of 25 percent).

Meanwhile, its state-owned enterprises are worth 87 percent of GDP.

Of all the domestic wealth in Norway, the government owns 59 percent, and fully three-quarters of the non-home wealth (as most Norwegians own their home).

Reliable statistics on the Venezuelan economy are hard to come by, but Norway is unquestionably more socialist than Venezuela according to the above definition.
Indeed, it is considerably more socialist than supposedly-communist China, where only 31 percent of national wealth is owned by the state.

Norway is not some destitute hellscape. Indeed, not only are Norwegian stores well-stocked with toilet paper, it is actually considerably more wealthy than the U.S., with a GDP of over $70,000 per person. Even when you correct for the moderately large oil sector (which accounts for a bit less than a quarter of its exports), it still has a cutting-edge, ultra-productive economy — far from some petro-state living off oil rents like Dubai.

Socially, it routinely ranks as the happiest (2017) or second-happiest (2018) country in the world. The rest of the Nordics are also usually among the top five as well — even more remarkable when you factor in the phenomenon of seasonal affective disorder and the extreme northerly position of the Scandinavian peninsula.

On a snapshot of other quality-of-life measures, Norway boasts:

A life expectancy of 81.7 years.
An infant mortality rate of two per 1,000 live births.
A murder rate of 0.51 per 100,000.
An incarceration rate of 74 per 100,000.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/29/what-the-right-gets-wrong-about-socialism/
Click to expand...

Wow. Those are far preferable statistics than the USA.

The hybrid economy model works!
 
Cypress said:
The dystopian Euroweenie liberal social welfare state hellhole of Sweden is worth reviewing, and comparing to the largely unregulated anarchocapitalist vision preferred by Trumpettes.
Click to expand...
Why don't you make the effort to immigrate to Sweden then? Wouldn't that be easier than trying to change an entire country's system of govt.?
 
anonymoose said:
Why don't you make the effort to immigrate to Sweden then? Wouldn't that be easier than trying to change an entire country's system of govt.?
Click to expand...

Here's my issue with all the Sweden, Norway, Finland talk. For starters I don't have a problem with looking at how other countries run certain things. It's sort of like businesses with best practices. We can and should always look for ways we can improve things.

My issue is Sweden is a country of 10 million people, that's not all that bigger than the Bay Area, and is largely all homogeneous and white (although they have had some problems with immigration and diversity in the past few years). It's not comparable to America. Nor does Sweden have anywhere near the influence in the world that America does nor is Sweden looked upon by others around the world for their defense. So look how little they spend on their military. Now no question I think there is a lot of waste in the Pentagon but nonetheless the world as we know it today would not be the same world if America had the military budget Sweden does. It's apples and oranges.

It's why even Hillary Clinton said in the debates to Bernie that we are not Norway. American is not going to a be a largely all white country of 5 - 10 million people that relies on others for its defense.
 
cawacko said:
Here's my issue with all the Sweden, Norway, Finland talk. For starters I don't have a problem with looking at how other countries run certain things. It's sort of like businesses with best practices. We can and should always look for ways we can improve things.

My issue is Sweden is a country of 10 million people, that's not all that bigger than the Bay Area, and is largely all homogeneous and white (although they have had some problems with immigration and diversity in the past few years). It's not comparable to America. Nor does Sweden have anywhere near the influence in the world that America does nor is Sweden looked upon by others around the world for their defense. So look how little they spend on their military. Now no question I think there is a lot of waste in the Pentagon but nonetheless the world as we know it today would not be the same world if America had the military budget Sweden does. It's apples and oranges.

It's why even Hillary Clinton said in the debates to Bernie that we are not Norway. American is not going to a be a largely all white country of 5 - 10 million people that relies on others for its defense.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Couldn't have said it better. But the moonbats here will never acknowledge that.
I lived in Germany for three yrs, Italy for one. Believe me, it's better here for those "willing" to work.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Cypress,



Wow. Those are far preferable statistics than the USA.

The hybrid economy model works!
Click to expand...
You can see why the rightwing frantically and dishonestly tries to conflate American liberals with Marxism-Leninism and Soviet Communism, or with Che Guevara latin American leftism.

Because what liberals actually want - aka, something akin to the Scandinavian model - is a successful and egalitarian economic system which conservatives cannot refute and are desperate to prevent from transpiring in the U.S.
 
anonymoose said:
...........................!
Click to expand...
Get this through your skull. You lost the potential to interact with me when you willfully decided to stoop to girlish gossip, bogus innuendo, slander. It is your loss, because as you are fully aware, I am generally measured, on-topic, germane, and reasonably civil by message board standards to those who have the maturity to reciprocate.

See my standard response for bigots, gossipers, liars, slanderers >
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...pier-than-everyone-else&p=2381714#post2381714
 
Cypress said:
Parroting what you heard on the Limbaugh program is neither persuasive nor original.

Unlike you I know and have met Norwegians and Danes, and none of them feel remotely like slaves to their Kenyan-Marxist hybrid social welfare state
Click to expand...

I provided a link for you, to show they are more capitalist than socialist, so do what you want with that, just keep your democratic socialism out of my country!
 
Hello Cypress,

Cypress said:
You can see why the rightwing frantically and dishonestly tries to conflate American liberals with Marxism-Leninism and Soviet Communism, or with Che Guevara latin American leftism.

Because what liberals actually want - aka, something akin to the Scandinavian model - is a successful and egalitarian economic system which conservatives cannot refute and are desperate to prevent from transpiring in the U.S.
Click to expand...

Yes, that explains the musical definitions. They say they don't want socialism, but then when a successful socialism/capitalism hybrid economy model is pointed out, they say 'That's not socialism.'

I don't care what you call it, that's what makes the most sense.

Use capitalism where it is appropriate and use socialism where it is appropriate. We can use the best of both worlds and minimize the worst of each through careful and smart selection.
 
Last edited:
PoliTalker said:
Hello Cypress,



Yes, that explains the musical definitions. They say they don't want socialism, but then when a successful socialism/capitalism hybrid economy model is pointed out, they say 'That's not socialism.'

I don't care what you call it, that's what makes the most sense.

Use capitalism where it is appropriate and use socialism where it is appropriate. We can use the best of both worlds and minimize the worst of each through careful and smart selection.
Click to expand...

Rightwingers won't even try to refute that the Scandinavian hybrid model is one the most successful and admired economic systems in human history.

Of the myriad of excuses they assert for why we cannot emulate it is their claim the system only works for homogenous societies.

Aka, white societies.

It is another example of the rightwing telegraphing their racism. Because they clearly do not think dark people can be trusted to be endowed with a generous social welfare state




Adding here that, among thread banned Rightwing trump boot-lickers, my threads are extremely popular, and these rightwing dunces clearly find my writing extremely interesting. Given how they lurk my threads, read what I write, and frequently create copy cat threads. Some people might think its creepy - I consider a badge of honor that dunces I generally ignore follow me around and keep up to date on my writing.
 
Last edited:
Wolverine said:
I provided a link for you, to show they are more capitalist than socialist, so do what you want with that, just keep your democratic socialism out of my country!
Click to expand...

Then lets adopt the policies of Sweden and forget about what you want to label them. You obviously cannot refute the Scandinavian model is successful and hugely admired.


Requiring your explanation: the contradiction as to why you conservatives called Barack Obama a "socialist" for the better part of a decade,
but somehow the very generous social welfare states of Scandinavia are not socialist.


Also requiring explanation, exactly what nations were conservatives referring to when they spent decades calling western Europe "socialist"???

>> https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-SOCIALISM-IN-VENEZUELA&p=2926319#post2926319

Leading Republicans Refer to Western Europe as "Socialists"
Lately it seems that not a day goes by without a Republican presidential candidate portraying Europe as a socialist nightmare. Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum paint a picture of the Old World as unfree, strangulated by bureaucratic and inefficient welfare systems, and unable to reform and modernize. To these Republicans, Europe seems to be the antipode to everything America is meant to be.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.310f3f267a8a

Leading Republicans Call Western Europe "Socialist"
Newt Gingrich has constantly accused the president of being a "European Socialist", often adding in a reference to an all-but-forgotten community activist from Chicago, who died in 1972, but whose Democratic-leaning writings are thought to have influenced the current president
"I am for the Declaration of Independence; he is for the writing of Saul Alinsky. I am for the Constitution; he is for European socialism," Mr Gingrich told voters in Florida last week.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16583813

Bill O'Reilly noted rightwing blowhard: Western Europe is basically socialist
"I received a letter from Rhonda Hallett who lives in Jacksonville, North Carolina asking me to define Bernie's doctrine of Democratic socialism. Ok. That's basically what some countries in western Europe have, a political system that limits personal income through taxation in return for cradle to grave payouts from the governments. That's the trade."
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/02/14...atic-socialism

Mike Pence is on record referring to western Europe as "socialist".
when Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, denounced “European-style socialism,” in his speech at the conference on Thursday, the jeers from the crowd did not exactly signal an openness to debate it on the merits.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/w...leibovich.html

European socialism taking root in US, Fox News's Stuart Varney says
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics...us-varney-says


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-SOCIALISM-IN-VENEZUELA&p=2926319#post2926319
Click to expand...
 
Hello Cypress,

Cypress said:
Rightwingers won't even try to refute that the Scandinavian hybrid model is one the most successful and admired economic systems in human history.

Of the myriad of excuses they assert for why we cannot emulate it is their claim the system only works for homogenous societies.

Aka, white societies.

It is another example of the rightwing telegraphing their racism. Because they clearly do not think dark people can be trusted to be endowed with a generous social welfare state




Adding here that, among thread banned Rightwing trump boot-lickers, my threads are extremely popular, and these rightwing dunces clearly find my writing extremely interesting. Given how they lurk my threads, read what I write, and frequently create copy cat threads. Some people might think its creepy - I consider a badge of honor that dunces I generally ignore follow me around and keep up to date on my writing.
Click to expand...

Getting groans and replies from people you refuse to even talk to is totally a badge of honor. It is acknowledgement that what you are saying is getting to them. If you weren't hitting the mark they wouldn't bother.

Just like in this case.

Excellent observation about the racist coded term 'homogenous societies.'

What a lame argument. People are people. There is no reason that good policy won't work for people.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Cypress,



Getting groans and replies from people you refuse to even talk to is totally a badge of honor. It is acknowledgement that what you are saying is getting to them. If you weren't hitting the mark they wouldn't bother.

Just like in this case.

Excellent observation about the racist coded term 'homogenous societies.'

What a lame argument. People are people. There is no reason that good policy won't work for people.
Click to expand...

For starters dude your handle says Diversity Makes Greatness so now you are coming out in support of non diverse countries and suggesting we be like them?

There is nothing racially coded about discussing homogeneous countries. Japan and North & South Korea are the most homogeneous countries in the world. Yet you're claiming its racist to acknowledge that simple fact? Every country has its own issues, no country is perfect, but the homogeneous nature plays a major role in their politics and policies. And homogeneous countries have racial and immigration issues themselves. I know you guys love calling others racist but this is a simple acknowledgement of their realities. (You'll also notice my response was about far more than just the homogeneous nature of Sweden)
 
Last edited:
Hello cawacko,

cawacko said:
For starters dude your handle says Diversity Makes Greatness so now you are coming out in support of non diverse countries and suggesting we be like them?
Click to expand...

If you have to try to get cute with another poster's handle and make some lame and incorrect predicated stretch of an observation, (not a quote,) as a way of rationalizing your own perception of politics, it is not very suggestive that you have a strong and valid argument in support of your beliefs. Because if you did? You would use it.

cawacko said:
There is nothing racially coded about discussing homogeneous countries. Japan and North & South Korea are the most homogeneous countries in the world. Yet you're claiming its racist to acknowledge that simple fact?
Click to expand...

We have zero problem acknowledging that fact. We are well beyond that point by quite some distance. What we are looking for is some correlation linking homogeneousness with the success of a hybrid economy. What does it matter of all the participants in the plan are of one race? Why can this hybrid economy work for a homogeneous group, but not for a mixed-race group? That's what you have not explained.

cawacko said:
Every country has its own issues, no country is perfect, but the homogeneous nature plays a major role in their politics and policies. And homogeneous countries have racial and immigration issues themselves. I know you guys love calling others racist but this is a simple acknowledgement of their realities. (You'll also notice my response was about far more than just the homogeneous nature of Sweden)
Click to expand...

OK, so now that's adding in another factor. Are you now saying their success in implementing a successful hybrid economy is dependent upon more than simply the one prerequisite of a homogeneous society? Because if that's the case, then that sort of tosses out the homogeneous society argument as completely valid.

No problem. OK, so what are these other factors and why are they only possible in other countries, but not repeatable in the USA? We would be seriously interested to know that. Can you please tell us?
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Cypress,



Getting groans and replies from people you refuse to even talk to is totally a badge of honor. It is acknowledgement that what you are saying is getting to them. If you weren't hitting the mark they wouldn't bother.

Just like in this case.

Excellent observation about the racist coded term 'homogenous societies.'

What a lame argument. People are people. There is no reason that good policy won't work for people.
Click to expand...

The "you need to have a homogenous society to have a social welfare state!" is a flat out admission that the social welfare states liberals would like to emulate are universally admired and very successful.

Which contradicts the attempted conflation of American liberals with Soviet totalitarianism rightwingers would like to portray.

Homogeneity is one of the myriad of excuses the rightwing will trot out whenever they feel like they are utterly losing the argument on the basis of socio-economics, justice, and the general welfare.

I would like to know what and where this peer-reviewed, scientific basis of a magical number measuring homogeneity is; what is this magical threshold below which a society is not "allowed" to have a generous social welfare state.

Even Denmark, Finland, and Sweden and not purely homogenous. They have immigrants and ethnic groups within their nations.

Canada is an even more dramatic example of a fairly generous social welfare state which has a high proportion of immigrants and is relatively ethnically diverse. But even with that diversity, they somehow manage to have a fairly generous social welfare state.

The bottom line is, there is no "magical threshold number" of homogeneity which would prevent a society from having a generous social welfare state. It is just a poorly-designed excuse the rightwing floats out there, and it is not based on anything credibly scientific which is widely accepted and valid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top