Five economic lessons from Sweden, the rock star of the recovery

[carlerha]

I'm just tired of seeing propaganda (e.g. on the UN best of lists) that the scandinavian socialism is so good, when in fact close to 80% of a typical person's income goes into taxes in some way or another, and one have to settle for whatever the government hands back to you.

The typical Swede does not pay 80% in taxes. The typical Swede pays 25-30% in taxes.

You're talking about income tax. Add sales tax, car tax, property tax, inheritance tax, import/customs taxes, liquor tax, tobacco tax, gas tax, fortune taxes, stamp taxes, CO₂ tax, and double taxation on some of these and you're quickly approaching 80%.

Calculation for norwegian conditions

[hugolp]

You never addressed my reply about how government spending does not work. I find curious that you keep repeating the same.

Reply #25?

Yes.

[JA37]

"It generally does": So basically you are acknowledging my point that it not always does.

I acknowledge that economics isn't an exact science and that you'll have to go by probabilities. If something has a high probability of succeeding that's the thing to do, even though it might not work every time.

How did consumption in housing "help" the economy in the USA, Ireland or Spain? What type of consumption has happened in Sweden? Is it sustainable or only a small bubble created by the central bank? Will the capital created by the entrepreneurs due to the signals produced by that consumption be productive in the future? Or will it be waste because that artificial consumption will desappear when the artificial conditions are not there?

I don't know what kind of consumption has taken place? What do people usually buy when they get extra money? Who decides waste? If the consumption disappears when the country is out of recession it doesn't really matter does it? It did what it was supposed to do when it was needed.

Consumption is not an abstract blob of data. Consumption means that the people has consumed some specific types of products.

Yes. I agree. Your point?

Greenspan kept lowering the rates at any sign of economic downturn, to "stimulate" the economy. He create the housing bubble.

Again, I don't know enough about US economy to refute this. I doubt that it's so simple as low rates though. It rarely is.

Yes, I like a lot the example of Sweden in the 90's and how they handled their housing bubble. You know why? Because they liquidated their debt. No need for massive increase of government spending in the economy (wrongly called "stimulous"), just liquidate the debt.

Basically, the way these kind of things are solved in a free market is by letting companies go bankrupt. The debt is liquidated and the remaining assets can be realocated. But because Sweden (and any modern occidental country) has a comletely regulated banking system that allows the banks to overextend credit way beyond what the free market would allow, this solution would be very painful (quick and effective, but very painful). Therefore the government took care of the mess it had created. And honestly I have to say is one of the more responsable actions by a government I have ever seen. They basically said they would not pay for the banks debt, so basically the debtors lost it, and also liquidated the position of the shareholders. They only went in to save the money of the depositors. Once it was done they sold the banks back to private owners to recover as much money as they could.

The key here is that they liquidated the debt, so the economy could start over.

Realize that both lowering interest rates and massive government spending goes into the other way. It tries to keep the debt obligations being payed by devaluation of the currency. Its a slow default, so its a slow recovery. Liquidating the debt in a quick default allows for a quick recovery.

Also, its worth noticing that by lowering interest rates and government spending (the keynesian solution) you are helping banks and the politically connected while hurting the poor. Instead, by defaulting on the debt you are hurting the banks and the investors. This is the reason why the keynesian solution is almost always the choosen one.

If it's that easy to liquidate debt then why doesn't more do it? It discourages investments, doesn't it? Something that is essential for a thriving economy? I agree that the way Sweden handled the housing crisis was a good way, but I doubt you can do it over and over.
There are poor people in Sweden? They're one of the biggest welfare states out there, right? I doubt the poor in Sweden are very poor.

[niemivh]

Government spending (if done correctly) can and has been the best medicine for economic depression.  Look at the Russian recovery program and how they've built their middle class over the previous decade.  You can find many examples of other countries that have done the same.  

Government spending is stupid and never works. For the government to spend, it has to tax. When it taxes, it is suctioning up capital from one sector of the economy, to decide what sector it will inject it in. Government cannot create wealth out of thin air.

Ignorance overload.

[Anonymous]

Government spending (if done correctly) can and has been the best medicine for economic depression.  Look at the Russian recovery program and how they've built their middle class over the previous decade.  You can find many examples of other countries that have done the same.  

Government spending is stupid and never works. For the government to spend, it has to tax. When it taxes, it is suctioning up capital from one sector of the economy, to decide what sector it will inject it in. Government cannot create wealth out of thin air.

Ignorance overload.

Taxation is wealth. Monopoly is growth. Freedom is decline.

All hail the state!

[niemivh]

Government spending (if done correctly) can and has been the best medicine for economic depression.  Look at the Russian recovery program and how they've built their middle class over the previous decade.  You can find many examples of other countries that have done the same.  

Government spending is stupid and never works. For the government to spend, it has to tax. When it taxes, it is suctioning up capital from one sector of the economy, to decide what sector it will inject it in. Government cannot create wealth out of thin air.

So, even though that's just what Sweden has done, and they've come out on top after the recession, what they just did doesn't work?
Interesting.

It won't work if it is applied to a larger society.

Yeah, poor China is doing so terrible with it's economic growth statistics and massive government spending.

[Anonymous]

Government spending (if done correctly) can and has been the best medicine for economic depression.  Look at the Russian recovery program and how they've built their middle class over the previous decade.  You can find many examples of other countries that have done the same.  

Government spending is stupid and never works. For the government to spend, it has to tax. When it taxes, it is suctioning up capital from one sector of the economy, to decide what sector it will inject it in. Government cannot create wealth out of thin air.

So, even though that's just what Sweden has done, and they've come out on top after the recession, what they just did doesn't work?
Interesting.

It won't work if it is applied to a larger society.

Yeah, poor China is doing so terrible with it's economic growth statistics and massive government spending.

It may look fine on paper but when is the paper relevant? All I see is disillusionment, illness and sometimes hunger when I look at the populace.

[niemivh]

Government spending (if done correctly) can and has been the best medicine for economic depression.  Look at the Russian recovery program and how they've built their middle class over the previous decade.  You can find many examples of other countries that have done the same.  

Government spending is stupid and never works. For the government to spend, it has to tax. When it taxes, it is suctioning up capital from one sector of the economy, to decide what sector it will inject it in. Government cannot create wealth out of thin air.

Ignorance overload.

Taxation is wealth. Monopoly is growth. Freedom is decline.

All hail the state!

When you are done misrepresenting my position let me know.  Hopefully we can have a dialogue at some point.

[niemivh]

Government spending (if done correctly) can and has been the best medicine for economic depression.  Look at the Russian recovery program and how they've built their middle class over the previous decade.  You can find many examples of other countries that have done the same.  

Government spending is stupid and never works. For the government to spend, it has to tax. When it taxes, it is suctioning up capital from one sector of the economy, to decide what sector it will inject it in. Government cannot create wealth out of thin air.

So, even though that's just what Sweden has done, and they've come out on top after the recession, what they just did doesn't work?
Interesting.

It won't work if it is applied to a larger society.

Yeah, poor China is doing so terrible with it's economic growth statistics and massive government spending.

It may look fine on paper but when is the paper relevant? All I see is disillusionment, illness and sometimes hunger when I look at the populace.

The paper is irrelevant when you can no longer buy anything worthwhile with it, when nobody wants to exchange anything for it.  China is a 'dirigistic' economy and focuses on making things that people want to buy, a novel concept I know.  The USA sells derivatives and other paper forms of fraud as what's left of our export economy is left to wither on the vine or be scuttled in favor of bigger and bigger bailouts.  I wonder who's currency will be worthless if both countries continue on their path?

[Anonymous]

Government spending (if done correctly) can and has been the best medicine for economic depression.  Look at the Russian recovery program and how they've built their middle class over the previous decade.  You can find many examples of other countries that have done the same.  

Government spending is stupid and never works. For the government to spend, it has to tax. When it taxes, it is suctioning up capital from one sector of the economy, to decide what sector it will inject it in. Government cannot create wealth out of thin air.

So, even though that's just what Sweden has done, and they've come out on top after the recession, what they just did doesn't work?
Interesting.

It won't work if it is applied to a larger society.

Yeah, poor China is doing so terrible with it's economic growth statistics and massive government spending.

It may look fine on paper but when is the paper relevant? All I see is disillusionment, illness and sometimes hunger when I look at the populace.

The paper is irrelevant when you can no longer buy anything worthwhile with it, when nobody wants to exchange anything for it.  China is a 'dirigistic' economy and focuses on making things that people want to buy, a novel concept I know.  The USA sells derivatives and other paper forms of fraud as what's left of our export economy is left to wither on the vine or be scuttled in favor of bigger and bigger bailouts.  I wonder who's currency will be worthless if both countries continue on their path?

I'm talking about the statistics.

[Sovereign]

Government spending (if done correctly) can and has been the best medicine for economic depression.  Look at the Russian recovery program and how they've built their middle class over the previous decade.  You can find many examples of other countries that have done the same.  

Government spending is stupid and never works. For the government to spend, it has to tax. When it taxes, it is suctioning up capital from one sector of the economy, to decide what sector it will inject it in. Government cannot create wealth out of thin air.

Ignorance overload.

Governments are run by corporations through lobbies that lobby congress to appropriate funds to their corporations. The people from the corporations also lobby other departments of the federal government to regulate industries so that only the few big corporations that can afford to lobby can compete, while regulating the smaller corporations out of business.

If you think government is benevolent and will appropriate funds 'fairly', then you would have loved to live in one of the command economies of the 20th century (you would have probably starved to death under those conditions)

It's because people like you are ignorant of how the price system works to allocate resources, and how governments mess that up and cause shortages and economic depressions.

[AyeYo]

Government spending (if done correctly) can and has been the best medicine for economic depression.  Look at the Russian recovery program and how they've built their middle class over the previous decade.  You can find many examples of other countries that have done the same.  

Government spending is stupid and never works. For the government to spend, it has to tax. When it taxes, it is suctioning up capital from one sector of the economy, to decide what sector it will inject it in. Government cannot create wealth out of thin air.

Ignorance overload.

Governments are run by corporations through lobbies that lobby congress to appropriate funds to their corporations. The people from the corporations also lobby other departments of the federal government to regulate industries so that only the few big corporations that can afford to lobby can compete, while regulating the smaller corporations out of business.

If you think government is benevolent and will appropriate funds 'fairly', then you would have loved to live in one of the command economies of the 20th century (you would have probably starved to death under those conditions)

It's because people like you are ignorant of how the price system works to allocate resources, and how governments mess that up and cause shortages and economic depressions.

What you're talking about does not apply to all governments.  It applies to ineffective governments that no longer service the good of society at large, like the US government.

Proper management by government and central banking, as in China, Japan, Sweden, etc. betters society and produces more growth - this is not speculation, it is a proven fact.

[hugolp]

"It generally does": So basically you are acknowledging my point that it not always does.

I acknowledge that economics isn't an exact science and that you'll have to go by probabilities. If something has a high probability of succeeding that's the thing to do, even though it might not work every time.

How did consumption in housing "help" the economy in the USA, Ireland or Spain? What type of consumption has happened in Sweden? Is it sustainable or only a small bubble created by the central bank? Will the capital created by the entrepreneurs due to the signals produced by that consumption be productive in the future? Or will it be waste because that artificial consumption will desappear when the artificial conditions are not there?

I don't know what kind of consumption has taken place? What do people usually buy when they get extra money? Who decides waste? If the consumption disappears when the country is out of recession it doesn't really matter does it? It did what it was supposed to do when it was needed.

Consumption is not an abstract blob of data. Consumption means that the people has consumed some specific types of products.

Yes. I agree. Your point?

Greenspan kept lowering the rates at any sign of economic downturn, to "stimulate" the economy. He create the housing bubble.

Again, I don't know enough about US economy to refute this. I doubt that it's so simple as low rates though. It rarely is.

Yes, I like a lot the example of Sweden in the 90's and how they handled their housing bubble. You know why? Because they liquidated their debt. No need for massive increase of government spending in the economy (wrongly called "stimulous"), just liquidate the debt.

Basically, the way these kind of things are solved in a free market is by letting companies go bankrupt. The debt is liquidated and the remaining assets can be realocated. But because Sweden (and any modern occidental country) has a comletely regulated banking system that allows the banks to overextend credit way beyond what the free market would allow, this solution would be very painful (quick and effective, but very painful). Therefore the government took care of the mess it had created. And honestly I have to say is one of the more responsable actions by a government I have ever seen. They basically said they would not pay for the banks debt, so basically the debtors lost it, and also liquidated the position of the shareholders. They only went in to save the money of the depositors. Once it was done they sold the banks back to private owners to recover as much money as they could.

The key here is that they liquidated the debt, so the economy could start over.

Realize that both lowering interest rates and massive government spending goes into the other way. It tries to keep the debt obligations being payed by devaluation of the currency. Its a slow default, so its a slow recovery. Liquidating the debt in a quick default allows for a quick recovery.

Also, its worth noticing that by lowering interest rates and government spending (the keynesian solution) you are helping banks and the politically connected while hurting the poor. Instead, by defaulting on the debt you are hurting the banks and the investors. This is the reason why the keynesian solution is almost always the choosen one.

If it's that easy to liquidate debt then why doesn't more do it? It discourages investments, doesn't it? Something that is essential for a thriving economy? I agree that the way Sweden handled the housing crisis was a good way, but I doubt you can do it over and over.
There are poor people in Sweden? They're one of the biggest welfare states out there, right? I doubt the poor in Sweden are very poor.

You have basically avoiding answering.

This:

It did what it was supposed to do when it was needed.

is faith, not logic or empirical evidences or anything related to economics.

Honestly, the keynesians in this forum are very very weak. Its mostly hand waving, repeating the same mantra over and over again, and avoiding addressing arguments. It seems more like a histeric propaganda squad than thinking people.

[JA37]

You have basically avoiding answering.

This:

It did what it was supposed to do when it was needed.

is faith, not logic or empirical evidences or anything related to economics.

Honestly, the keynesians in this forum are very very weak. Its mostly hand waving, repeating the same mantra over and over again, and avoiding addressing arguments. It seems more like a histeric propaganda squad than thinking people.

I'm not that educated in macro economics to explain everything, however by observing the world I can draw some conclusions about what appears to work and what doesn't.

The quote you pulled was about businesses going out of business when certain programs were removed, after a recession. So, it kept the economy going during the recession, making sure people had money to spend. How is that "faith, not logic or empirical evidences or anything related to economics"?

If you think Keynesians make weak arguments you should have a look at the AnCap/Liberts.

[hugolp]

I'm not that educated in macro economics to explain everything, however by observing the world I can draw some conclusions about what appears to work and what doesn't.

Then you should keep an open mind and try to learn instead of giving lessons.

The quote you pulled was about businesses going out of business when certain programs were removed, after a recession. So, it kept the economy going during the recession, making sure people had money to spend. How is that "faith, not logic or empirical evidences or anything related to economics"?

I already answered to this, but let me try again from another point. First answer to this: ¿This programs you want the government to do when there is a recession can be anything, like getting people to dig a whole and then others to cover it, or should it try to be a productive investment?

[JA37]

Then you should keep an open mind and try to learn instead of giving lessons.

I already answered to this, but let me try again from another point. First answer to this: ¿This programs you want the government to do when there is a recession can be anything, like getting people to dig a whole and then others to cover it, or should it try to be a productive investment?

I keep an open mind. Whenever I hear something that makes some kind of sense I listen. I won't however keep my mind so open that my brain falls out. Listening to conspiracy theorists and general nutters isn't really my cup of tea. Unless it's for entertainment value.

It would be better to have some kind of productive that can grow to a regular business after the recession, but to keep the economy going it needs people to use services and purchase goods, so it really doesn't matter how people get money, as long as they have money to spend.
That's what Sweden is doing, and it obviously works.

[hugolp]

I keep an open mind. Whenever I hear something that makes some kind of sense I listen. I won't however keep my mind so open that my brain falls out. Listening to conspiracy theorists and general nutters isn't really my cup of tea. Unless it's for entertainment value.

Ok, calling me, the only person who is trying to make sense here, a conspiracy theorist and a nut is enougth. Im done.

It would be better to have some kind of productive that can grow to a regular business after the recession, but to keep the economy going it needs people to use services and purchase goods, so it really doesn't matter how people get money, as long as they have money to spend.
That's what Sweden is doing, and it obviously works.

You keep repeating the same mantra without any proof. You guys are just propagandists without no interst in reality. Good luck.

[JA37]

Ok, calling me, the only person who is trying to make sense here, a conspiracy theorist and a nut is enougth. Im done.

You keep repeating the same mantra without any proof. You guys are just propagandists without no interst in reality. Good luck.

Don't be so sensitive, this is the Internet. I wasn't talking about you specifically. There's a lot of "the gub'mint EEVILL I tell you. EEEEEEVILLLLL" going on here. Anyone can clearly see that governments needs improvements here and there, but the rage going on here isn't proportional.

What reality? Your reality? Or the reality I can observe in the world? I'm supposed to take your theory over real world observations?
If want to convince me that your theory is superior you'll better be prepared to argue for it.

And what's your economic training? I acknowledge that I'm not an expert in the subject, but since you're trying to educate me please give your credentials so that I know that you're better informed about the economic works of the world.

[Osnaz]

 _