Debunking the myth of Scandinavian socialism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 มิ.ย. 2024
- "We have been socialists in Sweden and we have been successful, but never at the same time," says Swedish historian Johan Norberg.
Watch the full replay of Norberg's conversation with Reason's Zach Weissmueller and Liz Wolfe: • The truth about Sweden...
"Sweden was socialist and Sweden was successful, but not at the same time." What a succinct and informative line.
Well then Bernie is not socialist. Because the policies Bernie proposes now and has been are all what Sweden uses now.
@@blackout07blue OK. Then Bernie's not a socialist. He's just a guy who's stupid enough to call himself one.
Not really informative, its based on wrong information, Sweden was pretty successful even during the time it was under socialist rule.
@@blackout07bluebullshit lol. Literally nothing Bernie advocates for is anything remotely like their system
@@blackout07bluethe leader of Sweden literally told him to stop using them as an example of his idea of socialism. Also, they are a small old and homogeneous country, that had a HUGE capitalist boom, which then allowed them to be able to create some social policies for their people. That is why he said you can’t have both at once. They got here because of capitalism. And now they are here. So how long until they are back at their old capitalism? Because since their shift from low taxes, their gdp growth has stagnated. And they have been slowly increasing the control of social welfare, reducing generosity in the welfare models , and lowering taxes . I’m sure all the immigration didn’t help either. Easy to have welfare, when everyone is the same, and you’ve lived next to your neighbors for the last 20 generations. Much harder to give welfare to the guy across town, that just moved from another country, has contributed nothing to society, and just popped out a few extra dependents. Bernie has no idea what he is talking about
I can show you a flying elephant, for every American that truly understands the social democratic underpinnings of European politics.
So right,,, They have their frontiersman bubble,, Most probably do not want to understand that it can work any way but their way it would be too destabilising for the puffed-up vanity built on ignorance, Central control in China and massive growth must be a puzzle for them ..
You can't have a free market and a welfare state. Mixed economies suck.
Second that!!!
Really?? How many you got?
Wait, what?
Find me a Scandinavian who thinks they live in a socialist society.
As a Dane I can attest that we do have a market economy but state interference and taxation is slowly increasing and freedom is slowly erodering. Even the most right wing party here has accepted the massive welfare system which is dragging us down.
Whether they are socialist or not isn't the point. Their quality of lives are much better and we should learn from them
Obviously you know. Yes large suffocating welfare states for sure.
@@apoc519Quality of life is dropping. Crime is skyrocketing and more people are drawing from the social network without putting anything into it.
@@apoc519 yes we should. That homogeneous societies, which the US is not, can coast along for a while when there is general agreement on things like a 60 percent income tax on the middle class in exchange for a lot of “free” stuff. For a while. They are now in secular decline having killed off the free market. They haven’t invented anything new since Ericsson phone in the 1980s. They are sinking into oblivion.
"Nothing much is different than paying straight out of pocket"
Except the healthcare costs half of what it does in the US, people are better educated, public transport works well etc.
Healthcare cost half? Don't think so. I've heard stories of ambulance rides in the US costing 2000-3000 dollars. Someone's hospital stay cost 400k. I'd say healthcare cost is probably more than 100x as expensive in the US.
@@atnfn "In 2021, the U.S. spent 17.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on health care, nearly twice as much as the average OECD country.
Health spending per person in the U.S. was nearly two times higher than in the closest country, Germany, and four times higher than in South Korea. In the U.S., that includes spending for people in public programs like Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Medicare, and military plans; spending by those with private employer-sponsored coverage or other private insurance; and out-of-pocket health spending."
I think the most important distinction is that we in Sweden pay a relatively small amount over and over which in total amounts to a very large sum of money, but the cost we pay is both predictable and calculated so that it never really inhibits our day to day life. Which means that if something happens to us and we need emergency medical care, we have already paid for it, so even if our total amount paid during a lifetime may exceed what any normal person would ever have to pay in the US, the amount is spaced out during an entire lifetime and will not bankrupt you as can be the case in America.
That's my understanding of it anyway.
Edit: And I guess you can also view this as if you never get sick, you've basically paid for nothing. I think that's an issue a lot of people have with the system. (I don't, I much prefer the security of the Swedish welfare system)
@@atnfn That's because of insurance and over regulation.
@@atnfn People who pay in cash (no insurance involved) or pay by subscription to a specific doctor end up paying less. US healthcare is an example of what happens when you pretend you have a free market but what you really have is regulatory capture and corporate protectionism.
I don't know how it works in Sweden, but in the Czech Republic, the cost for universal healthcare and social security is huge. Everybody pays 14% of their income on healthcare, 27% on social security and 15% on tax (all from the same base). Also, the current system of social security is a giant ponzi scheme and by sheer math, I, born in 1998 will pay all my working life 27% of my income and will get 0 money at retirement, making the income tax effectively 42%.
Dude....
You will get zero pension ?
Hugely expensive and horrible quality as well. Doctors here in the US are constantly taking patients from canada/UK/EU who simply cant get service in their own countries so have to come here and pay out-of-pocket AFTER having paid all that tax money. My brother specializes in back and hand surgeries and 20% of his patients come from socialized medicine countries. Its very sad.
We pay about that much out of pocket for things we don't get access to publicly in the States.
@@saucyrossy3698 that’s a choice u wait and get it done in the U.K. or pay to have it done privately I know someone who was on the list for knee replacement she went and got it done privately and then about 2 days later the nhs said they can do it next week if she wants she wasn’t happy about spending 10k and getting it done 2/3 weeks earlier also the nhs isn’t one homogeneous thing for example my area has low population density so you are seen pretty quick for everything I had a cancer scan in 5 days (low level scare if there is such a thing with cancer) 2 of them days were Saturday and Sunday I think in places like London due to the population is a bit longer to wait
One of the big reasons Sweden was comparatively wealthy going into the 1960s was they remained neutral in WWII. This meant they didn't have to fund the war and their cities and infrastructure were undamaged. This gave them a big postwar economic advantage. By the 1970s other countries had recovered, leveling the playing field with Sweden.
it's not that simple. Sweden was consistently top10 or, at worst, top15 richest country in the world BEFORE both WWs, owing it largely, like Norberg says, to free markets, low taxes, no/little regulation and tarrifs.
They didn't just stay neutral. They were busy selling arms to both sides. They also placed their railways at Germany's disposal, allowing them to invade Norway. Even in the 1980s, when I worked there, Sweden had a strong yet concealed arms trade on which much of their wealth depended. By "concealed", I mean that staff at the local 'gun factory' would take 'holidays' in Singapore at the same time as a major arms fair was taking place there.
Sweden helped the Nazi invade Norway and after ww2 they helped rebuild Europe and supplied lumber and iron aswell wich made Sweden rich.
NO
America made way more money than any other countries
It pulled it out of the wall street crash
It never even had real rationing
It was allowed to dominate world economy
And dominate world commerce onto the US dollar
I guess that explains Germany economical success.
This guy should give lecture to the congress and ivy league colleges.
I'm sure they won't invite him because they don't want to hear it
Ivy leaguers don't like facts that conflict with their views.
Toolgdskli
_Definitely_ sounds like the kind of thing you could find on TH-cam.
Not this man, but someone similar enough. I think I'll look.
Why? He already thinks the US has the ideal governance.
Sweden's success before socialism was due to its Protestant history since the time of the Peace and Treaty of Westphalia.
Yes, Swedes are hard working people. Their earlier success was also due to less government. It isn't hard to understand.
The US was also protestant
There used to be a saying along the lines of having a Protestant work ethic
Whhyte protestant is the key. The people and countries globalists are afraid of.
LMAO! Why do wingers make up obvious nonsense like this? How embarrassing.
Scandinavia has been described as Capitalist countries with a lot of taxes and a lot of benefits.
It is because there is no clear definition of what capitalism is. Capitalism is a term Marx came up with, but today it is used as something bad for those who identify as socialists and something good for those who do not identify as socialists.
And in the case of Norway-oil
@@MrGunnar69no it's because capitalism and socialism are the literal antithesis of each other in every way.
@@anthonyesposito7 Ok, describe capitalism and socialism in a couple of sentences.
Is Sweden more socialist or more capitalist? Is Sweden more capitalist or more socialist than the US?
The theory is black and white but the reality is not.
@MrGunnar69 Capitalism and socialisms CANNOT coexist. If you have read that last sentence 100 times. You cannot have a some capitalism and some socialism. Capitalism with social programs is not socialism. Socialism is also not, "when the government does stuff". Also the Nordic model is not a transition between capitalism and socialism in the way some socialists talk about socialism being the transition of capitalism to communism. These are the definitions:
Capitalism - an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole
Nordic model - the combination of social welfare and economic systems adopted by Nordic countries. It combines features of capitalism, such as a market economy and economic efficiency, with social benefits, such as state pensions and income distribution.
The county I live in is as big as Sweden in population size. And I wouldn't trust the government employees here to run anything, much less my healthcare. They can't even run our city or county well. That's the big difference between the United States and Sweden. You have nice benefits that everyone pays into and you have competent government that has values and is not corrupt. We just don't have that.
You are mostly Christian and Sweden is mostly secular, and Atheist. Churches are corrupt. Televangelists preach stealing for Jesus is good.
You don't get that by focusing all your efforts on defunding the government.
In America, we have a system, which by default, most people distrust. Granted, that's for a good reason. Political office isn't seen as "giving back" to the community, state, or country - but as a stepping stone for self-enrichment through political power. So, we get the kind of politicians our system encourages.
@@JasonTaylor-po5xc This is not an inherent aspect of the American system. There have been many eras in American history where trust in government was much higher. Think of the Theodore Roosevelt, FDR or Eisenhower administrations. Historically, after the founding of the United States.
Certainly, if there's a tradition of distrust of government (which to a degree exists everywhere, and isn't specific to the USA, it's just particularly large since the 70s on the right), there's also a large tradition of distrust of big business/capitalists. "If we will not endure a king as a political power we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessaries of life." -Senator Sherman of the Sherman Antitrust act fame, an example of Americans using government power to hobble the power of big business, which interestingly happened at the beginning of one of the biggest economic expansions of not just American but world history. If only America could remember it's spine and stop it's boot-licking of modern day robber barons.
I don't mind people distrusting government, to a degree it's warranted (if taken to dysfunctional extremes right now in the Republican Party). It's the hero worship of the uber-wealthy, and the desire to sell them the entire country in the form of bigger and bigger tax cuts, bailouts, "deregulation" and corporate welfare, that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
@@jasonquigley2633 The right distrusts the government while the left distrusts businesses. Those on the right do have more respect for those that know how to run a company and have some measure of success - especially the ones that came up from nothing.
I don't think our system originally started out they way it is, but it has evolved into what we have. I think we also have a tendency to idealize the past. There was a lot of initial reististence to FDR's New Deal because it was seen a socialist. Same thing for establishing National Parks. We have the hindsight of history to how those policies played out over the next decades, but at the time, it was just a hope and theory.
He claims that Sweden started rich and wasted its money. What about Finland? Finland started poor in 1919, implemented rather similar politics and ended up with similar living standards to Sweden.
and finland has no norwegian oil, and fought against soviets alone, lived in total poverty before that finns were starving pretty often, and couldn't accept the marshall plan either because soviets said nyet. and finland paid war debt back to usa and back to soviet union. no natural resources except forests.
"Finland's reputation as a reliable debtor was established in 1933, when Finland paid the food loan it had obtained from the United States in 1919, in full and on time. Finland was the United States' only debtor country that continued to pay its war-related debt until the end."
"Finland was originally obliged to pay $300,000,000 in gold to be paid in the form of ships and machinery, over six years.[1][2] The Soviet Union agreed to prolong the payment period from six to eight years in late 1945. In summer 1948 the sum was cut to $226,500,000 (equivalent to US$4.71 billion in 2022). The last dispatched train of the deliveries paying the war reparations crossed the border between Finland and the Soviet Union on 18 September 1952, in Vainikkala railway border station. Approximately 340,000 railroad carloads were needed to deliver all reparations.[3]"
His whole analysis is selective and misleading.
@@vmoses1979 actually this whole conversation is a little bit selective and misleading. The whole point of the full video was about Sweden's performance during the pandemic, and how they were seen as the pariahs of the world having a liberal attitude to covid restrictions. But ended up doing quite well compared to other countries. Even when discussing that he was a little bit sneaky in discussing why it worked in Sweden. He is a senior fellow at the Cato institute, so I would be taking everything he says with grain/tablespoon of salt.
In 1880 Sweden was the poorest country in Europe. Then market reforms and other liberalizations boosted the economy greatly and by 1970 Sweden was the second richest country in the world. Then the SocDem govt started wasting all the wealth on socialist experiments that destroyed large parts of the Swedish industry.
Finland is and never has been rich in any Western standards. In fact, due to having made no real changes in the 2000s we are seriously lagging behind the Scandic countries in any measure of wealth and government debt. In compensastion for at best comparable public services we pay the highest taxes in the world and our government is almost bankrupt. We are no longer comparable to the Scandis but rather to the ex-Soviet countries minus Estonia.
Unfortunately, in the U.S. we want the same European style redistributions but we refuse to have an honest discussion about how to pay for it. The phrase, "Pay their fair share" is a poor substitute for an honest talk on tax policy and it should be removed from all discourse as a public service to both political parties. It is never defined, never achieved, and it adds no clarity to the discussion. Decades of avoiding these facts have corrupted the tax laws and the wage scale, and it has left everyone thinking they pay too much, and receive too little. We can do better.
Secretly most people do pay too much and receive too little. Government spending is less efficient than citizen spending so whenever money runs through the government it results in a net loss in value. But yes, "fair share" is a totally meaningless term designed to pit people against each other.
"Gov't spending is less efficient than citizen spending"...as a recently retired DOD Financial Manager I could not agree with you more, and I am referring to all gov't spending not just the DOD.
To far too many people "pay their fair share" means everybody else pays through the nose and I don't pay anything.
@@RichD22554 Considering that USA is essentially a big corporation so doesn't it really provide any example of how a well regulated government can do things. US health care being by far the most costly in the world while also being one of the worst performing at keeping people alive are a rather stunning proof that the corporate way is not always better.
@@harmonicarchipelgo9351 Exactly, and that's another major issue. Government spending.
in the job i have I get to know people around the world, and I made a friend out of fellow analyst in Stockholm. During down times we chatted about each other's countries, as he has visited the US and knows it pretty well. He loves his home country very much and would never want to live elsewhere. I mentioned Bernie and others that want to copy the Swedish model for the US. He said it would actually be bad for the world. He pointed out that the dynamism of the US drives innovation and that if the US adopted the Scandanavian model innovation would slow to a crawl. He pointed out we are great a providing welfare, but not so good at moving the ball down the field. He also mentioned that the middle class would have to lower its standard of living, in order to duplicate the lifestyle of a typical middle class US family would in Sweden would have to make an upper class income to afford.
Yes, a big part of the cost to have these safety nets is you have much less take home income. Home Ownership in Sweden is lower than the U.S. Square footage of living space per person is lower. Fuel and Energy costs more in Sweden. With the VAT tax, everything costs more in Sweden. There are trade offs for everything.
This is not true, Sweden is one of the more inovative countries in the world with only 10 million people... Having saftey nets allows people to take risks.
I will take the word of an actual Swede, thank you.
@@timgt5 lol I am a swede… we have never had as many homeless and unemployed as now due to the decline of socialism.
You have to realise that this is a propaganda Chanel and Johan’s life work is making propaganda for capitalism. He has even written a book called: the capitalist manifesto, and why the free market will save the world
I am a Swede (industrial engineer) While I do agree that the US is great at driving innovation, I think your friend has a bit of a negative view on Swedish industry which is actually ranked as the 2nd most innovative in the world (US is ranked 3rd)
I think there are significant difficulties with trying to adopt a Swedish model in other countries and there are parts I strongly dislike about our government spending, but overall there are some things that just clearly are better here.
As the person above stated, safety nets allow for taking risks. This is exceptionally true for me, who has a chronic health condition and grew up without rich parents to pay for education (both of which are paid for through the tax system).
*I would add that the IT sector definetely would slow innovation to a crawl without the US in the driver's seat
You will never convince Bernie. He will offer to give you everything you want if you just vote for him. Whether he can deliver is something he doesn't lose sleep over.
He is a closed-minded millionaire.
That Marxist Leninist POS was an elector for the Socialist Workers Party in 1980 and 1984. The Socialist Workers Party was overtly Marxist Leninist (traditionally Trotskyite, later Castroite). As mayor of Burlington, Sanders flew the Soviet and Cuban flags over city hall, and he spent his honeymoon in 1988 in the Soviet Union. He came back full of flatulent praise for the Soviet system, even as the Soviets themselves were admitting it was a failure.
Bidenomics trid to give everyone free stuff and we ended up with skyrocketing inflation. anyone who understands socialism warned this would happen.
Bernie was fawning of the Soviet Union in the 80s. Bernie is dumb.
as opposed to other american politicians you have voted into the senate? you know, who take donor money from companies, and get cushy jobs from companies after political career, because corruption is legal in usa. whats the worst thing that could happen? that you get universal healthcare? ooh, very scary. please don't take me to a dentist paid by others, aaghh...
Everyone in these countries pays taxes unlike in the US where we keep shrinking are tax base.
America is a country with a very low tax rate. That's part of the appeal. There isn't supposed to be a god damn safety net. It's supposed to be a refuge from government tyranny. It's way off path now with growing taxes and government control, but it still seems to be better than 99 percent of countries in the world, which is why people try and move to the USA more than any other country on the planet.
The rich pay highest % of taxes.
@@classreductionistmost billionaires are "paper billionaires", i.e. their billions are money invested (in a form of shares) in some businesses and working to create products and services. Those are not billions buried in vaults without use. You cannot tax money invested into shares, because they are not an income until shares are sold for profit (and this may never happen, sometimes shares are sold for loss). But the government taxes the income produced by the businesses, so those billions invested into businesses are still "taxed", just indirectly, through the work produced by the capital.
@@classreductionistHow so?
@@classreductionist : the top 1% of income earners pays over 40% of the total taxes collected. The bottom 50% of all income earners pay net zero in taxes when you factor in deductions and credits. The 'rich' are carrying the load.
Today there seems to be little or no understanding of what anything actually is, and there's no more glaring example than the popular understanding of socialism.
OECD countries are not socialist. www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/tax-database/tax-database-update-note.pdf
Then tell right wingers to stop calling everything they don't like/don't understand "socialism".
The trouble is, "socialism" is used to describe many different, even opposite, things. Is it government control of the means of production? Then Scandinavia doesn't match. In fact, from America, it's the opposite direction than countries that strictly control their economics (which necessarily become authorization or merely corrupt, as government economic control removes the means to oppose either). Leftists are at least as likely to use the term for anything and its opposite as rightists.
Those people are lost anyway, no winning those folks over. Lol
@@williamjameslehy1341 Then tell the left wingers to stop calling capitalist funded welfare states socialist, and admit Pol Pots Cambodia or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is what is really looks like. Then the right wingers might get it right.
Most in the US do not realize the employer pays half of their tax before cutting the paycheck. Then they pay the other half. Then they pay health insurance before they get paid. Then they pay copays at the doctor’s office. When the totals are fairly compared the difference depends on income levels, with some better and some worse off than they would be in the other countries
Income taxes in the US don't make sense
Employers pay half an employee's taxes? Nonsense. I stopped reading right there.
@@Mondo762 Yeah, it was oversimplified. The employer pays half of payroll tax only (FICA tax -- Social Security and Medicare).
Nothing of income tax.
No. In fact in just about every other developed nation, ordinary people are better off in real terms than they are in the US.
@@ObakuZenCenter Why do you think that is?
3:30 “We love to tax!”. -Swede
That’s no “dirty secret”.
So do socialist democrats. they love taxation.
Tack så mycket! Norberg is the "best" at explaining Sweden. A long time ago I was a student at Stockholm University. I learned the Swedish language. My great-grandparents are buried in a church-yard in Sweden. The country has meaning for me and Norberg helps to explain their system. BTW, the churches in Sweden are stunning, really beautiful. If you should visit, make sure to take time to explore them.
Norberg has an entire hour long show on swedish history and economics
You mean Swedistan, what a m0r0n people!😂
In Sweden the social democrats came to power in the early 1930's. At first the relationship between government and industry was conflictual, until both government and industry leaders, in particular the Wallenberg family, understood that through cooperation would be more beneficial both for industry and government. The Swedish government made sure that industry had a very good environment to work in. Industry paid good wages and that guaranteed peace between employers and employees. In case there were problem the Swedish PM could pick up the phone and call Mr. Wallenberg, the strong man of Sweden's industry, and solve the problem to the satisfaction of both parties. And it worked also the other way around! Voters rewarded the social democrats with voting for them. In Sweden employees could see how the standard of living rose from year to year.
It did in America too, from 1933 to 1981. Eccles, Keynes, and FDR made a middle class for a demand economy
londonbanker.blogspot.com/search?q=eccles
I understand in Germany (and perhaps also in Sweden), union officials sit on corporate boards. It’s different than the “Us vs Them” attitude of trade unionists in the English speaking world (ie Arthur Scargill).
Fantastic review of the Swedish political-economic environment over time. Very well done. This deserves more views.
You can not talk about these Scandinavian or Nordic countries with out talking about how they are the least culturally diverse, have the most strictest immigration policy, and how all five Nordic countries combined have a total of 26 million people compared to the 350 million in the US
"When I talk about capitalism in the US, I am not talking about San Francisco or Chicago, I am talking about cities like Salt Lake." - if Bernie was a Republican.
Also the US basically covers all of their defense budget
Size and lack of cultural diversity really has nothing to do with their success, and strict immigration policies probably hurts them more than helps.
@@2vexyit's not good to delude yourself because you just don't want to believe your beloved communism doesn't and never has work.
@@savevsdeath I'm not a communist and nothing I've said is deluded, on the other hand I would say it's not good to delude yourself that you know anything about economics when you clearly don't.
I wish they had addressed the salaries of the top executives in Sweden. I believe we would find much less greed in Sweden.
There is no Estate Tax in Sweden if you didn't know.
@@leeroggenburg1148 Yes, I know.
There's probably an equal level of greed, as they're still human. There may be less TOLERANCE for greed among the population, which would tend to restrain the behaviors of the greedy.
And much less innovation and business start ups.
@@darbyohara Sweden is one of the most innovative countries in the world what are you talking about??
Sweden is not socialist, it is a Capitalist Democracy as is Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland, New Zealand. They also have a free press as shown on the Press Freedom Index vs USA's 46th place.
USA was like Denmark in 1976 on the GINI index. Denmark's Index Fund is EDEN and USA was in parity with EDEN 200 years after it was born.
As a New Zealander I say that the press is far from free.
They took their 30 pieces of silver to not talk about some subjects, like how NZ has 16-30% excess deaths since late 2021.
We're losing more people in unexplained excess deaths per month than died in the Christchurch earthquake and shooting combined.
They both received endless media coverage (And Royal Commissions of Inquiry).
Yet the excess deaths?
A deafening silence.
It’s socialist
@@darbyohara Democracy is not socialism. USA was a Democracy from 1933 to 1981 and in 1976 tied Denmark on the GINI index of income disparity. www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=democracy+index+2023
@@darbyohara No. Never was.
Sounds like in Sweden the people who use the services actually pay for them but the government decides how your money is managed over a lifetime.
This would be true if everyone paid the same amount of taxes, which obviously isn't the case. But he described the "idea" pretty well.
I'm curious if there is a full cut of the show? The jump cuts are distracting and don't show the full conversation. just curious. I assume it's behind a paywall.
Idk about this specific show. Johan Norberg has a whole documentary on TH-cam about this though. It’s very good
She links to it at the very end. th-cam.com/video/wC5AG7JDUfY/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=ReasonTV
Cuba has been under a U.S. embargo for more than 1/2 a century, Venezuela since Chavez. The downtowns of most U.S. cities and towns look like horror shows to me; is our model what we should be exporting?
Be crazy dictator - get an embargo. No so complicated, right?
@@leonidfro8302 The U.S supports and props up dictators all over the world IF they play nice with Western capitalists. Those governments, dictatorships or not (Chavez was elected fair and square, so was Aristide in Haiti or Hamas in Gaza, for example), that don't conform to the demands of the rich capitalist countries ae sanctioned, invaded, destabilized, or otherwise destroyed.
@@leonidfro8302 lol it's only because the rich in the u.s. are so afraid of socialism...
@@pierre3205 Everyone should be afraid. Murderous dictatorship is bad, but if people in Venezuela want to die for it - good luck with that.
Not to mention those countries aren’t taking on much “diversity” and paying out welfare to new arrivals relatively speaking, Sweden only recently has began to and is regretting it.
They’re 95% white and strictly control immigration
2020 saw 4% of the population not of Swedish origin. In 2022 it is 15%. GW's War on Terror has made 37,500,000 Refugees.
The western city with the highest rate of ISIS-warrior that went to fight was Gothenburg.
@@dthomas9230 Nothing to do with a war on terror. It's your stupid policies that attract economic refugees.
Oh man, this is my first view of ReasonTV - 1 min in, I’ve subscribed.
Sweden also acquired its large fortune by selling iron ore to the Nais during WWII while they remained "neutral".
One can criticise Swedish policy in World War II Edit: "(They" allowed troops to be moved to Finland (Although I give Finland a break given the bear they were facing too.) and did not give a token Declaration of War against nazi Germany either.), however they took in dissidents and jews who would have been murdered. Cut them some slack. Portugal did the same with Tungsten but they were a major conduit for refugees to America, as well as giving an avenue for jews to escape, and later the Azores.
Just like US was selling weapon and food to UK in WWII
A 6 year export of ore to one country does not make a fortune.
Selling raw materials and stuff to rebuild Europe after the war did make a fortune though.
@@johnnotrealname8168 The only countries that declared war upon Germany was the UK and France, all other allies were either attacked or declared war upon by an axis power.
And yes, that includes both the US and the Soviet Union.
Why do you think Sweden (as the only neutral power to do so) should have declared war on Germany?
Nobody really brings up that Sweden only has little over 10 million people.
It’s called immigration policy
@stldweller Their immigration policies have been really bad for the last 10 years, North African Muslims been going there, and now there's alot of no go zones now. About 20 percent of Sweden population is foreign born
I just brought up the population cause it's alot easier to have all those welfare programs with 10 million people compared to the USA 320 million
The US government alone spends about 150 billion a year on obesity related medical
@@bigphil815 That's comparing apple and oranges. US federal level is akin to the whole of Europe, and state level to individual countries in Europe. Where the US have states, we have independent sovereign nations. Population wise, Europe is bigger than the US.
If you should compare, compare it to something like Virginia, Michigan, North Carolina or New Jersey for example, which are all similar in population size.
As for the basis of the argument, that it is harder for large countries compared to smaller countries to implement certain policies, I will ask this;
Is it easier or more difficult for a large nation compared to a smaller one, to accumulate resources?
Size doesn't really have anything to do with economic success, small countries have less access to resources as a result of their smaller population
@@stldweller 8,000,000 in '96 when I migrated here.
Mr Norberg makes good points. However, I think that Mr Norberg misses that many Americans might hear this and think "great, I'd plump for that".
As someone who studied Swedish and lived briefly in Scandinavia, even spoke to a Swede who didn't speak English (yes, they exist, and her perspective was enlightening...she felt trapped despite the nice trappings), I'm often making similar points...that America's taxation is already more progressive than most of Europe, which needs substantial regressive value added taxes levied on the middle class and poor to pay for the benefits...that Denmark is often rated friendlier to businesses than America.
I've often thought that if Sanders presented the high VAT, high services model to Americans, the gloss would lessen, hence he doesn't.
But, there also appeal. Americans might turn out to be in favor of a softer version of the Scandinavian model, even if it meant them paying a bit more in taxes, and a bit slower growth, even a VAT and flat tax, in exchange for fewer medical bankruptcies (it's increasingly popular to view medical insurance as a scam, negotiating pointlessly complex rates with hospitals that create secret charge master sheets, despite the law requiring them to be public, making it impossible to know what the charges will be, and then there's the fight with the insurance company to pay up). The ironically named Inflation Reduction Act (doesn't spending increase inflation?) nevertheless meant that the busy federal highway near me got paved for the first time in fifteen years. It had more potholes than some nearby gravel forest roads. And I think many Americans would be fine with school choice.
Norberg may be convincing Americans that Sweden is in fact fairly nice (as it is), and be willing to have some compromises (flat tax, modest VAT) to get better roads, urban transit, walkable neighborhoods like my mom had 75 years ago (I visited not long ago), coverage for catastrophic as well as routine checks and basic care for ongoing conditions, fully funded social security, safe parks and streets. Americans would have sticker shock at the full Scandinavian model, but might shrug at the cost of a more basic kind. Sanders' blame of the billionaires for everything rings a bit hollow, but if a moderate were ever to come along (and much of what get presented as leftist programs were signed into place by, say, Nixon), such a proposal might garner wide support. As catchy perhaps as Make America Great Again and Build Back Better. (The latter sounds slightly awful, though, makes one wonder what will be torn down.)
I agree. Go for Canada (scaled down public health care) and you have a winner.
"...trapped despite nice trappings..." very interesting. Could you expand on what she meant there?
I think a VAT would be an amazing thing for the American government, but I can’t imagine the American people would ever agree to it.
We get lots of stuff and we pay for it all, says the Scandinavian. That's a little bit different than here in the United States where we pay for it all in taxes; and then , in addition, we pay for it all again out of pocket. They pay for it all through taxation; but they only pay once.
In the United States we have capitalist elements and we have socialist elements. Businesses, especially big businesses, rely on government for a large part of their income in subsidies (corporate welfare), while at the same time deriding the welfare state for everyone else. That makes everything more expensive for the average citizen. To repeat; taxed for social security and health care, then pay more and more out of pocket in addition.
We have a mixed economy and that's about the best that we can hope for. A pure capitalist market economy is not a good idea. Let's quit lying about the so called welfare state, how it should be structured, and who benefits.
I don't think we can use IKEA when we're bragging about our economic policy. If you're looking to IKEA, you'll see something at least a little bit corrupt, to be kind.
And If we're going to talk about having public education subsidized at the same rate as private education, then we're not talking about the United States because we are increasing subsidies to private education while continually cutting that support for public education.
There seems to be a lot of reason on Reason TV, but it's slanted in favor of the purely capitalist model. Propaganda.
Generally speaking, the US was far better off before the federal income tax, the federal reserve and the slew of great society style welfare programs that the gargantuan federal government came up with after it had the resources (money ripped from the people it “serves”).
Laissez faire markets are in fact, a good idea
Only some industries do well from the US government- Agriculture and Pharmaceuticals and Defence. Total myth that mining and industrials get much at all. The US has an enormous welfare state- 50% of population gets something.
companies like Ford in usa would have been bankrupt long time ago without government assistance. japanese car making was superior as a competitor, longer lasting parts, cheaper, better fuel economy. but ford makes police cars on government contract etc.
estonia privatized farms and their farms are fine. yet almost all of the farms around the world are subsidized by government, including in usa, for irrational fear that "everyone will starve if they are not subsidized."
@@michaelciantar2674 Oil companies got a trillion #It's not just the US: according to the International Energy Agency, fossil fuel handouts hit a global high of $1 trillion in 2022 - the same year Big Oil pulled in a record $4 trillion of income. In the United States, by some estimates taxpayers pay about $20 billion dollars every year to the fossil fuel industry.3 major oil companies in 2023
sen. whitehouse on fossil fuel subsidies: “we are subsidizing ...
Senate.gov
One HUGE disclaimer here is that Johan Norberg states that we have FLAT local regional taxes. This is untrue and basis for this is the so called "grundavdrag" basic deduction and also the "jobbskatteavdrag" - deduction for income that is labor(workers) related. Both of these adjust accordingly to your income and makes the taxes progressive and not flat.
Johan Norberg is an author, not someone who is educated in taxes.
With kind regards
A swedish Tax Lawyer
What Johan is not counting is the cost the citizens pay for services in the US that the government doesn’t cover. For medical care you pay around $200 a month and your company pays $200 also ( that’s for a single person). VAT is used in Europe but the US has state and local sales tax. Sure some states don’t have sales tax but, that means they have a higher payroll tax or property tax. The real difference between US system and Scandinavian system is out come. Which has higher educated people? Which has a longer life span? Which has a lower crime rate? Both systems have democratic system. Which system is better for the people? My vote goes to the Scandinavian system.
There have been explosions all over Sweden lately though
NEVER. The US is the greatest. Dont want to hear from stagnant, crumbling countries....Europe and the rest of the world. Cant wait for President Trump to come back and get us out of the UN, NATO and the rest of the foreign bloodsucking bs.
Johan Norberg is absolutely correct. Everybody pays for welfare in Scanidinavia - the key of national/tax income. Coming from Denmark - we have a similar system. Our taxes in Denmark are perhaps more progressive than in Sweden. The Danish economy also seems more stable than in Sweden. Regardless, redistribution is the key here. Another key factor is homogeneous societies in Scandinavia have succeeded to create heavy taxed welfare states, where the different populations seem to be satisfied with the return - (the state level of service received in return). The US should perhaps look at France as a better comparison. The welfare state in France is nearly as developed as in Scandinavia in terms of basic level of service such as free school, colleges, universities and health care. However the French are struggling since the French economy is not performing as well as in Scandinavia. Diversity in terms of the fabric of the population in France and the US are also comparable in the long run. Thus, both populations are not as homogeneous as in Denmark, Sweden or Norway. Yet, the French seem to have a better welfare state than in the US. I suggest that the political establishment should have a good at France to see how it is done in a society closer to the one at home - and come to Scandinavia to get inspired of our efficiency.
Our spin in the US about multi-culturalism being one of our supposed strengths is tearing this country apart. If immigrants want to live here, there must be a concerted effort to Americanize them, and assimilate into our social norms, culture, form of government, and economic policy.
Coming here and hating on America is such a slap in our faces, and so disrespectful. And this far left socialist movement that not only encourages it, but has infected the minds of our OWN CHILDREN to hate this nation they were born in, has simply gone too far.
Our spin in the US about multi-culturalism being one of our supposed strengths is tearing this country apart. If immigrants want to live here, there must be a concerted effort to Americanize them, and assimilate into our social norms, culture, form of government, and economic policy.
Coming here and hating on America is such a slap in our faces, and so disrespectful. And this far left socialist movement that not only encourages it, but has infected the minds of our OWN CHILDREN to hate this nation they were born in, has simply gone too far.
He's wrong about trade unions. I'm in one and we don't take big raises either so we can stay competitive.
In the US, the #1 cause of bankruptcy is healthcare cost, and I believe the 2nd cause is also related to healthcare. Who do think pays the bill then? We also fund the R and D for prescription drug companies and then dont negotiate prices. Insurance companies run a crony monopolistic coverage system. God knows how much all the companies pay on top of salaries for employees healthcare. I mean fuck, arguing FOR our system is absolutely bananas, it doesnt even work. Not to mention our non-universal healthcare system costs more in taxpayer money per capita than Canadas ranking behind some poor no resource non powerful countries.
Maybe if Americans weren’t so damn fat and unhealthy they wouldn’t get sick as often and incur huge medical bills 🤔
Bang on correct. No matter how you cut it, it's broken.
Government intervention made it so. More government is not the answer.
Can anyone tell me what percentage of Swedish taxpayers money is delivered to foreign countries?
In the US it is less than 1%, but people think is more. We have 1 former Raytheon guy who has saved us over 2/3 of a Trillion$ by going over contracts. We can trillions more.
Sweden is/was the country in the world with the highest foreign aid per capita. I don't know if it is still like that, but it is still high compared to many countries.
@@MrGunnar69 3. Sweden
Average Foreign Aid Given Per Capita Between 2018-2022: $572
2. Norway
Average Foreign Aid Given Per Capita Between 2018-2022: $810
1. Luxembourg
Average Foreign Aid Given Per Capita Between 2018-2022: $827
11. Finland
Average Foreign Aid Given Per Capita Between 2018-2022: $235
16. United States Of America
Average Foreign Aid Given Per Capita Between 2018-2022: $156
@@RedmanticoreSweden gives 4 times as much aid as the USA.
It has been 1% for a long time, the recently elected government wants to cut back to 0,85% - which is still more than nearly every other country in the world. The left is howling in desperation over this "slap in the face of poor people"...
holly shit 25% vat tax?
we dont eat out.
probably because the same pizza that costs 3 dollars there would cost 25 euros here.
finland has 24% vat tax. with average wage around 3000 euros per month after taxes on highly educated people. europeans don't give tips in usa. we just want to enjoy the cheap prices once in our lives on a 1 month annual holiday.
@@Redmanticore Most basic pizza in Sweden cost about 10$ (including tax).
At about 11:00, in Sweden companies do not try to constantly lower the wages of the workers!
yeah pretty much, think of it this way, every citizen pays their own living experience , some pay more and some pay less depending how their life went, someone who did well for themselves and didn't have as much problems in life they pay more statistically because they don't take as much out of the system but on the other hand those who had a terrible life they are still paying into the system they just take out more from the system because they need more assistance, nobody wants a shitty life so they try to live as well as they can and in that way they pay more than they get back but because their life is good they don't mind it, it does get a bit on some peoples nerves though when there are those who abuse the system either by siphoning money from the system or take their money abroad so they can tuck away money from the big pot that everyone in sweden shares.
it's almost like a mother having 3 kids and every year on her birthday she gets gifted a sum of money from each kid and the mother typically helps out the kid who's struggling the most with the help of those birthday gift money, but doesn't mean the mother doesn't help the others when they struggle in their own way.
I find it funny that Americans think that Scandinavian countries are some kind of socialist utopia. They are all an open market (capitalist) economy with some regulation and strong social safety nets and common privileges funded by relatively high taxes. Their populations are fairly small, which has far fewer special interest groups, which helps. However, in America, while our taxes might be slightly lower, we seem to get far less for what we put into our system and I think that is more about efficiency than anything else. There is a lot more robbing Peter to pay Paul type thing here too.
He doesn't understand that these countries, besides being fundamentally capitalist, have a cohesive, homogeneous culture. (Denmark & Norway; not so sure about Sweden, which seems like a mess). Immigration laws are tighter.
There’s this notion that “Here’s a problem, government should do something.” It speaks to laziness and a willingness to ands care autonomy in one’s own life to a body of people who have no understanding of the needs of individuals, families, neighborhoods and communities
This was really interesting & informative, thank you! 👍
As a Swede, born in the mid '50s, and having experienced all the stages of Swedish economic development Johan Norberg explained so eloquently, I can only agree. There were some mistakes made but the government managed to correct them before too much damage was done. Thank you for a very comprehensive description of life in Sweden.
Dude we are still seeing damage done by those dark years. There still haven't been any large industrial companies created for example.
"the government managed to correct them" = the Social Democrats lost the election and the less socialist opposition came to power.
As a Swede I approve this description of my country as very accurate!
Of course you can have lots of opinions of what's good or bad about our country, its society, the history, the present and its future direction.
I do!
But this description is a good start for a discussion for anyone who cares.
Which probably are fewer than cares about the next Ikea parcel ;-)
Norway is called by some (Swedish politician)... "The last Soviet state". After living in Norway for the last 30 years I can attest that it sometimes feels like it. The state involves itself way too much in our lives. Eg. I can´t buy alcohol when it suits me, only when the state says I can. I cant shop when it suits me, only when the state says I can. Overtaxation (income tax) 11 months of the year only to give me a "tax break" in December.... state obviously doesn't think I have the disiplin to save for Xmas. I could go on. Frustrating for someone that grew up in a more liberal (free) society. The rich have moved to Switzerland (among other countries) the last years and we that are left are eagerly awaiting the increased taxes that must come to finance the loss of income. Even the Polish that came in the 90s as migrant workers are moving back home. As for Sweden.... I give them 20 years before the countries implodes. Lykke til Skandinavia!
Up until recently, Scandinavian countries were all homogenous, high trust populations. Now that willingness to pay for everything is cracking.
that's a fact that cannot be overstated. The whole Scandinavian welfare state works only as long as it's socially unacceptable for everyone to be a leech on the welfare state and therefore there are factually no leeches.
Change that, and the whole society will crumble.
Oh yes, that has been changed.
But as long as you are part of the society you will pay. Thus it's a bad reflex.
At 5.50: I would like to know when Sweden was socialist! I live in Finland and I have relatives that live in Sweden. I have always been interested in the history of Sweden because Finland was once the eastern part of Sweden. Also I am fluent in Swedish! And to my knowledge Sweden has NEVER been socialist! Så, herr Norberg, när var Sverige ett socialistiskt land?
You're correct. Only American media who hate democracy describe successful democracies as socialist since it has a negative connotation, but it is not true.
Two words: Olof Palme.
Socialism is the reason why Ikea is not Sweden anymore, despite wearing Sweden colors.
@@onebronx , when was Sweden socialist? And the relpy is Sweden has never been socialist.
Olof Palme did not turn Sweden into a socialist country! Sweden stayed a monarchy with a multiparty parliament! Those that claim that Sweden was socialist do not know what it means for a country to be socialist! The Soviet Union was socialist! Sweden during Palme's premiership did not in any way resemble the Soviet Union!
@@tombrunila2695 > Olof Palme did not turn Sweden into a socialist country! Sweden stayed a monarchy with a multiparty parliament!
Monarchy and parlament are forms of a government, it has nothing to do with a political philosophy or an economic model. Anyway, there were several changes in the constitution during Palme's tenure which stripped monarchy all real powers.
> Sweden during Palme's premiership did not in any way resemble the Soviet Union!
To be a socialist state it is not required to be the literal clone of the Soviet Union. Socialism is model when a "private ownership" is replaced with a "social ownership", meaning the owner of an enterprise cannot make economic decisions alone anymore, [s]he needs an approval of some agency mandated by the state. E.g. cannot fire a poor worker without consulting with a mandatory trade union. Cannot increase prices on their product without an approval from a price regulator. Cannot refuse state contracts; cannot make new contracts without state approval, etc.
There are different ways to force the "social ownership". One is the "hard" USSR-like one: expropriation of means of production and a state ownership ("Your cow is mine now"). Another is a "soft" European-like one: forced redistribution via high taxes and a welfare state, partial "social ownership" via pervasive trade unions ("Okay, you can keep your cow, but all the milk is mine"). Socialism is a spectrum.
@@onebronx , the Soviet Union was a socialist state and it is exactly what socialist states look like! And no fantasy based explanations and claims will change that! The Western European states were not socialist! The Eastern European states were and their system was the same as that of the Soviet Union!
Love when people try to explain Sweden away with confounding factors when talking about lockdowns then completely ignore the idea of confounding factors when looking at welfare state and of course static analysis which is the norm for people who don't have good history and theory of economic growth, production and redistribution.
It is true that corporatism is not socialism but it is still a collectivist ideology as our "friend" Mussolini states in his writings. Some make like it better as it is a mixture of free market capitalism and socialism. The "free market" part is missing as it cannot exist with the command economy centered on the central bank.
Our economy should be more collectivist. Individualism has destroyed us.
Eccles, FDR, Keynes, and H Ford created a Demand economy and the 1st middle class. londonbanker.blogspot.com/search?q=eccles
Yes, it is terrible that we lost that battle in the US long ago. It's been downhill ever since.
About 8 years ago, I was outside a neighborhood bar on the north side of Chicago talking to a Swedish kid on the street while we were smoking. Politics came up, and the kid said "You Americans are lucky, you have a Second Amendment - I sure wish we had one of those in Sweden, because shits getting stupid over there." That was EIGHT years ago. It's muchly more stupider nowadaze....
A story about some Swedish kid isn't the most compelling case in the world that Sweden is doing terribly.
I'm Swedish, and I can tell you violent crime has increased a lot. People has started talking about the right to self-defense, which is quite new. We were a very peaceful country until mass-migration hit us. 20-30 years ago a single murder was a head-line for weeks, now we have gang/clan related murders every week. Even innocent bystanders are shot dead by these criminals now, including innocent family members of these gangs.
I never thought about self-defense until this started getting out of hand, but now I do.
The only way to have a Scandinavian government is to have extremely strong borders and immigration controls.
Which Scandinavian countries do not have. Sweden has increased its population by over 20 percent in the last 30 years and it has been done with people from the third world.
A government doesn't pay for anything, they are a cost. Working people pay for welfare.
@@MrGunnar69 Same issue in Norway, and just like in Sweden, it's not working out. A scandinavian welfare state is not sustainable with large scale immigration from 3rd world countries.
@@alexb9566 I'll chip in and note that the scandinavian countries outsourced their border control to the EU - that is, Greece and Italy - and touted their open border ideals knowing full well that anyone wanting to come had to push through those borders first. There's a cynical logic to this, not entirely different from driving without a seatbelt under the belief that accidents don't happen to you.
Well, turns out accidents do happen and when push came to shove in 2015 the borders closed and a long, slow reality check started to work its way into the political systems.
There's far more to these issues, but it's hard not to notice how for instance Sweden could flaunt it's moral superiority and open borders/open hearts policies while at the same time being situated in the far reaches of the EU, far from the hotbeds of immigration and the EU-border guards patrolling the seas.
@@MrGunnar69 I understand that Denmark has closed up it's borders. Has Sweden made changes to it's immigration policy?
LMAO! Do wingers genuinely believe such nonsense? How embarrassing.
I think that Johan has a very partial historic analasys.
Stop. Please. Every time they do a poll Scandinavian countries have the happiest populations. When you live in a country where you are not in constant fear of being destitute and homeless your life is a lot happier.
even the poorest social welfare recipient in any scandinavian country apartment has 2000 euro gaming laptop and iPhone on his apartment.
There is still no such thing as a free lunch.
Just remember that Johan Norberg is one of the more liberal and/or right wing debaters we have in Sweden. The fact that he comes to the conclusion that Sweden has never been socialist and successful at the same time is par for the course. And here we never talk much about socialism except for fringe parties, but of social democracy, which is similar but not the same. I dare say that the whole swedish political spectrum accepts the welfare state as a concept, but keep bickering about how to solve problems. Crime is a classic. The right wants a larger police force and tougher punishment. The left want more social safety nets and rehabilitation. I also think Norbergs take on swedish trade unions is slightly misleading.
Almost no countries are socialist, capitalist, communist, etc… Every developed country is a mixed economy. That being said, as I’ve grown older I’ve begun to see more merit in the Nordic way of doings things. Especially around transit, prison, and healthcare.
Nordic states are the size of single US cities.
@@SoloRenegade still waiting for your actual point
@@cxsey8587 The point is that sure we could just adopt the same ways of doing things but given the population of the US, the diverse population of the US and the size of the country means that it might not as easy or ever as effective.
For transit just in LA alone has about 3 million and has a decent transit system, compared to other states but when you have about 3 million using it everyday the wear of the system cost more to mantain. Which has been a huge problem for cali since the begining of it's pop explosion. Roads and highways have been expanding every year, the number of buses on the road, the train system and rails have been costing the state more since people have been less inclined to use it so it bleeding money.
Healthcare, in Cali alone 39 million people, a most from diffrent backgrounds which change the health makeup of America while Sweden's health is near homogenous. With the recent migrants they are start to hit a head funny enough since they now have to pivot quickly. The amount of health issues faced and not to mention the rate of obesity is far different then in Sweden. Tack on welfare which in sweden is about 400,000 in total rounding up vs 1.5 mil in Cali alone.
Prisons, Cali alone has some the highest prison populations, which holds about nearly 1/4 of the population stockholm including employees.
Size isn't everything but in this case can make the problem so expensive it makes it impossible without just breaking everything or needing more and more money every year. The kicker is America is stil growing and not all of its number are accounted for so there are probably more people then surveyed.
tldr what works for 10 people will not work with 1000.
@@KnightOfTheWiredfor transit, that's nonsense. Transit specifically has economies of scale, and the higher the population the more economical it is. If anything, it should be easier to run a mass transit system in california, a region with a huge population concentrated in two relatively small regions, then in Sweden where the population is spread out over a bunch of small towns and cities.
Japan has a similar geography to California(mountainous, earthquake prone, big population, dense urban areas), and they have some of the best mass transit on earth. If Japan can do it, why can't california?
@@KnightOfTheWired, a more populuos nation will have it easier funding the welfare state because they can distribute the fixed costs to bigger population (i.e they have economies of scale). Infrastructure is cheaper when done for more people, because the expertise and skill stays within the country. In these small European countries very often you need to hire foreign consultants that get there on what would be 500,000 EUR salary (if they were salaried) with full paid travel expenses to give their skills to the project. U.S. literally has every worker and every skill there could be within their borders. There's no need to import anything. U.S. is destined to be richest society there could be, yet it isn't.
so what you are saying is it worked a nd we can bring it to the united states
Sweden has health care for every person-I lived in Sweden, and it’s a good system…
The problems with socialism is you always run out of other people's money" Margaret Thatcher.
Kind of like our government spending trillions on war and almost having to shutdown the government?
Sounds like government. 🤭
"The problem with margaret thatcher is she didn't know what she was talking about" The Sane People of the World
you misspelled "insane"@@hairywhodini3429
*grabs Africa and India*
Sweden had a marginal tax of 70% in the 1940’s already. The Swedish industrial boom came during a period when Sweden was much more “socialist” by todays standard. Otherwise, a pretty good summary.
If you think a 70% tax rate is something positive you are a tyrant. That's that.
Similarly, the marginal tax rate in the in the post-war United States, during the longest sustained economic boom in its history, was close to 90%, and at times a bit higher than 90%.
Healthcare can't be a "right" unless slavery is legalized.
The population of Sweden is very small. The entire country is just over 10 million. NYC is about 8 million.
and china has 1.5 billion people, usa is dwarf compared to china. solution is scalable.
your point?
Sweden is like Michigan in pop and economy.
So if Sweden can do it so can Michigan.
When Norway discovered its oil reserves, the state got ownership of most of it and the money earned from selling that oil went directly into a megafund that supports the norwegian economy. In the US that oil would've been privately pumped out with nobody seeing a single dime of that money. In fact, that is literally what happened in the US with its oil reserves. That's the difference between Skandinavia and the US.
Alaska has a permanent public fund based on oil revenue.
@@sanniepstein4835 tiny one compared to norways, norway put most of it, Alaska puts tiny percentage.
also finland is just fine, without oil, fought alone against soviets, couldn't get marshall plan because soviets said nyet.
Try living there, I did. 60% income tax for everybody, 25% purchase tax on everything and some of the highest self ending rates anywhere. I was very happy to leave.
Yeah you’ll be broke and living in a tiny apartment. But you’ll have free mediocre healthcare 🤣
@@darbyohara How right you are, the strange thing is that so many buy into the system.
What a crappy comment. I bet you didn't actually live in Sweden.
I'm from. Sweden and would like to comment. In Sweden we have privatosed schools and healthcare institutions. Not all the but some. All of them get funding from taxes. The problem is that many of them are owned by venture capital companies. They take profits from those institutions and send it those international companies. Sweden is the only country in Europe thta let companys take tax money and send it abrod to increased the wealth of those big corporations. Some countrys let the institutions make a profit but they have to invest it in the institution. About 90 % of the Swedish population is against this but the polititions let it go one because of close ties to those companys. I for one is not very glad that my tax money is sent to rich companys. Just so you know.
7:40 its worth saying that they did start easing of the taxes alreddy in the late 80s, but it was to little to late.
The crash in the 90 was more so a monetary tax due to a inflated value
Rich people are rich because they know how to LEGALLY NOT PAY taxes. They understand trusts. They understand all the ways that you can store money without being taxed on it. That's why they are rich. And that's why everyone else is stupid and poor. Be smart and rich, not stupid and poor. Learn about trusts.
The myth that taxation is the vehicle to utopia will never be realized.
Im rich and dont have any trusts. I started a business and worked my arse off in my 30s while my friends partied.
It was for millions of refugees though, in Scandinavia. They were deemed to weak or too damaged to work properly, so they were given pensions and/or all the other subsidized goods without going through the midlife grinder . It's AllahuAkbar from here to Fiji Islands :) @@bizzwoofer
Literally every developed country on the planet aside from the US has universal, tax funded, healthcare. Mindblowing that this is somehow still controversial in the US. The scandinavian countries ALL have higher social mobility then the US. That's right, the american dream is WAY more likely to be achieved in scandinavia then in the US. All the nordic countries are capitalist countries, none of them are "socialist" in the way that americans seem to think it is (aka communism).
You mean a mandatory state controlled social security system? What about choice, freedom?
Wow, better mobility for a combined population of something like 26 million people compared to 331 million. Not to mention in all countries that until quite recently have been extremely homogenous in comparison to the US and had quite limited immigration until the last like 20 years. Keep immigration up from outside the EU in particular for another 50 or so years and we'll reevaluate.
@@chickenfishhybrid44 I dont think we'll have to wait that long. Things are going downhill here real fast. The social mobility stats take population into account. Here's a pretty entertaining Ted talk about social mobility. th-cam.com/video/A9UmdY0E8hU/w-d-xo.html
@@chickenfishhybrid44 we act as if per capita metrics aren’t easily discovered numbers….
@cxsey8587 we act like there aren't factors or dynamics that won't necessarily be accounted for in simple per capita calculations. Does anyone believe a country the size and population of the US isn't harder to govern than Sweden or Denmark, for example?
In Denmark most taxes, by far, are paid by middle incomes and up.
Norway offered half of our oil fund, against 50% their Volvo.. they declined😅
that "it doesn't come form the rich" is really misleading, nor does it "come form the poor", nor does it come from the rich. its no bloody "dirty secret". I honestly don't know what the heck he's on about. simply stated, it comes from everyone. the middle class, working class, rich, upper middle class, everyone pays large amounts of tax to the government. its no bloody conspiracy.
but now when I've watched a bit more I see that he's hyper biased and borderline dishonest. nwm.
What he's talking about is the way it's represented by people like Sanders and his ilk. Sanders continues to repeat the line that he wants Americas economy to look like that of Sweden while at the same time saying that he'll do it by only raising taxes on the top 1% of earners. This, as you have stated, is not at all the way that Sweden's economy works, but Sanders wants the American public to believe that it is because he knows that the poor won't vote for him if he tells them that he's going to raise their taxes as well. This is the "dirty secret" that Norberg is referring to.
Reason and GOP are an oxymoron
That's literally what he was saying. Compared to the US which has a "progressive" tax system which attempts to tax the rich way more and a large subset of our population especially low or no income pay no taxes, he's saying Scandinavian low income still pay tax. It's clear he was explaining how it's more evenly distributed.
@@positivepenny5477 well, no actually, that's not all that he was saying at all, and he made several situational statements about the system and how it works for people and presented them as objective, invariable facts and rules to how the system functions as a whole.
You don't seem to understand. In the United States, progressives argue that we can nationalize healthcare and have free college and that we can make the rich pay for it. Likely we would all have to pay higher taxes to get these benefits. You can feel how you want about it but progressives in the US are very dishonest and/delusional about it. Me personally, I think we should pay less taxes and gut our bureacracy to help the working and middle class and not go in the Scandinavian direction
This guy is not stuck in the 70s, he’s just a damn liar
?
which were the lies?@@dexterdextrow7248
@@johnl5316 he means bernie sanderson.
which is sad because he could just talk how it really works in practice and advocate that. that would be great for americans too, with the universal healthcare, free colleges, and such.
Tack Johan!
This was a sublime description of the Swedish political economic development over the last 40 years. Flaws and all. Sweden is not some kind of utopia where all benefits are free. We have to pay for them through our taxes.
The private schools is not a factor in this, they have not added much, other than taxpayers funding venture capitalists.
We acknowledge that Sweden isn’t socialist. It is a social democracy aka capitalism with a robust social safety net. Anyone who says otherwise even Bernie is being dishonest, or ignorant.
@reason. I like seeing some new voices on your vids like @LizWolfe.
Bernie never said that Rich were going to pay for everything. Health Care and trying to assist people out of poverty and even college should not be insurmountable issue for the richest country in the world.
The US is $32 trillion in debt…..we can’t even pay for our current social entitlements.
@@jessasdad In just 4 Years Trump contributed 8 trillion to the debt with his corporate tax break more than any other President even Presidents that served 8 years. So spare me the talk about having no money for social entitlements.
@@atlrts I am not a Trump supporter. Regardless who caused the debt (both Dems and Republicans) it’s still $32 trillion. We don’t have the money and we can’t keep raising the debt ceiling with more gov spending.
@@jessasdad Your missing the point. Money is going to be spent. It just a matter of how it is spent. Do we continue to give massive tax breaks to corporations? You must be a fan of trickle-down economics.
You may not be a Trump supporter, but I bet you vote Republican the party that has done more to raise the debt over the last 50 years. Any how no one is asking for a handout to have better health care in this country.
Staplefoods taxes are 12% not 25%. So called luxurycomsumtion are 25%
The crime and violence has reached such an extreme point in Sweden that both the government and the opposition are in agreement that military intervention may be necessary. The police have no answer to the extreme violence they face and can no longer uphold the contract to protect their citizens. The intelligence report by the national security police from a few years ago speaks of AT LEAST 40 family based "clans" that has immigrated to Sweden with the sole purpose of committing crimes and exploiting a very exploitable system. It seems they have now infiltrated local politics. Influence is being exerted through threats of violence. Along with this exists a culture of silence. You don't speak about these problems because the price of doing so is to be ostracized.
And this has WHAT to do with Swedens social democracy? In the US gun deaths alone make Swedens gang violence look like walk in the park. And US does NOT have social democracy.
The biggest cause for child deaths in the US right now is GUN VIOLANCE. Not some random disease, but BULLETS!
Do you always make up your own facts? It's embarrassing with people like you who just want to slander Sweden, and blame everything on the scary immigrants, haha
I have a co-worker that was a super Burnie Sanders supporter and I swear to god he was the laziest worker I've ever seen.
Wow it's almost like you aimed for an ad hominem and somehow made an even worse argument.
Lazy people do tend to favor the "I'll give you someone else's money" type of politician.
Yup lazy and dumb
Have you ever worked with a preacher?
I'm guessing not
Todo avião consegue viar de boa só com uma turbina. O problema é , em caso de explosão, a extensão do dano.
As a Swede, when she said: "In a lot of ways this feels like a libertarian paradise..." I laughed so fucking hard. She has ZERO understanding of how it is to live in Sweden. HAHAHAHA
It's social democracy, obviously. 🙄
Capitalist Democracy or C.D. and just the opposite of D.C.
That is just one party out of eight.
Considering Johan Norberg is a well established on the right wing in Sweden, do not think that is remotely close to a non-biased perspective. The 70s were plagued by a global oil crisis, and the wage formation system was falling apart in Sweden. The 80s was largely plagued by the same wage formation issues among other things, but the economy turned around in the late 80s. Then came the 90s crisis, largely caused by a housing bubble, which was made possible through deregulation of banking and the financial sector.
The problem with the wage formation system that collapsed in the early 70s was that it allowed the productive companies huge profit margins, which had gotten so large over the previous 2 decades that workers demanded huge pay rises, which coupled with the inflation induced by the global oil crisis caused an inflationary spiral.
It should be noted though that due to the active labour market policy by the government unemployment in Sweden was largely spared from the mass-unemployment of other developed economies in the 70s and 80s. However this goal was abandoned in favour of inflation as the 90s crisis set in.
Now to make it clear, people are deeply unsatisfied with what we find to be a welfare state in crisis, the liberalization of pharmacies have given us relative price increases and less accessibility. Liberalizations in education are driving school segregation, where economic background is a very reliable means of predicting education results. Liberalization in energy has lead to both higher and less stable prizes. We have a huge housing shortage, mass unemployment due to the government refusing public investment, when countries like the US now has almost full employment due to their public investment.
Our sense of community has diminished as the differences between people grow, and the unregulated speculation on housing has made the idea of owning your own home unimaginable for virtually everyone.
So to put it quite simply, if you ask virtually everyone who isn't upper middle class or above they look positively to the 70s and 80s. Cause it's only been going down hill since the 90s when liberalization came to Sweden.
Where he is correct though is the assessment that Sweden refuses to tax the rich, which is why our welfare state and social security that we are applauded for is chronically underfunded and thus in crisis!
What was the nation of birth for the largest group of immigrants to Sweden in 2022? Sweden, ie swedish people moving back (about 10%) The next most common countries of birth are India, Poland and Germany. Those four together are about 30% of immigrants. Other European countries together account for about another 15%. Various middle eastern countries for another ca 15%. The remaining 40% come from various countries with less than 1000 people per country. About 100k people arrived. Net immigration is about 50k, so the population grew by ca 0,5%. GDP grew 2,8% in 2022.
I heard that the average American actually pays as much tax as the average Swede. I haven't broken down the numbers myself so is this true?
I live in California which taxes us dearly, and while I'm above average for the US (somewhere in a top quintile), but I'm pretty average for Cali.
For my household (me & my spouse, both working), the federal income tax is 16% of gross income, state income tax is 5%, various insurances (medical, dental, vision, life, disability) costs us ~5%. Property tax for our single-family house is ~5% of gross income -- this pays the land, schools, mass transit, police, fire/paramedic, waste/sewage, mosquito/vector control, various local bonds etc.
Payroll tax in US (social security) is 12.4%. And while half of it it is paid by the employer, this effectively reduces salaries, so you can treat it as a personal income tax too. Payroll tax in Sweden is 31.42%
So in total we pay ~45% of gross income in various mandatory taxes and insurances, and this is considered high. From what I read in comments here, it follows that Sweden pay more than 60% in income taxes from an income comparable to mine.
We also put ~15% into our personal pension funds -- this is technically not a tax but savings with an annual growth ~5-10%, and it is voluntary, but there is a similar mandatory 7% pension contribution in Sweden' s tax bills.
And after what you have left to take home, comes the sales tax (or VAT in Sweden, which for a consumer is the same thing). Sales tax in our county is ~10% (excludes groceries, prescription medications, medical devices, raw materials, gas/electricity/water delivered via mains, transportation services). Sweden consumers "enjoy" a 25% standard VAT (12% on some categories of goods, 6% on some others).
Given all that, I do not see in which category the Sweden taxes their people less than one of the harshest of the US states.
I think liberals should hold up Switzerland as a model for the US to emulate instead of Scandinavia. I don't know where it stands today but at one time Switzerland was ranked as one of the top Libertarian economies on earth, more Libertarian than the US. They also have socialized medicine. Libertarianism and government funded healthcare are no more incompatible than Libertarianism and a publicly funded military or road infrastructure. It's not that this idea is too extreme or communist, it's that the US has chosen to spend money on endless war instead of healthcare imo.
I'm no expert but from what I've learned about Switzerland, the government pays for basic health coverage for every citizen. This is managed by private insurance companies. They are now allowed to profit from providing basic coverage but they make profit by selling additional coverage to citizens who can afford it. It's not unlike the way the US allows private companies to manage Medicare and Medicaid benefits. This is enough incentive to engage with the market. I would call it Medicaid for All instead of Medicare for All. Of course the US is too in debt from the mismanagement of the last two decades to go this route but it's a better model to debate. If not for Iraq, Afghanistan and many other military misadventures, we could be paying for universal healthcare. IMO, voters in the US have paid a huge price for maintaining the military industrial complex. In this way Libertarians and the real left, as opposed to the Woke left, have a lot of common ground. Democrats aren't liberals, they're proving to be bigger war mongers than Republicans lately.
@@classreductionist I agree. Years ago, before TH-cam was a thing, I watched Barney Frank and Ron Paul give a presentation. It was only covered by C-span, Congress forced them into a room in the basement at the capital. They were not allowed to address Congress. They came up with a plan to close military bases all over the globe. An issue a true liberal and a true Libertarian can come together on. Congress had no interest in the debate.
Or Germany
The point was: the Government will decide.
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM just means "if only me the self righteous was your leader it will work"
It’s parasitism as a political order where politicians can confiscate wealth from the productive members of society and hand it over to parasite voters. Then they get to call it a “democracy” to give it a veneer of legitimacy. Yet It’s the democracy of two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. It’s really a despicable, totally immoral political system masquerading as generous and empathic.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul offers a great selling pitch because you only need to speak to the benefit of Paul while pretending there not to be a Peter in the equation. It’s the trickery of an illusionist where one depends on obfuscation and misdirection.
Give any nation the demographics of Chicago, New York City, Detroit, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Newark, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Baltimore, St. Louis, Milwaukee and Boston, and then see how well socialism as policy plays out for them. Also, give any nation the military obligations of America and then put a social welfare state on top of that military spending and see how it works out over the long haul.
Sweden was one of the most militarized countries in the world during the cold war.
It could mobilize 100k troops within hours and the general mobilization could muster an additional million within two weeks. With a pop of 8 million.
The navy outnumbered the Soviet fleet in the Baltic, and the air force was the fourth largest in the world (with home grown planes).
In comparison to national effort, the US was FAR behind.
The government just have to tell these companies think about moving off to another country to have their business. Well the government could stop all their money transactions if they wanted to do so.
Profits pay for social programs.
What’s the difference between ‘democratic socialism’ and ‘national socialism’?
Enjoyed this, but as a father of a police officer I found ‘cop union’ a tad distasteful.
Hey George- ready to
pay 60% in taxes? Ready to live in a flat? Ready to drive a mini? Ready to clean your own house? Yeah, didn’t think so.