Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.The Sweden Myth
mises.org — The so-called Swedish model has been getting great press lately. But Stefan Karlsson says Sweden's economic boom is wholly illusory, a product of the monetary printing press.
jatucker- 439 diggs
- digg it
- Vladdie, on 10/12/2007, -29/+15Those naughty Swedes. Great article, as usual, from Mises...
- bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -12/+15I think you're being sarcastic. You have to understand, that, as you will read in the posts below, Sweden is doomed to fail eventually since they have gone from a "from a record deficit of more than 12% of GDP in 1993 to an expected surplus of 8% of GDP in 2001." See? Surpluses are bad.
And their unemployment rate is a catastrophic 5.6% where ours was a healthy 5.4% in 2004.
That's a .2% difference! Combine that with their budget surplus and anyone can see that they don't have the leadership that we have. Clearly this cannot be sustained.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go read mises.org to understand how they are failing. - bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -14/+13For you mises readers, that was meant as sarcasm.
More fun fiscal facts about Sweden -- feel free to compare to us and then tell us how THEY'RE the ones who are doomed to fail, rather than us:
Sweden has a budget surplus.
If you look at Wikipedia's entry under Sweden, you'll find:
Population below poverty line: NA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden
Their percentage of debt as a percentage of GDP: 51.6% of GDP (ours under Bush is hitting close to 70%!)
You can see how bad our debt is here:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
They only have 4.4 million people, and we have 300 million.
They base their income taxes on only the first 75% of income. (That's where the idiots below will say that they charge their citizens 75% in taxes.)
Anyway, they're doing fine. Us? Not so well. - bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3For you mises readers (ie. dimwits) who are modding the above down, that was meant as sarcasm.
More fun fiscal facts about Sweden -- feel free to compare to us and then tell us how THEY'RE the ones who are doomed to fail, rather than us:
Sweden has a budget surplus.
If you look at Wikipedia's entry under Sweden, you'll find:
Population below poverty line: NA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden
Their percentage of debt as a percentage of GDP: 51.6% of GDP (ours under Bush is hitting close to 70%!)
You can see how bad our debt is here:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
They only have 4.4 million people, and we have 300 million.
They base their income taxes on only the first 75% of income. (That's where the idiots below will say that they charge their citizens 75% in taxes.)
Anyway, they're doing fine. Us? Not so well. - rauz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Thanks for sticking up :)
But there's 9 million of us, not 4.4. - bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2rauz:
>Thanks for sticking up :) But there's 9 million of us, not 4.4.
(The editing feature of posting it twice is... errr... interesting.)
Anyway, what boosted you guys up? Sven? Was it Sven? He's always messing about with the women.
Don't tell mises, or they'll say "Sweden has population growth because it's DOOMED!" - rauz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@bigdavediode, it was Sven. And me. We've both been single for quite some time now and, well, what can I say - we get around.
On a more serious(?) note I can't for the life of me figure out why he's claiming "our" way is doomed when it has been working out quite ok for us for more than half a century.
It's not like they just invented it :)
- bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -12/+15I think you're being sarcastic. You have to understand, that, as you will read in the posts below, Sweden is doomed to fail eventually since they have gone from a "from a record deficit of more than 12% of GDP in 1993 to an expected surplus of 8% of GDP in 2001." See? Surpluses are bad.
- IKilled007, on 10/12/2007, -48/+28Same old same old. Europe has gone socialist. What a waste.
- TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -28/+79Yeah, those poor Swedes with their great infrastructure, health care, education and lack of military entanglements, pity them.
- Mrkamikaze, on 10/12/2007, -35/+45All for the low low price of 75% of your income and free herd membership.
- ThrasherC, on 10/12/2007, -19/+40"Yeah, those poor Swedes with their great infrastructure, health care, education and lack of military entanglements, pity them."
Did you not read the article? All of that "great infrastructure" comes at a very high cost that can't be sustained. Churchill had it right when he said "Capitalism is the worst possible system except for all the others." - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -29/+46I'd rather pay 75% tax in Sweden and have half of that go to social welfare and bolster equality than pay 25% in the USA and have half of that fund a bloated military who's technological boondoggles are used to kill people. At least the tax I was paying would yeild some benefits for me and mine.
- patientzero, on 10/12/2007, -18/+35"All for the low low price of 75% of your income and free herd membership."
How much of your income do you give up for your education, transportation, health care, housing and energy? The difference is, you give it to private corporations that you have little to no control over.
Although we rarely exercise it, we have the ability to control how our government spends tax dollars. Its based upon this *really* complicated system where you show up at a voting booth every so often with some knowledge--you know, that stuff you get from reading--and choose who you feel represents your ideas best. - CGreen, on 10/12/2007, -21/+14@ThrasherC
Sweden is a capitalist country. - Mrkamikaze, on 10/12/2007, -25/+11@TopherT
France would be a good home for you. You should consider moving there. - ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33actually you're mixing two Churchill quotes.
* Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
-Speech in the House of Commons (11 November 1947)
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
-Attributed - ThrasherC, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23@CGreen
First, Sweden is more specifically a Mixed Economy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economies
Secondly, I wasn't speaking in reference to Sweden's entire economic system, but more specifically to the socialist reforms that are discussed at great length in the article. These reforms brought about a socialist-like welfare system, which although beneficial in the short-term, cannot be sustained at great length due to the high tax rates and eventual stifling-effect it has on innovation within a country. Ultimately, if I know that creating a new product or service will not really benefit me in the long run because I will just lose more money to taxes, then I have no motivation to create that product or service in the first place. A welfare state fundamentally encourages people to rely on the system. - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12@Mrkamikaze don't think I haven't considered it. I'm not ready to give up on this country though. Any nation founded on ideals of federalism, negative freedoms and representative republicanism has to have something worthy in it. So, I continue my search.
- ThrasherC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@ViperDaimao
Good catch...that's what I get for googling for quotes really fast when replying. Same comments apply though. - ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18"I'd rather pay 75% tax in Sweden and have half of that go to social welfare and bolster equality than pay 25% in the USA and have half of that fund a bloated military who's technological boondoggles are used to kill people."
Perhaps you should look at the actual numbers before perpetuating falsehoods.
From the 2004 budget (in billions and % of budget):
Defense: $454.1 (20.7%)
Social Security: $491.5 (22.4%)
Means-Tested Entitlements: $328.6 (15.0%)
Medicare: $264.9 (12.1%)
Everything else: 652.1 (29.7%) - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9patientzero has a good point. Whether in Europe or the US, you pay a crapload for services you need...transportation, education, health care, etc.
Our system requires that we pay a lot of that to for-profit industries.
Their system requires that they pay a lot of that to the government.
So to assume that you get "screwed" by a more socialist philosophy is absurd. - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4excornelious:
A quick google search seems to indicate those stats aren't necessarily accurate in terms of TOTAL military spending:
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ExCornelius Its true, I ment of the discretionary funds rather than total budget, however,
Sweedish Military expenditures - percent of GDP (as recorded by CIA factbook):
1.5% (2005 est.) - pingviini, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11because the *war-resisters* .com web site is a good source on unbaised military spending statistics
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5"because the *war-resisters* .com web site is a good source on unbaised military spending statistics"
Every conclusion will be biased. My point was that there are, in fact, widely different POVs on what our actual military spending is.
Regardless, there is no doubt that, in comparison, the US spends an ungodly amount on our military. Which, if it mainly went to the hardworking men and women serving, wouldn't be a big deal (it'd actually be a nice model of socialism). Unfortunately, a bulk of that money goes to private contractors. - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@pingviini ok, show me all the innacuracy reported on the site
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"I ment of the discretionary funds rather than total budget"
Yep, I figured as much, but "discretionary" vs "mandatory" is a legislative fiction; Congress has full control over every cent. We spend about 50% on social programs and about 20% on defense. I'm not making a normative argument either way, just trying to show the facts.
Oh, and what's the point of correlating defense spending with GDP? - JamieBarrows, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@patientzero
Yes you pay it to private corps, but you do get to choose which private corps you want to pay it to. If it was government run and you didn't like what you were paying it to, you wouldn't have a choice. It's all about choice. I choose to spend MY money on the institutions I want to spend it on. Swede's don't get to choose. The government chooses for them. Which is fine as long as the government is making good choices. But sadly the bureaucrats do not always make good choices. Don't know about the gov in Sweden, but most govs in the world and throughout history have a tendency to make bad decisions when it comes to money.
And by the way, I do vote. - ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Topher
and the US spend 3.7% of its GDP on defense spending in 2003 http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php#gdp-graph - crimoid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@patientzero
But unlike the government with private companies you are free to 1.) stop paying them and 2.) do business with someone else. When you are paying 75% to the government change is very slow and you can't stop paying. - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8"Yes you pay it to private corps, but you do get to choose which private corps you want to pay it to."
That SOUNDS great, but, in practice, is it? What choice do you have in your health care? My options are the two my employer provides. Is one better than the other? I don't think so. Is me having to spend a week each year trying to figure out the intricacies and minutia of these contracts a good use of my time? Doesn't seem so. Is me having to switch clinics every other year due to plan changes a good thing for me? Doesn't seem so. Is me having to keep a job I may not fully like only because I can't afford to leave my two children under-insured a good thing for me? Doesn't seem like it. Does making companies compete for employess based on what health care services they provide improve companies? Seems to burden them, if you ask me.
Does competition between these two options make for a better product for me? Or do they, instead, start cutting corners to make bigger profits, thereby making both options actually WORSE for me?
Do you feel you're getting the best care in your HMO? Where doctors have quotas?
Is America's health care system the best there is? Do we get better care for our buck? Does not having all citizens covered a good thing for our economy or bad thing?
My point is don't assume 'choice' is necessarily a benefit.
"If it was government run and you didn't like what you were paying it to, you wouldn't have a choice."
Why not? Can't we keep all the medical services but just replace the insurance 'layer' with our government? Are a dozen competing insurance companies more efficient than one government based insurance company? Are a dozen FOR PROFIT entities making the best use of our money?
"But sadly the bureaucrats do not always make good choices."
Maybe not. But for profit insurance companies don't necessarily make choices in your best interest, either. ;0)
"Don't know about the gov in Sweden, but most govs in the world and throughout history have a tendency to make bad decisions when it comes to money."
Maybe true, yet much of Europe and Canada seem to have a much better health care system than we do. - vuzman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I live in Sweden, and no one here pays 75% in taxes, that's a ridiculous over-statement. It's more like 30-40%. Combined with other taxes, such as sales tax (VAT), the number is 40-50%.
- blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2"I live in Sweden, and no one here pays 75% in taxes"
Well, I am pretty sure the founder of ikea lives near my city in Switzerland. I guess he would have paid 75% taxes. And that wouldn't have hurt him at all. - mophead77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ patientzero
The United States' *complicated* voting booth procedure is a couple steps removed from directly affecting the management of tax dollars. First of all, The US is a representative republic, which is quite far-removed from the direct democracy of ancient Greece. Second of all, this country operates on an imbecile two-party system (color-coded, even!). Thirdly, those elected individuals (I am assuming you are referring to Congress) aren't known as the most efficient herd on the planet. Furthermore, because of this "Do I like red or blue" mentality, Congressmen are frequently up for reelection against a single opponent. Therefore, incumbents attempt to bring as much "pork" home as possible to support their next reelection campaign. This is not the most fiscally responsible scenario.
But, seeing as how Americans operate on a Black-White, Good-Evil, Red-Blue mob mentality, and until a third party succeeds in earning votes rather than detracting from the Big Two, we're doomed to cast lesser-of-two-evils protest votes. Yeah, that's not *really* complicated at all. - andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"A quick google search seems to indicate those stats aren't necessarily accurate in terms of TOTAL military spending:
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm"
From the site: "'Past military' represents veterans’ benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt."
So they basically pull stuff out of their asses in order to come up with half. - sp3tt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@TopherT. Yeah, our great healthcare. The healthcare that KILLS people. Eleven persons waiting for heart surgery died while waiting. That's just this year. Why? Well, possibly because there is a price cap of ZERO. Private hospitals are not allowed to make profits. They are not allowed to pay dividends, they must reinvest everything they earn. Now price caps usually cause shortages. Price caps of zero have to cause shortages. Socialized medicine kills. With socialized medicine, everyone is coerced to pay. And you are not allowed to buy health care from another provider, should you happen to be in a long queue. In Sweden there is a huge opposition to "the rich" being able to pay to get healthcare before others. You know what? Maybe those with heart conditions should be allowed to pay for their health care so they can get it! I don't care if they are rich or not, if they have a disease or condition that could kill them, let them be treated before people with less dangerous problems. Of course, you can't suggest that in Sweden. With socialized medicine, people who could die from their problems are put behind people with colds. (Cf. George Reisman, Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottowa, Ill: Jameson Books, 1996), pp. 147-50.) Socialism is the worst disaster to ever happen to mankind. There is no single disaster that has killed more people than socialism. And that is in only 100 years. Socialism kills. Socialized health care, also kills.
Education? Don't get me started. It has never been worse. For some schools, the rate of students failing Swedish, English or mathematics is well above 40 %. Public schooling has failed. Why? For the same reason the Soviet Union collapsed: socialism does not work. Ever. Not even in theory.
- h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -29/+18Here come the socialist apologists to "debunk" this article and blame Bush!
- axiomflash, on 10/12/2007, -34/+36who keeps posting this Mises propaganda *****?
- xavihax0r, on 10/12/2007, -15/+32i wouldn't just go bashing if you don't agree with them. They provide thoughtful commentary usually written by professors or other professionals, something very hard to find on the web these days. Original content is very hard to find on the web these days, and i appreciate their ability to spend the time and money to provide us news addicts with challenging reading.
also, good article, but would have liked to see some footnotes. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17"They provide thoughtful commentary usually written by professors or other professionals"
And yet not a single citation to be found in the entire article. This article doesn't even meet the most basic of academic standards.
"Original content" is worthless if it's pure *****. - turricanz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4heh, I was wondering the same thing. When I read the summary, I thought "ah.. more mises crap" ... Basically, we have a few fervent libertarians and a libertarian think tank which provides them with scientific sounding propaganda on a daily basis.
Articles from mises are equally biased as those from "the heritage foundation" or "moving ideas", just to name a few (conservative and liberal respectively). The reason they don't quote is that their purpose is not to seek the truth, they already have the truth (their version of it anyway). They merely collect the appropriate facts and hypothesis to match their vision. - axiomflash, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2exactly. thanks for taking the time to explain what i felt was unneccessary :o)
- captainahab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4No footnotes! Must be *****!!
But go ahead and digg that guy who commented claiming he lives in Sweden and that the quoted tax rates are wrong. He is so much more trustworthy. Then, on the basis of his claim, use the "bury" feature to call the article inaccurate.
- xavihax0r, on 10/12/2007, -15/+32i wouldn't just go bashing if you don't agree with them. They provide thoughtful commentary usually written by professors or other professionals, something very hard to find on the web these days. Original content is very hard to find on the web these days, and i appreciate their ability to spend the time and money to provide us news addicts with challenging reading.
- imnotquitesure, on 10/12/2007, -6/+67I saw "Swedish model," but I wasn't thinking economics.
- bntphoretwunny, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23heard that! giggidy.
- CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -20/+35I don't care what you say its easily observable that their quality of life is much better than ours here in the US and thats all that matters. You can go ahead and say one day such and such will happen but you can always make up what if's. Right now it sounds like a hell of an improvement from the mess we're getting into deeper all the time.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -7/+28And the quality of life is much better right now for someone who just bought a house with an interest-only mortgage.
Analyzing the long-term consequences of policy decisions is critical to avoiding potential pitfalls. Holding onto a myopic perspective and/or ignoring economic principles helps no one. - xavihax0r, on 10/12/2007, -17/+22@Cixel
would you have made the same claim in the 60's about communism in the Soviet Union and China. They were improving their standard of living dramatically, yet it wasn't being built on a solid foundation, and thus could not last.
Government make-work projects never improve peoples lives, but only waste resources. - ahawks, on 10/12/2007, -9/+24"Government make-work projects never improve peoples lives, but only waste resources."
Agreed. Like you know... Rail Roads, Highways, and Dams. They did absolutely *nothing* for the US, did they? ;) - CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8@ ahawks
damn you ahawks you beat me to it.
the thing this country needs is a massive rebuild of the infrastructure to prepare for our future growth unless bush is counting on armageddon in which that case it would be pointless.
theres chronic traffic everywhere and we would dramatically benefit from bullet trains around the country seeing as it costs so much in fuel to use airlines.
there are tap water quality issues in various parts of the country
electrical is very iffy in parts of the country (im down the street from an FPL nuclear power plant in miami and we get lots of blackouts, a battery backup is immensely useful) and you can be without power for weeks because its not all underground when hurricanes roll through.
natural gas here is very very rare because theres no infrastructure for it.
anyways i could go on
i cant help but see china building a shiny top of the line infrastructure for their people while ours rots because you cant make any money running it. - kayjay, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0you totally about the world famous "swedish blondes"
- dmsean, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0@Cixel
Did you just say I don't believe in What if's and then say "what if the US is moving deeper into a mess?"
Well maybe you said "They are moving into a bigger mess" but that is not concrete yet.
The US is still a good place to live.....just a lot of weird laws in regards to martial law now.... - billysixstring, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Rail Roads, Highways, and Dams. They did absolutely *nothing* for the US, did they? ;)"
Yes, they gave us lobbyist who want to influence legislation for "Rail Roads, Highways, and Dams," corrupt politicians who want to build bridges to nowhere, and people who can't see that government confiscation of wealth to build these things takes money out of the hands of private individuals who would have spent it creating goods and services that consumers demand. - sp3tt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5As for long term vs. short term, well, how about this Mises quote: "It may sometimes be expedient for a man to heat the stove with his furniture. But if he does, he should know what the remoter effects will be. He should not delude himself by believing that he has discovered a wonderful new method of heating his premises."
Sure, printing money and expanding credit can be fun. It's not so much fun anymore when it collapses. It's all fun till somebody gets hurt. When the government is involved, someone always gets hurt, sooner or later.
@ahawaks. The Broken Window fallacy is dead since 158 years. Please try again.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -7/+28And the quality of life is much better right now for someone who just bought a house with an interest-only mortgage.
- Paroparo, on 10/12/2007, -15/+36Urmm.. Great, another one of these old conservative ultra-capitalists. As someone who lives in the Nordic countries, I really don't understand how so many people are fascinated by a system where wealth tends to polarize to the wealthy, healthcare for the poor is damn hard to get and you have to pay an arm and a leg to get an education.
I'm not saying "capitalism bad, socialism good" and not even going to mention the ghost of communism, but rather advice people to view both as opposite ends of a line drawn in the sand, both of which are bad news when taken to the extreme. And don't call me a communist, communists call me a damn dirty capitalist. =P- CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10ive always told people, not total capitalism, not total socialism. I am right in the MIDDLE. you need both sides for a society to function - NO EXTREMES. But people always seem to want to take sides.
- blugu64, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@CiXeL
"ive always told people, not total capitalism, not total socialism. I am right in the MIDDLE. you need both sides for a society to function - NO EXTREMES. But people always seem to want to take sides."
Heh, maybe it's just me but isn't "NO EXTREMES" somewhat....extreme
;) - ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@CiXeL
So, how much murder, theft, and fraud is the "middle ground"? - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4People don't want to take sides...political analysts and consultants want the perception of 'sides'.
Granted, the people aren't doing much on their own in terms of thinking for themselves, so we are as much to blame as anyone.
What bugs me the most is that those that scream 'free market is the solution to everything' tend to be those who benefit predominantly from our current very un-free market where favours are being doled out all the time in the form of subsidies, protected industries, tax breaks, laws being rewritten, relaxed enivornmental regulations, etc.
In the end, like most things in life, the solution is one that is diverse and balanced. A bit of capitalizm, a bit of socialism, and probably a whole lot of other bits and pieces tossed in. - Rickard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7CiXeL: Which is pretty much what Sweden has. A mixed economy.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@joeyjojo
"those that scream 'free market is the solution to everything' tend to be those who benefit predominantly from our current very un-free market"
I don't follow your reasoning. If I benefit from government intervention, why would I voice opposition to it?
Now, maybe there are successful people who think they could be more successful if they didn't have to waste so much time and money greasing the wheels in DC. In any case, I say "the free market is the solution to everything" since there are only two ways of dealing with other people: voluntarily or coercively. I can choose to not buy things from Wal-mart; I can't choose not to pay my taxes (which fund things like idiotic campaigns in the Middle East). - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2"I don't follow your reasoning. If I benefit from government intervention, why would I voice opposition to it?"
Simple spin tactics. You don't blanketdly object to it. You SELECTIVELY object to it. Ie, you point out the evils of social welfare while glossing over the bigger issue of corporate welfare.
You tie a minimum wage hike (EVIL!) to giant tax cuts for the rich (GOOD!)
You point out that government intervention is BAD (when it benefits your outsourcing or enviornmentally lax standards) but demand it when you might be going bankrupt (RIAA, Airlines, etc.)
"I can choose to not buy things from Wal-mart; I can't choose not to pay my taxes (which fund things like idiotic campaigns in the Middle East)."
Not everyone can choose NOT to buy things from Wal-mart. When it's the only grocery store in town, people options become limited. Also, you can choose not to pay taxes...provided you have enough money to pay for some creative accountants. ;o) - nathanfl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You do know the author of the article lives in Sweden, right?
- sp3tt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Simple spin tactics. You don't blanketdly object to it. You SELECTIVELY object to it. Ie, you point out the evils of social welfare while glossing over the bigger issue of corporate welfare."
Oh come on. Just because we point out the evils of one government program, that doesn't mean we support others. "Hey, you have only criticized Hitler, I suppose you support Stalin?"
"You tie a minimum wage hike (EVIL!) to giant tax cuts for the rich (GOOD!)"
The politicians did that.
"You point out that government intervention is BAD (when it benefits your outsourcing or enviornmentally lax standards) but demand it when you might be going bankrupt (RIAA, Airlines, etc.)"
I fail to see how RIAA and other companies demanding corporate welfare are principled libertarians.
- groceryheist, on 10/12/2007, -27/+19If a am an American and my neighbor has 2 cows I will say to me "I will get me 2 cows"
If I am a Communist and my neighbor has 2 cows I will say to him "give me one of your cows"
If I am a Romanian and my neighbor has 2 cows I will say to God "God kill his cows"
-Romanian Proverb- empeethree, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7um ok
- Mrkamikaze, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13If i am a cow in Romania and my neighbor has a Jew a protestant and a Catholic...oh nevermind.
- saifatlast, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15I think he's going for this:
FEUDALISM:
You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.
PURE SOCIALISM:
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.
BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM:
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and as many eggs as the regulations say you should need.
FASCISM:
You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.
PURE COMMUNISM:
You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.
RUSSIAN COMMUNISM:
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.
DICTATORSHIP:
You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.
SINGAPOREAN DEMOCRACY:
You have two cows. The government fines you for keeping two unlicensed farm animals in an apartment.
MILITARISM:
You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.
PURE DEMOCRACY:
You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY:
You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY:
The government promises to give you two cows if you vote for it. After the election, the president is impeached for speculating in cow futures. The press dubs the affair "Cowgate".
BRITISH DEMOCRACY:
You have two cows. You feed them sheeps' brains and they go mad. The government doesn't do anything.
BUREAUCRACY:
You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.
ANARCHY:
You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to kill you and take the cows.
CAPITALISM:
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
HONG KONG CAPITALISM:
You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Islands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the rights to all seven cows' milk back to the listed company. The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Meanwhile, you kill the two cows because the fung shui is bad.
ENVIRONMENTALISM:
You have two cows. The government bans you from milking or killing them.
FEMINISM:
You have two cows. They get married and adopt a veal calf.
TOTALITARIANISM:
You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS:
You are associated with (the concept of "ownership" is a symbol of the phallo-centric, war-mongering,intolerant past) two differently-aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of non-specified gender.
COUNTER CULTURE:
Wow, dude, there's like... these two cows, man. You got to have some of this milk.
SURREALISM:
You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.
JAPANESE DEMOCRACY:
You have two cows. You give the milk to gangsters so they don't ask any awkward questions about who you're giving the milk to.
taken from: http://www.laughbreak.com/lists/cow_politics_101.html - marvin69, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Sounds like CAPITALISM is the correct answer.
A bull + cow = more cows and bulls = profit! - blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Except that capitalism doesn't tell you YOU are the cow.
And the bull is coming.
- welk, on 10/12/2007, -12/+24They sure built a lot of nice fake towns and cities, drive good fake cars, and have some great fake schools and universities.
- Dayz, on 10/12/2007, -36/+3Sweden will take over the world. Boycott Swiss Army Knifes
- KriLL3.2™, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31I hate people that cant tell Sweden and Switzerland apart, are maps that rare in the USA?
- cogit0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Swiss Army knives originated in Switzerland, not Sweden.
- xavihax0r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Swiss Army knives are not from Sweden, they are from Switzerland. You have just made all american's look extremely pathetic.
- tuxerware, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Sweden != Switzerland ... It's not that hard!!!
- Mrkamikaze, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Swedish Army knife? (Sweden has an Army?)
- weirdone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8this had to have been a flame.
And please, ignorance isn't relegated only to the USA. This guy could be from another country. - ThrasherC, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7"Swiss Army knives are not from Sweden, they are from Switzerland. You have just made all american's look extremely pathetic."
And you, sir, need to learn how to use apostrophes. "American's look?" Which American? What look are you referring to? Don't misunderstand - this guy sucks for not knowing the difference between Switzerland and Sweden, but at least look over your grammar before flaming someone. - cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7no, maps aren't that rare. People that know how to read them... that's another story.
- rekrapt, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Yep, we Americans have been dumbed down by a leftist education establishment so it will be easier for the Socialists to take over the country.
- CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3which one has more hot blondes?
- Sukino, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Sweden indeed has an army (http://www.mil.se/?lang=E).
They even have their own fighter aircrafts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gripen).
Don't they teach geography in your country, or what?
I'm not from Sweden btw, common knowledge. - Y0tsuya, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Most non-eurpoeans probably couldn't tell the two countries apart. Go ahead, next time you're in Asia ask someone to point out the location of Sweden and Switzerland. My wife couldn't, and she says none of her friends could do that either. They just don't care about stuff outside their own countries/regions.
- DrKevorkian, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14The point of the article wasn't that sweden isn't a great place to live now, because it is, the point is that it has nothing at all to do with the socialistic policies implemented there and that in fact those policies are actively undermining whatever economic progress was made under freer times
- xavihax0r, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10I have to complement the Swedes here. Their culture is extremely kind and community oriented. Their honesty is certainly one of the main reasons why their country has done so well in the past. I only hope greed does not enter into their lives, as socialism might promote.
- Mrkamikaze, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@xavihax0r
Well thats hella easy when you live in a mono-culture like most European countries that shares a common ethnic background. Melting pots are hard as hell to manage. - ThrasherC, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6xavihax0r: "I only hope greed does not enter into their lives, as socialism might promote."
What? If anything socialism promotes the opposite of greed. And honestly I think that it can be a very bad thing, because as much as we hate to admit it, greed inspires innovation. If creating a new product simply meant that you would be paying more taxes, and taking home about the same amount of money, I highly doubt that you would be as motivated to create that product in the first place. - CGreen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@Mrkamikaze
About 13% of Swedens population is made up of imigrants.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Demographics - kaffepanna, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5The point of that article is to promote the right wing extremists in the coming election.
- CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2corruption index
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2005 - weirdone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@CGreen
that's what he's talking about. The Finns are the largest minority at a whopping 2% of Sweden's population and only 13% of the pop are immigrants like you said. 33% of USA are non-white european immigrants and the number is growing substantially. - nathanfl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ThrasherC, have you heard of the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, or any communist country at all?
- pkulak, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14"But because the center-right parties were unwilling to push for more radical free-market reforms, the economic woes, including the inflation-devaluation cycle, continued."
Really now? Wanna back that up with anything at all, or do we just take Mises as gospel? - CGreen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Today the Swedish central bank posted GDP figures from the second quarter this year, it was 5.5% growth.
Source:
http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=678&a=563527&previousRenderType=6
Much higher then anyone was expecting.- blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Yes, but the theory is that it is not sustainable. Can't you read? They tell you it's gonna crumble into ashes very soon! Hardcore capitalism on the opposite is completely sustainable. As soon as you put that pesky human factor aside.
- 4degrees, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7in that article replace the word "Sweden" with the word "America" and you have a whole new accurate article about the "American myth"
its funny hearing people bash other countries and their short falls by describing exactly what is happening in their beloved country.- weirdone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3about American socialism? Sorry, I'm not following you here.
- uttles, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I don't think anyone is denying it is happening here as well. In fact, a lot of capitalists and liberty-minded people are scared ***** at the amount of socialism loving democracts and the influx of immigrants (legal and illegal) demanding the US taxpayer gives them money.
- Poco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Well, not really, this doesn't apply verbatim to the US. Some of those items apply in the US (and more so in Canada) but many of the really bad monetary decisions outlined in that article are mostly avoided by the US (and Canadian) central banks.
- AndrewMayne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The writer lives in Sweden.
- weirdone, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The gov't is currently controlled by conservatives. Not a single bill has gone through in the past 8 years that has been socialistic in nature. The only one I can think of that is currently on the floor is the minimum wage bill and it has been getting shot down for the past five years thankfully and republicans stuck on an amendment to it that would cut the estate tax severely if it goes through, which is about as capitalistic a measure as it gets.
Be worried come the next election though because you will definitely see some of these things making a comeback. Here's me crossing my fingers that we don't get another 'New Deal.' - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"demanding the US taxpayer gives them money."
Nice twist, there.
What many folks are asking is "taxpayer money be spent wisely and to the benefit of us all"
For instance, isntead of my tax money benefiting Haliburton, I'd like it to go to my health care. Instead of my tax money benefiting the corn industry, I'd like it to go to my child's education. Instead of my tax money benefiting the top 1%, I'd like it to benefit the other 99%. Instead of my tax money going to new highways in the suburbs, I'd like it to go towards mass transit for all. Etc. - andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"For instance, isntead of my tax money benefiting Haliburton, I'd like it to go to my health care. Instead of my tax money benefiting the corn industry, I'd like it to go to my child's education. Instead of my tax money benefiting the top 1%, I'd like it to benefit the other 99%. Instead of my tax money going to new highways in the suburbs, I'd like it to go towards mass transit for all. Etc."
So basically you want a government that will treat you worse than an animal, indoctrinate your children, and herd you onto trains where you can be blown up by the followers of the Religion of Pieces?
- icefrakker, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13no matter what this person says, sweden is still one of the most advance nations on earth, and id still want to live there anyday.
- weirdone, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12did you bother reading the article?
- Mrkamikaze, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11Can i buy you a plane ticket if you promise never to come back?
- weirdone, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I wasn't flaming him and the author of the article wasn't flaming sweden. He stated that he is predicting they will be in economic trouble in the near future. He mentioned nothing of their technologies or culture or society and yet this person obviously didn't read the article and just said 'I don't care what he says, I still believe x.'
It's just plain close-mindedness. - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3You can sure as hell buy me one, we can't be very far from a draft in this country.
- ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@topher
Are you ignorant? The only people wanting a draft are far left democrats. There was actually a bill submitted by democrats that would reinstate the draft that came to a vote. It recieved 2 votes, thats in the House of 435 members, not the Senate of 100. - CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ Mrkamikaze
yes, where do i signup? - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ViperDaimao I'm not speaking of the political will but rather the military need. The political will will come after we are again attacked. A likelyhood now that the entire population of Iraq and much of the middle east is violently opposed to western interests in their region (and our Arab allies can hold out only so long against such popular pressure).
- pcheaven2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think I am going to write a book titled "The Perfect Government for the Imperfect Society it Governs".
- whackaxe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7i don't know, they have Absolut Vodka, Swedish women and the Pirate Bay, It's good enough for me.
- thomasf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5IANAE. This kind of harping is nothing new; I'm sure Sweden is very used to it. There are many intricacies to economic growth theory, but it is pretty well accepted by academics who do not write according to an ideological agenda that higher taxes slow down your economy for the long term benefit of a higher educated and healthier populace, whereas less interference from government leads to higher growth, but at a cost of deadly sharp business cycle spikes and a a more skewed wealth distribution. Which is 'better' in the simplistic sense that is always employed by non-economists (and especially politicians) is really an ethics question.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"less interference from government leads to ... deadly sharp business cycle spikes"
You have that exactly backwards. Government interference in the market causes misallocation of resources and prevents normal market adjustments, eventually leading to longer and more severe corrections. For example, see The Great Depression. - mellon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The great depression on the Bizarro planet was in fact caused by government intervention. However, the one here on Earth was caused by an unrestrained free market coupled with an atmosphere of excessive exuberance which led to a speculative spiral that eventually collapsed.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@mellon
Nonsense. The recession, which occurred primarily due to a loose monetary policy, was turned into a Depression by Hoover. Take a look at Smoot-Hawley; the average tariff rate soared to 59.1 percent. This killed imports and brought about retaliatory tariffs. As went the imports/exports so too went the American farms, and when they failed, the farm banks failed, and when the farm banks failed, the city banks failed. Look up "fractional banking" to figure out why.
A capitalist economy is not perfect, but perfection is not an option. Left to their own devices, the actors in the market would have lost some of their own money, but would have corrected themselves because of it. As soon as the state stepped in, they made it a hell of a lot worse.
P.S. Don't parrot Keynes. Anyone who knows the subject will think you a fool.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"less interference from government leads to ... deadly sharp business cycle spikes"
- Optimistic, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19What about the American Myth?
NOTE: These are from 1991, things got a little better with Clinton, then got worse with Bush, so it is probably still about right.
Poverty level:
United States 17.1%
Sweden 5.3
Children under the poverty level:
United States 22.4%
Sweden 5.0
Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 live births):
United States 10.4
Sweden 5.9
Percentage of families headed by single parents:
United States 8.0%
Sweden 3.2
Prisoners (per 1,000 people):
United States 4.2
Sweden 0.6
Average paid vacation per year:
Sweden 25.0
United States 12.0
Voter participation:
Sweden 86
United States 49
The United Nations Human Freedom Index (0 = least freedom, 40 = most freedom. More.):
Sweden 38
United States 33
Americans without ANY health coverage:
50 million at any one time. (1/6th your population)
70 million over the course of a year.
Here are more details:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm
Yep, nice society you Americans have created. I'll stay here in Europe, thanks.- GottIstTot, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13The truth hurts. Awesome post.
- Poco, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4From that site -
Percent of Union Membership in Workforce:
Sweden 85.3%
Canada 34.6
United States 16.4
I'm sure glad I don't live in Sweden, Canada seems like a good compromise. - Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Hopefully you're native because the non-native Swedish unemployment rate is _over_ 50%!
FTA:
The headline unemployment rate in Sweden is only 5-5.5%, but this number is extremely misleading as it only includes a small number of the people who the government pays not to work. Many unemployed are sent to so-called "labor market political activities" who have no meaningful purpose then to reduce the headline unemployment number. Including them, unemployment is 8%. And if you also include the enourmous number of early retirees and people who live of sickness benefits, the real unemployment rate is more like 25% rather than 5%.
Additionally, I'd like to see Sweden, and their economy, take in literally MILLIONS of "undocumented workers" every year and see if their economic picture could stay that rosy. I'll bet it couldn't. - Mrkamikaze, on 10/12/2007, -4/+787% Percentage of Swedes in Sweden
98% Percentage of Americans in America consisting of every single ethneticity and culture in the world. Equates to the most powerful country in the world.
I personally like what America is an represents. A place where i can experience at least 10 different cultures within 20 miles of where i live instead of just one or two. - Rickard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Poco: Since when is high union membership an inherently bad quality?
- Avogadro65, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8From your Huppi link:
Doctors' incomes:
United States $132,300
Sweden $25,768
Clearly, the best and brightest have reason to aspire to be doctors.
Percent of all children born out of wedlock:
Sweden 46.4%
United States 21.5%
Great family values, too. Almost half the country's citizens are bastards? (Of course, both numbers seem pretty high. Maybe that's just because I'm from the south.)
And some of these stats are just plain dumb:
Annual air miles per person:
United States 1,698
Sweden 575
With a much larger county, and when International usually means Intercontinental, OF COURSE the number of air miles will be larger.
Energy Units of coal burned annually:
United States 458.0
Sweden 2.5
Good job not showing this on a per capita basis. Wouldn't want to make a true comparison.
Debris inhaled per person per year:
United States 81 pounds
Sweden 44 pounds
WTF debris?
And on your voting percentage statistic, you left off this gem: "The U.S. [is]...one of the only democracies where voting is not required by law."
It's amazing how someone can further skew already-skewed statistics. - Avogadro65, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Poco
Have you ever been a non-union worker on a union job site? You'll never get a thing done.
My last experience was mounting a wireless access point on a light pole at an expansion yard in one of our plants. Some union electricians had wired up lighting for the yard, and had run wire to the box for the AP, but had negelcted to actually hook the wire up to the outlet. Instead of me being able to just grab some pliers and hook the wires up myself (I was already on the manlift 40 feet in the air), we had to wait an hour in the rain for one of the union electricians to come and do it for us.
Unions were good back in the day when people worked 60-70 hour weeks with no weekends in 120 degree heat for 50 cents an hour, but when it gets to the point that two moderately well paid and experienced programmers/network installers have to stand in the rain for an hour because of union rules, unions seem a little frivolous to me.
Then there's our New Jersey plant, where our Union workers refuse to learn anything unless we fly up there and give them training in person. We developed a new handheld scanner application that a 12-year old could figure out in 10 minutes, and even though we sent them a nice full-color user manual explaining how to use the app, they literally refused to even read the thing unless we held classes for them at the plant.
So until we get around to it, they're stuck using the old and busted app, while the other plants are enjoying the new hotness. - Avogadro65, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That last reply was supposed to be to Rikard, not Poco
- Poco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Poco: Since when is high union membership an inherently bad quality?"
Have you ever worked with or in a union? They are the definition of inefficient. Let's see, hmmm, a job where you pay is based on how long you have worked there and not on how good you are at your job?
I got repremanded a union once for moving my computer from one side of my desk to another. Hell, once upon a time as a student I worked as a tech support guy for the local telecom and regularly had to call someone else to plug in someone's computer or keyboard because that was someone else's job (Seriously!).
Unions are good for non-skilled workers, but they are used way too much in the skilled work force. I doubt that 85.3% of Sweden's workforce is non-skilled. They are good for helping to keep workers safe and with a minimum level of pay, but that hasn't been needed for decades and not in Sweden on the US. Ever since govermnent social programs, minimum wage, and safety regulations those aren't needed.
Unions are good for those folks who are insecure about their ability to do their job or worry that someone else will come along and do it better or cheaper. - Rickard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Avogadro65: In that case, unions work very different in our two countries. Here in Sweden, the primary function of a union is to represent employees in any conflict that might occur with the employer. On top of this, a union works to improve the working environment for it's member as well as working towards improved benefits, higher salaries etc. I have yet to encounter any situation like the one you described during my years as a full-time employee. And I even work for the government :)
- blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@poco:
Guess who gets 4 to 6 weeks of paid vacation while you get 2 if you're lucky? I know, you're too smart to take vacations. This is only for dumb little hand-workers.
I guess unions have something to do with this and all the advantages that are given to workers in many european countries. You can always come up with examples like 'I wanted to work at night and the union didn't let me', but still on the whole the goal of an union is to defend the interests of the employees versus those of the bosses, and it serves them pretty well.
- GottIstTot, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16The Mises institute is total capitalistic tripe. They published a bunch of articles about the Tsunami and how Sweden failed to respond properly because of its "big government". Of course Sweden was HALFWAY AROUND THE WORLD and it took them only 48 hours to start getting the swedes out of the disaster zone. Now a year or so later we have hurricane Katrina and our wonderful and almighty government can't seem to rescue people IN OUR OWN COUNTRY for at least an entire week. If anything we should be critiqueing our own half-assed system. Stop submitting these Mis-tarded articles.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Out of curiosity, how did you get the impression they don't criticize American economic policy as well?
- argoff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Sheesh, what is it with all this persistent whining. Did someone put a gun to your head and force you to read and digg the thing? When someone posts a bogus unbacked opinion from a "left wing" site, most here are happy to explain WHY the opinion is utterly worthless. Frankly, this "can't argue the facts, so lets attack the source" attitude reflects a cheap character and a cowardly mind.
Do you know why there are not economic articles from "left wing" sites? Because their failing philosophies have been shoved down our throats for 60 years. We already know them. They are intellectually bankrupt, and no one dares post them because they don't want their arguments (and egos) ripped to shreds with the facts.
- Poco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15@uttles - "...In fact, a lot of capitalists and liberty-minded people are scared ***** at the amount of socialism loving democracts and the influx of immigrants (legal and illegal) demanding the US taxpayer gives them money."
Um, well, being scared ***** of immigrants is not a "capitalists" trait. You sir are a redneck, not a capitalist. A good capitalist likes free immigration and trade because it allows the market to move more naturally.- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Truth.
- Iceduck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Whether or not a high-tax system with extensive welfare services is good or not is a very tiring debate. There is however a problem with paying 65% in "top-end" taxes with a progressive tax system like we have here in Denmark (if you make more than a certain amount you are taxed the top-end tax for this amount). If you are only allowed to keep 35% of your income you have less incentive to work harder and make more money, and ultimately it's a huge problem. There is a clear tendency here that politicians want to lower taxes, but it will never be as low as in countries like the US.
Also, it's kinda amazing that the Social-Democrats managed to stay in power for 44 consecutive years in Sweden. That can't be good.- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3That's assuming that once you are rich, you have to "work harder" to get richer. ;o)
I'll take 35% of a million over 60% of 100k any day. - dmsean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2they've been using diebold for 44 years? Wow they are ahead in technology....
- CedanticPunt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I generally think that more than 10 years of one party in power, in any country, is bad. Generally, when parties take power they bring in new ideas, seem to have a passion to bring about positive change, even if it's never without problems. Then over time they become too comfy, lazy, and detached from the voters.
Having said that, Sweden is a democracy, so maybe they're just happy with how Sweden is being managed. If it wasn't going well, then they'd have been booted out by now.
Disclaimer: my wife is Swedish and I've been there about 12+ times. It's a nice place, friendly, relaxed and generally not puritanical about things like breast-feeding etc. Having said that, it's no paradise and has its fair share of problems. - dasch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I'm positive towards the idea of lowering the progressiveness our Danish tax system, but I don't really buy into the whole "incentive to work harder" thing. I'm too lazy to dig up links to the polls (no pun intended,) but as far as I remember, most Danes that pay top taxes would not work harder if those taxes were lowered.
As for the question of "the fallacy of the Scandinavian model", that other diggers and this article (which is clearly neo-liberal,) have raised, compare the level of illiteracy, crime rates, poverty, etc. in Scandinavia to anywhere else in the World. You'd be surprised when you see that, although far from perfect, the Scandinavian model has triumphed. If only the U.S. would stop thinking of socialism as devil-worshipping, maybe they would realize that, for example, free or cheap education for everyone is an investment in the future -- soon, there will be no more jobs for the uneducated, and the countries with large uneducated populations will be ***** big time. - Iceduck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@joeyjojo
Of course "rich" is a relative term. I don't have the exact numbers but about 40% of all Danes pay the "top-end" tax, so this is not not just for the overclass, it concerns regular middeclass people as well.
The reason why it's a problem is that we need the talents of people who don't give a damn about making more money because they have to give away most of it anyway. - blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Also, it's kinda amazing that the Social-Democrats managed to stay in power for 44 consecutive years in Sweden. That can't be good."
Actually... it may just be too good. I remember when I was in sweden I talked to a girl. She told me: "You know, here it's always the same thing... everybody votes for the social-democrats. It' as bit sad.".
So I asked her who she was voting for. Guess what...
In the end she just came up with this conclusion: all is well. The others do not seem to be willing to bring anything better in terms of our everyday life, so why change ?
I think they are afraid to lose what they have: a country that works pretty well. - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"The reason why it's a problem is that we need the talents of people who don't give a damn about making more money because they have to give away most of it anyway."
I'm confused. If you are in the higher bracket, it's because you make more money. If you make more money, yes, you pay more in taxes. You also bring home more money. I don't see how tax brackets have anythign to do with people getting lazy and not wanting to get richer. - nathanfl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Because you have to make significantly more money to bring home a little more money. that shouldn'y be too hard to understand. Why move up to 100k when you make as much at 75k? (this is just an example).
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3That's assuming that once you are rich, you have to "work harder" to get richer. ;o)
- slundal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Just for the record. The left party in sweden is NOT in any way associated with comunism and has not been for nearly six decades.
- spejsklark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0That's why it was called the "Vänsterpartiet Kommunisterna" (Left Party the communists) until 1990?
- Epimetheus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I see culture as the biggest problem here in the U.S. People don't need welfare once they both value and have an education.
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I agree...it'd be wise of us to actually spend money on bettering our faltering education system. Instead, we get things like the Kansas school board. Yay us.
- Sukino, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Although Sweden is definitely one of the better places to live, it's not an ideal, nor a perfect country.
It still have its problems like high divorce rate (http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsWorld.shtml ), ageing and small growth rate (problem of all western countries) or right-wing extremists (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/nov2000/swe-n29.shtml ).- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yes, we can point out faults in nearly every single country on the planet.
- dasch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6High divorce rates?! I understand your point about the right-wing extremists (Sweden has its fair share of neo-nazis,) but divorce rates? I think it's caused by the Swedes not being very religious, and the women not taking any crap from their husbands.
- Rickard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"I think it's caused by the Swedes not being very religious"
You got that right. A friend of mine asked me the other day to list all the people I know who are religious. I thought about it hard and long and the only one I could come up with was the campus minister at the university I work at. Now I'm sure I know a few people that are religious without me knowing it, but it can't be more than a handful. - blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I am not sure having a high divorce rate is such a bad thing. Two persons living together while still hating each other in front of the kids hurt them much more than mom and dad not living in the same flat. When you take out all the drama of it a divorce is not so terrible. What makes it terrible is how agressive/emotional people get about it.
- xartemisx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"High divorce rates?! I understand your point about the right-wing extremists (Sweden has its fair share of neo-nazis,) but divorce rates? I think it's caused by the Swedes not being very religious, and the women not taking any crap from their husbands."
This is a very good point. Think of the divorce rates before women had any rights; pretty low, right? But that doesn't make it a healthy marriage. Divorce rate isn't an accurate measure. - nathanfl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Divorce ***** up a kids life big time. You shouldn't have to google too long to find plenty of research done to support those findings. Not only does divorce tend to ruin your children's lives, but it also destroys a significant amount of wealth in the process. Here in America, if there are children involved, the usual outcome is that the man is then enslaved to the women (read: child support) without regard to the circumstances of the people involved. Lastly, have you ever discussed the opposite sex withe divorcees? They overwhelmingly do not have a healthy view towards the opposite sex, ususally degrading back to high school levels, often even lower. I had a lot of friends whose lives were screwed up becuase of divorces.
- marvin69, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Suicide Rates among Highest GNP Nations = Sweden
Sweden 14.7 > U.S.A 11.8
Such a great place people what to leave it early.- Rickard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Took you a while to find a statistic that favored the US :)
- blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5There's a direct relationship between social confort, cold climate and the will to die. For some reason I am pretty sure the amount of suicides (or attempts) in say, Afghanistan, is lower than in America and European countries.
That doesn't make me feel like moving to Afghanistan though. Plus Americans don't have to commit suicide that much. When they are hopeless they can join the army and get killed like a man, instead of committing suicide like a viking pussy. - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Likely has more to do with a lack of sun than any particular economic model.
- marvin69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Lack of reason to advance at your job leads the world in suicide factors. (Japan, Sweden, Germany)
Doctors in Sweden are some of the lowest paid in the highest GNP nations. Some trash collectors make the same amount as anyone that has a professional career (Accountant, Lawyer, Doctor, Teacher, etc)
.
- endgames, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Insert IKEA joke here
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"it'd be wise of us to actually spend money on bettering our faltering education system."
I'm reminded of the words of George Santayana: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Plot a few metrics of education quality over time. Overlay that with the per-student spending on education over the same period. You'll end up with an X; quality flat or decreasing concurrent with ever increasing money thrown at the problem. Perhaps, just perhaps, politicians and bureaucrats -- who gain votes from spending other people's money and do not bear the costs of the outcome -- are not the best people to be deciding our children's future. Really, I think I can decide how to spend for my son's education better than Bush's pals.- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2*you* perhaps, but *society* as a whole? Likely not. I live in a city with school choice. We have public schools, charter schools and magnate schools. We have lots of choice. This SEEMS like a great thing. Really. It sounds wonderful. I thought it was wonderful...until I had to put my kids in school. Then I do the research.
Things aren't so good. Instead of having a solid core educational system, we have a diverse, but strung thin system. Less oversight than before, less shared resources, etc. In turn, these schools are now also becoming highly segregated. Poor black people over here, rich white folks over here. Our schools are more segregated now than the were in the time of segregation.
I didn't say we need to spend more money, but we need to focus on what we're doing with our education system. - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I didn't say we need to spend more money"
Oops. I take that back. That *is* what I said. Apologies.
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2*you* perhaps, but *society* as a whole? Likely not. I live in a city with school choice. We have public schools, charter schools and magnate schools. We have lots of choice. This SEEMS like a great thing. Really. It sounds wonderful. I thought it was wonderful...until I had to put my kids in school. Then I do the research.
- octavius8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I've lived both in Europe and in the US, and the reality is that taxes are not much higher in Europe.
The tax rate in the US is really high. Usually like 34% federal taxes. Now if you live in some other state than texas you usually have to pay state tax. Add another 10%. Then there is sales tax, so add another 10%. There you are over 50% already and it doesn't even include real estate tax, assorted fees, death taxes, etc.
Where the real difference is what you get for those taxes. European countries seem to be able to provide more with social services than the US. Probably because here all that money is going to wage wars. - osiris8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Sweden is not perfect in any way, but I quite like how we're doing things (looking at the big picture).
Always pay close attention to the sources on stories - Stefan Karlsson is a free market libertarian and will likely not be happy in any normal democratic state that has any market regulations, least of all Sweden. - EtaoinShrdlu, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Yet another ***** article from the über right-wing Von Mieses intitute…
- nathanfl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Prove it.
- mophead77, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4As a libertarian, I enjoy any read which elicits the implicit economic benefits of deregulation. Sweden is a particularly good test subject, given its oscillating strategies over the past 50 years. Lower taxes, privatization, and free trade are proven routes to sustained economic growth.
However, as an engineer, I am rather skeptic of overly optimistic statements based on questionable data. Refresh yourselves with the following quote:
"The number of people employed [in Sweden] is now 6% lower than in 1990, a weaker development than in any other western economy. By contrast, even with the weak job growth in recent years (by American standards), employment in the United States is 20% higher than in 1990."
Waitaminnut. I live in the U.S. and I haven't seen any CCC-esque mass hiring of hordes of the unemployed. Say we had some crazy figure like 85% employment in 1990 (that would be 15% unemployment). A 20% increase yields 85% * 1.2 = 102%. Huh? We have more people employed than our workforce? OK, that can't be right. Time for some data collection.
According to http://www.nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htm 12 month averages for unemployment are 5.6% in 1990, compared with 4.8% for the last 12 months. OK, that leaves us with 94.4% employment in 1990 and 95.2% employment for the past year. Ladies and gentlemen, that is less than a 1% increase in employment (0.85% to be exact). Apparently some Swedish economic authors need to work on their math. What Mr. Karlsson meant to say was, there was a ~20% decrease in unemployment in the US from 1990 to present.
Don't believe everything you read folks, even if it's an article you're inclined to agree with.
May I mention I'm a huge fan of Volvo and Ikea?- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Also, IIRC, the way we measure unemployment is quite differenrt than how many european countries do. My understanding is that Europe's stats are a bit more accurate, as the unemployed have easier access to government programs and therefore are on the radar more accurately.
In the US, we measure unemployment via those that are collecting unemployment. That excludes those that aren't eligble for the benefit any longer, are tired of the hoops they have to jump through to collects so have stopped, and those that are technically employed, albeit ad below living wage jobs.
SOmeone can jump in and correct that if what I remember is inaccurate. - theyateser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You’re misinterpreting this figure. The physical number of people employed had gone down. Ex) 100 to 96 people working. You are talking about the change in % of unemployed – which is not what the article says.
- dstz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Another good example of a point of comparison between Europe and the US:
Richest people in the US steps up a hugantic foundation to cure important diseases in poor countries.
Rich people in Europe (Ikea) steps up a hugantic foundation to promote itself and sell more stuff and avoid taxes. - mophead77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ theyateser
Actually, I was attempting to give Mr. Karlsson the benefit of the doubt. Some quick math from the previously referenced data does indeed correlate with what Mr. Karlsson stated: there was a 20.44% increase in employed human beings in America from 118,793,000 in 1990 to 143,072,417 over the last 12 months. However, America's population also grew 19.45% between 1990 and the most recent 12 month average. So we're talking about a 1% relative increase in employment relative to population growth. This figure is already represented in my above quote (0.85% ~= 1%).
If Mr. Karlsson did not intend to mislead us with his 20% increase in American employment, he should have used clearer language. Ahh, only if scientists could write better, and if only English majors could do math...
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Also, IIRC, the way we measure unemployment is quite differenrt than how many european countries do. My understanding is that Europe's stats are a bit more accurate, as the unemployed have easier access to government programs and therefore are on the radar more accurately.
- tellall, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7this ***** site (mises.org) must have increased its traffic 1000% because of digg.
STOP DIGGING MISES.ORG STUFF. they're using you (and everyone else on digg) for their own purposes. and the articles aren't even good!- theyateser, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I don’t understand you hate for mises.org! People have dug the article because they find it interesting. (I have no affiliation with the site, though I do live a half mile from their headquarters near Auburn University).
That being said, most, (99%), of the people commenting don’t really understand what the article is saying. Fortunately, I am familiar with the Austrian school of economics and their boom bust theory (which is what the author is getting at). He does not dislike Sweden, but is pointing out that the recent monetary expansion will create an investment boom, savings and investment will shift outside the Production Possibilities Frontier, and a recession will follow a few years later. Much of this is made worse by politicians who prefer unsustainable growth now, rather than a more linear, less boom bust growth in the future.
The same story can be told for American politics. Politicians want to harvest votes. That is what this piece is about. - nathanfl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@tellall, That doesn't even make since man. They aren't using anyone anymore than any other article posted on this site is.
- sp3tt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@tellall. Mises.org has like 750 000 visitors per month. So, a 1000 % would mean 750000*11=8250000 visitors. That's an absurd increase. 8.25 million is more than the population of New York City. Also, if one compares traffic using Alexa (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&compare_sites=digg.com&y=t&q=&size=medium&range=3m&url=mises.org) it simply does not hold up. You, sir, are a liar.
- theyateser, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I don’t understand you hate for mises.org! People have dug the article because they find it interesting. (I have no affiliation with the site, though I do live a half mile from their headquarters near Auburn University).
- dstz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2All those tax are I suppose used to go after those horrible pot smokers that Sweden fights with all its puritan-(in)temperance oriented heart since the 80s. At least cops and amphetamines producers are happy as *****.
- jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2sure, why not...? if some guy says so, then it must be. don't you just love talking heads?
Just because I'm introspective and walk among the shadows...
........ doesn't mean I can't hear you... - dstz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4I'm frightened by the very views expressed toward Europe here, and Sweden in particular.
Most of Europe hides its neonazis and everything it doesn't like under interdiction of expression. Yes, just like putting the dirt under the carpet. And the result is also the same at some point: it gets dirty.
Most of Europe is headed toward bankruptcy without even throwing billions away invading some remote country, or having any kind of operational army.
Europe will get up tomorrow with a fascist president in France and maybe other countries too.
Europe love single mindedness, prevent freedom of speech, and enact laws to protect this. But when single mindedness will turn out to not be anti fascism but neofacism, as it grows up strongly, the US will really feel alone this time.
Stop telling that Europe and its high taxes are so much better.Euroland nowadays mostly aim to become total suckage totalitarian land, though they are of course exeptions (socially: Holland, economically: Ireland).
Come on all in Europe live the dream, and discover the truth.- jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3wow... im speechless... this is about the most ***** up comment I've ever read regarding Europe... and so waaaaaaay off the mark... do you get out much, by any chance?
- jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4whats with all the friggin libertarian propaganda on digg lately? its starting to piss me off to some extent... im considering adding a few modifications to my lovely digg script
- shanedog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I don't see why early retirees should count as unemployed. Also, as long as the standard of living is high for the average person, a high unemployment rate is actually a good sign. It means that they are able to sustain a high standard of living with a smaller portion of the population working. How is that bad again?
- nathanfl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What? Retired people and people not looking for work don't count towards unemployment. Your saying that if there are people who are actively looking for a job and cannot find one, as long as everyone else with a job is doing good, then everything is good? During the great depression, if you had a job, things weren't so bad, but for the rest it was terrible. Also, there's a reason people work for a living.
- shanedog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I didn't say anything about people not looking for work. Anyone who is looking for work, or who has stopped looking for work because they are discouraged but still needs the job to live should be counted towards unemployment. I don't think retired people should be a considered because under the social welfare model retired people are fairly well off. The concept of tracking unemployment is usually to measure the number of people who need a job to live at a certain standard of living. Therefore retired people should not count.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"a high unemployment rate is actually a good sign. It means that they are able to sustain a high standard of living with a smaller portion of the population working. How is that bad again?"
It's bad because those people *are looking for work* and are not getting hired (that's the economic definition of unemployed). It's kind of heartless to say these people don't count just because the rest of the country is doing well.
- Simmonsfield, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
[Leads the Deltas out of the hearing, all humming the Star-Spangled Banner] - giantrobot, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5No more posts from the Mieses institute. I don't like religion in my daily digg.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Religion is belief which relies on the absence of reason. Please feel free to cite some economic principle to which feel meets this criterion. Please note that "belief in the free market" can be just that, or a position arrived at via reasoned analysis, and that reasonable people can disagree on such conclusions.
- sp3tt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Also, please don't mispell it next time.
- dtuur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here are some interesting resources on the Swedish economy:
Facts & figures: study of the Swedish Confederation of Enterprises
http://www.workforall.org/forum/html/modules/news/article.php?storyid=94
The myth of the Scandinavian model (with very clear graphs)
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510 - Krugger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2These bastards are doing quite fine and they are not members of any coalition??? How did they do it??? They are SOCIALISTS???? HOW DOES IT WORK THEN????? They are socialist and have a great economy, infraestructure, medical resources and public education??? Damn... I think I must have "mised" something then...
- Mrhuh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The great depression on the Bizarro planet was in fact caused by government intervention. However, the one here on Earth was caused by an unrestrained free market coupled with an atmosphere of excessive exuberance which led to a speculative spiral that eventually collapsed."
Are you friggin kidding me? The market was hardly free during the the early twentieth century. There were many regulations and licensure laws already on the books including a centralized government run bank which forced interest rates far below the level of saving necessary to justify them and many regulations (such as minimum wages) prevented individuals from being able to adjust accordingly. Only in Bizarro America was there a free market in the 1920's. Let us not forget that things such as minimum wages, trust busting, subsidies for various corporations, meat-packing regulations (which gave more power to big meat companies), public schooling and other such things all came before the Great Depression.
"The gov't is currently controlled by conservatives. Not a single bill has gone through in the past 8 years that has been socialistic in nature. The only one I can think of that is currently on the floor is the minimum wage bill and it has been getting shot down for the past five years thankfully and republicans stuck on an amendment to it that would cut the estate tax severely if it goes through, which is about as capitalistic a measure as it gets."
Since when is conservatism in the U.S. capitalistic. Name one conservative (besides Republican Ron Paul of Texas who once ran for president on the Libertarian ticket) that thinks that "Progressives" of the past such as Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson were just a bunch of stooges as opposed to great men. Most of modern conservatism in the U.S. is just gradual liberalism, plain and simple.- Mrhuh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Don't forget the tremendous Medicare increase that Bush signed into law.
"IANAE. This kind of harping is nothing new; I'm sure Sweden is very used to it. There are many intricacies to economic growth theory, but it is pretty well accepted by academics who do not write according to an ideological agenda that higher taxes slow down your economy for the long term benefit of a higher educated and healthier populace, whereas less interference from government leads to higher growth, but at a cost of deadly sharp business cycle spikes and a a more skewed wealth distribution. Which is 'better' in the simplistic sense that is always employed by non-economists (and especially politicians) is really an ethics question."
Actually sharp business cycle spikes are mostly caused by government meddling with the banking industry including the centralized banks. And increased government meddling only creates short-term benefits. "Universal education and healthcare" provided by the state is great, but sooner or later, it crumbles eventually, just like it did in the former Soviet Union, where it all went downhill.
"Are you ignorant? The only people wanting a draft are far left democrats. There was actually a bill submitted by democrats that would reinstate the draft that came to a vote. It recieved 2 votes, thats in the House of 435 members, not the Senate of 100."
"The Mises institute is total capitalistic tripe. They published a bunch of articles about the Tsunami and how Sweden failed to respond properly because of its "big government". Of course Sweden was HALFWAY AROUND THE WORLD and it took them only 48 hours to start getting the swedes out of the disaster zone. Now a year or so later we have hurricane Katrina and our wonderful and almighty government can't seem to rescue people IN OUR OWN COUNTRY for at least an entire week. If anything we should be critiqueing our own half-assed system. Stop submitting these Mis-tarded articles"
I find this post very hysterical since the the government disaster helps solidify the idea of smaller government and the Mises Institute has written many articles about the failures of not just government rescure crews, but also city planners who helped put residential areas in New Orleans below sea level. In fact, here are plenty of articles from the Mises Institue addressing the Katrina disaster with a negative slant that doesn't attempt to justify the problem of FEMA as many liberals and "red statists" do:
http://www.mises.org/story/1968
http://www.mises.org/story/1934
http://www.mises.org/story/1918
http://www.mises.org/story/1909
http://www.mises.org/story/1908
http://www.mises.org/story/1903
http://www.mises.org/story/1902
And while we're at it, here's some good anti-Bush and anti-conservative articles from the Mises Institute:
"Urmm.. Great, another one of these old conservative ultra-capitalists. As someone who lives in the Nordic countries, I really don't understand how so many people are fascinated by a system where wealth tends to polarize to the wealthy, healthcare for the poor is damn hard to get and you have to pay an arm and a leg to get an education."
Actually in a completely free market, wealth is less disperced than it is now do to almost any poor person being able to start up their own business with no regulations standing in their way, and far more competition, which leads to ever lower prices, and ever increasing standards of living. Healthcare and education were easily accessible to the poor during much of the Industrial Revolution (when infant mortality rates dropped by more than 40% in some countries even). It's only in mixed economies where more wealth and market share concentrate to smaller groups of people.
"Why not? Can't we keep all the medical services but just replace the insurance 'layer' with our government? Are a dozen competing insurance companies more efficient than one government based insurance company? Are a dozen FOR PROFIT entities making the best use of our money?"
Considering that governments have always been just as FOR PROFIT as any private business, the only difference being that government can forcefully take away your money and either outright outlaw or at least impose regulations on other providers that make it easier for them to compete and provide better and cheaper service. More competition drives up the supply too, which lowers prices and increases quality generally. Less competition doesn't.
"That SOUNDS great, but, in practice, is it? What choice do you have in your health care? My options are the two my employer provides. Is one better than the other? I don't think so. Is me having to spend a week each year trying to figure out the intricacies and minutia of these contracts a good use of my time? Doesn't seem so. Is me having to switch clinics every other year due to plan changes a good thing for me? Doesn't seem so. Is me having to keep a job I may not fully like only because I can't afford to leave my two children under-insured a good thing for me? Doesn't seem like it. Does making companies compete for employess based on what health care services they provide improve companies? Seems to burden them, if you ask me."
Once again, this is the fault of the mixed economy.
"Religion is belief which relies on the absence of reason."
Kind of like socialism. - Mrhuh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sorry, here are those anti-Bush and anti-conservative articles
http://www.mises.org/story/2250
http://www.mises.org/story/2172
http://www.mises.org/story/2173
http://www.mises.org/story/2143
http://www.mises.org/story/2128
http://www.mises.org/story/1986
http://www.mises.org/story/1793
- Mrhuh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Don't forget the tremendous Medicare increase that Bush signed into law.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by