Anders Borg has been the finance minister only since 2006. And yes, he (in the spirit of a member of a right-wing coalition's cabinet) is well-known for his intentions to slash welfare benefits. But you're really exaggerating his impact, and you'd know that if you looked at the figures, which I will present to you throughout this post.
When I compare the GDP growth rates sure, Sweden comes out on top of the five. But not by a remarkable margin (Sweden only beat Finland by 1.1%, and it's actually down by a full 1.8% from 2010). Also, you might want to stop plugging your ears and closing your eyes whenever someone brings up a country's unemployment rate. Sweden's is tied with Finland's for the third worst (or second best, if you like) out of the five countries I've been comparing. The winner is Norway.
GDP growth rates compared between Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and the USAFinland: -8.4% (2009), 3.7% (2010), 2.9% (2011)
Norway: -1.7% (2009), 0.7% (2010), 1.7% (2011)
Sweden: -4.8% (2009), 5.8% (2010), 4% (2011)
Denmark: -5.8% (2009), 1.3% (2010), 1.1% (2011)
USA: -3.5% (2009), 3% (2010), 1.7% (2011)
Unemployment rates compared between Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and the USAFinland: 8.4% (2010), 7.8% (2011), 7.5% (Current)
Norway: 3.6% (2010), 3.3% (2011), 3% (Current)
Sweden: 8.4% (2010), 7.5% (2011), 7.5% (Current)
Denmark: 6% (2010), 6% (2011), 7.8% (Current)
USA: 9.6% (2010), 9% (2011), 8.4% (Current)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/us.htmlhttps://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/da.htmlhttps://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/sw.htmlhttps://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/fi.htmlhttps://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/no.htmlI see your magazines and blogs (secondary sources) and raise you data straight from the European Commission (a primary source):
Swedish Government Expenditures as a % of GDP (their code is SE)2005 - 53.9%
2006 - 52.7%
2007 - 51.0%
2008 - 51.7%
2009 - 55.2%
2010 - 53.0%
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statis ... 1006133248Your man, Borg, he became the finance minister after the 2006 election. He took office on Oct. 6, 2006. What happened to the numbers after he and the rest of the Alliance for Sweden took office? Hmmm. You might consider new reading material, because Sweden has
INCREASED its government expenditures as a % GDP in nearly every year since they took office, and the lowest they've ever sunk beneath the numbers for the two years prior to their reign's initiation was a paltry 1.7%. The contraction that your Economist article (which is 8 years old, by the way) points out? It stopped.
Also, here's the table in general:
Notice that Sweden is actually among the highest spending countries in all of Europe, even after the contraction. That should tell you something, perhaps that the Swedish welfare state is still alive even if slashes to some programs have been made? Or maybe that the benefits package that Swedes enjoy is still relatively large? After all, I did show you that universal tertiary education and healthcare still exist, and that healthcare expenditures as a proportion of GDP have remained fairly steady over the last 3 decades.
Now, for the final nail in your argument's coffin. Hang on to your hat:
% GDP in Sweden Devoted To Social Protection2005 - 23.0%
2006 - 22.2%
2007 - 21.1%
2008 - 21.1%
2009 - 23.0%
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statis ... 1006134357Notice the absence of a dramatic decline in that percentage, even after the Alliance for Sweden came into play and Borg became the finance minister?
Read your sources before you post them. You just helped me a lot. If you look at Sweden's 2012 "Government Spending" score of 8.8/100 under "Limited Government" (down from a two-year high of only 17.3/100), you'll see that you just shot yourself in the foot. Also, read the paragraph underneath the table and you'll find this:
Sweden’s respect for the concept of limited government has not been particularly strong. Government spending has been expansive. The overall tax regime needed to finance the ever-growing scope of government has become more burdensome and complex, although such institutional assets as high degrees of business efficiency and regulatory flexibility have counterbalanced some of the shortcomings of heavy social spending.
Thought I'd highlight a few key parts for you since you're not in the habit of actually reading things. And here's a pretty picture for you to look at:
http://www.heritage.org/index/visualize ... den&type=4See the black line? That's the world average score for government spending (the higher it is, the smaller the government). See the orange line? That's Sweden's score.
Oh, and one more thing. See how in spite of all this, Sweden scores a solid 92/100 for freedom from corruption? Yeah. You lose
yet again.
in sum, when a socialist nation reduces the size and scope of government -- its economy grows and standards of living improve.
in contrast, when a capitalist nation increases the size and scope of government -- its economy stagnates and standards of living decline.
First of all, not a single one of the Nordic countries is a socialist system. So I'll just go ahead and stop you there on that point. Second, you've done
NOTHING to illustrate that Sweden is actually reducing the size and scope of its government since the Alliance for Sweden took command (indeed, the contraction stopped well before they ever got elected and never resulted in anything even close to a "small" government). I just showed you twice that it has been increasing instead (once with your own damn source, for Heaven's sake!) Finally, the assertion highlighted in red (which is the only one which is relevant since the Nordic countries are all mixed economies) is in conflict with the GDP per capita PPP and unemployment data.
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:07 pm
