Who pays for Sweden's free lunch?

[ksen]

Who pays for Sweden's free lunch?

Sweden's generous welfare system has served to break down the protestant work ethic, argues Captus's Nima Sanandaji.

Sweden has traditionally relied heavily on the strong protestant work ethic of its citizens. A cornerstone of the country's welfare system has been a population which has been reluctant to misuse the system. Although taxes have been high and government benefits generous, the strong work ethic has stopped people from taking advantage of the welfare state. Alas, this attitude has been largely abandoned. As time has passed, people have adapted to the system.

. . .

All Swedes who go to higher education today receive a handout from the state. Perhaps this is to be expected in a society with widespread dependence on politicians, but the attitude among these young students is remarkable. As one of them wrote in a letter to a newspaper:

“Why should I only get this handout only the months that I attend school?” Explaining that he needs money for going out with his friends and buying clothes all year round, the young author concluded: “I don’t have anything against working. But if the government doesn’t make sure that I have a job, it is their responsibility to pay me the handouts all year around”.

. . .

The Swedish welfare system is effectively breaking down the very norms that make the society function. As people become more and more accustomed on living of government one question arises: who is ultimately going to draw the short straw and become forced to pay for the supposedly free lunch?

======================================

Link --> http://www.thelocal.se/7305/

And just so you don't think I'm trying to hide the author of this piece his name is Nima Sanandaji and his bio at the end of the article says:

"Nima Sanandaji is the president of the Swedish free market think tank Captus and publisher of the weekly online Swedish magazine Captus Tidning. He is also a PhD student at The Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm."

While the knee-jerk reaction of some may be to dismiss this piece because the author is a proponent of the free-market let's not do that and instead discuss if his article has any merit.

Is the Swedish system creating generations of people that will increasingly rely on handouts from the state instead of working?

If so how long is such a system sustainable?

[Axulus]

This essay is especially good discussing the welfare model in Sweden and its current status:

"An essay on how the Swedish welfare state eroded the principles that made it viable in the first place."

http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=articles&articleid=151

[Tom Sawyer]

This is the bit I don't get:

But if the government doesn’t make sure that I have a job, it is their responsibility to pay me the handouts all year around

WTF? I have to agree with the system not being sustainable bit.

[Nice Squirrel]

Are you saying Sweden's system is broken and about to collapse at any moment?

[Axulus]

Are you saying Sweden's system is broken and about to collapse at any moment?

I don't think it will collapse, but I do believe that it is inevitable that benefits will be cut. It is interesting that if Sweden were a state in the U.S., it would be the fifth poorest in rank of GDP per capita due to stifled growth.

[ksen]

Are you saying Sweden's system is broken and about to collapse at any moment?

1) Am I saying Sweden's system is broken?

I don't know. It depends on if it is working as it was designed to do.

2) Am I saying that the Swedish system is about to collapse at any moment?

No. I am agreeing with the author that in the long run it is not sustainable.

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't think it will collapse, but I do believe that it is inevitable that benefits will be cut. It is interesting that if Sweden were a state in the U.S., it would be the fifth poorest in rank of GDP per capita due to stifled growth.
How can the growth be stifled if the GDP real growth rate in Sweden (4.2%) > the GDP real growth rate in US (3.4%)?

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Sweden: Poorer Than You Think (http://www.mises.org/story/955)

[laughing dog]

This OP is confusing. Clearly Sweden "pays" for its free lunch. The Swedish system has been in place for decades, and it seems to doing just fine - according to the Swedes. That Swedish author and freemarketer in the OP cannot just stand the notion that there are althernative systems that seem to work.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And a heavy object falling to the ground that has not yet hit the ground will never hit the ground because it hasn't done so yet.

[laughing dog]

And a heavy object falling to the ground that has not yet hit the ground will never hit the ground because it hasn't done so yet. Is there a point to this? The Swedish system has held remarkably well together for over 30 years. How long should one expect any social system to sustain itself with adaption? Hmmmm.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yes, there is a point, clearly expressed.

You object that since it hasn't broken it will never break and anyone who says otherwise is a "{snip... for consistency}". And I suppose anyone talking about the heavy falling object is a "{snip}".

Meanwhile the Sweedish system is sustaining itself by eating itself.

[laughing dog]

Yes, there is a point, clearly expressed.

You object that since it hasn't broken it will never break
Straw man. I wrote it hasn't broke yet and the Swedes are happy with it as it is.

and anyone who says otherwise is a "{snip}".
Another straw man. The author of the articlein the OP is "{snip}".


And I suppose anyone talking about the heavy falling object is a "{snip}". No. That would be a red herring deliverer. :D

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No, it's not a red herring to compare an impending but not yet arrived event to an impending but not yet arrived event.

[Tom Sawyer]

Straw man. I wrote it hasn't broke yet and the Swedes are happy with it as it is.


I find this response to be somewhat lacking. Ksen pointed out something that, on the surface, appears to be a legitimate flaw in the sustainability of the Swedish system. The notion that that system hasn't yet broken therefore means that the flaw isn't there doesn't address the issue at all.

A similar argument would be talking about how the US deficit is just passing costs onto the next generation isn't sustainable and another person responding that the US economy hasn't collapsed, so the deficits aren't a problem, or saying that a person financing his lifestyle by using one credit card to pay off another isn't sustainable and the response being that the guy can afford all the various minimum payments today, so there isn't any potential problem with what he's doing.

Everyone knows that it's not broken yet and that the Swedes seem to be happy with it, but that's neither what the OP nor the article are saying. What's being argued is that the system being described isn't sustainable over the long run. Saying that it's worked so far is the equivalent of saying that a guy with extended credit has been able to make his minimum payments so far, so there's no need for him to worry. It doesn't really address the issue being raised.

[Axulus]

How can the growth be stifled if the GDP real growth rate in Sweden (4.2%) > the GDP real growth rate in US (3.4%)?

Its easier to have sudden spurts when you've had slow growth for decades.

From the link I posted earlier:
"From 1975 to 2000, while per-capita income grew by 72 percent in the United States and 64 percent in Western Europe, Sweden´s grew by no more than 43 percent. By 2000, Sweden had fallen to 14th in the OECD´s ranking of per-capita income. If Sweden were a state in the United States, it would now be the fifth poorest. As the Social Democratic Finance Minister Bosse Ringholm explained in 2002, "If Sweden would have had the same growth rates as the OECD average since 1970, our common resources would have been so much bigger that it would be the equivalent of 20,000 SEK [$2,500] more per household per month."

In the early 1990s a deep recession forced Sweden to abandon a lot of the excesses from the 1970s and 1980s. Marginal tax rates were cut, the central bank was made independent, public pensions were cut and partially privatized, school vouchers were introduced, and private providers were welcomed in health care. Several markets were deregulated, like energy, the post office, transportation, television and, most importantly, telecom, which opened the way for the success of companies like Ericsson.

But Sweden retained the world´s highest taxes, generous social security systems and a heavily regulated labor market, which split the economy: Sweden is very good at producing goods, but not at producing jobs. According to a recent study of 35 developed countries, only two had jobless growth: Sweden and Finland. Economic growth in Sweden in the last 25 years has had no correlation at all with labor-market participation. (In contrast, 1 percent of growth increases the number of jobs by 0.25 percent in Denmark, 0.5 percent in the United States and 0.6 percent in Spain.) Amazingly, not a single net job has been created in the private sector in Sweden since 1950." emphasis added

[Nice Squirrel]

Since this thread is primarily about the sustainability of the Swedish social welfare system, it is being moved to PE&ST. Remember that the discussion will need to be continued in a thoughtful tone.

[Axulus]

Is there a point to this? The Swedish system has held remarkably well together for over 30 years. How long should one expect any social system to sustain itself with adaption? Hmmmm.

If it worked so well, then why the substantial reforms during the deep recession in the 90's?

[xunzian]

I think a lot of this discussion has to do with basic differences in capitalist and socialist worldviews.

Capitalists view the success of a nation by its GNP.

Socialists view the success of a nation by its quality of life.

Personally, if I were to try and judge how well a particular government is doing, I would judge it as a function of quality of life as compared to GNP.

By that stardard, Sweden is doing quite well.

[Tom Sawyer]

I think a lot of this discussion has to do with basic differences in capitalist and socialist worldviews.

Capitalists view the success of a nation by its GNP.

Socialists view the success of a nation by its quality of life.

Personally, if I were to try and judge how well a particular government is doing, I would judge it as a function of quality of life as compared to GNP.

By that stardard, Sweden is doing quite well.

Again, this doesn't address the point being raised by the OP. It's not talking about a socioeconomic system in general, but about one specific aspect of policy and how that policy would be sustainable in the long run.

[Nice Squirrel]

Capitalists view the success of a nation by its GNP.

Socialists view the success of a nation by its quality of life.

This is a very interesting point and brings up further questions:

Is GNP just an economic indicator, or does it in some way measure quality of life?
What are the metrics surrounding how we can compare quality of life?
How much does the business sector provide such quality of life, especially in Sweden?

[Nice Squirrel]

Again, this doesn't address the point being raised by the OP. It's not talking about a socioeconomic system in general, but about one specific aspect of policy and how that policy would be sustainable in the long run.
Which aspect of policy is that? Governmental support for students?

[ksen]

Which aspect of policy is that? Governmental support for students?

From the OP:

The Swedish welfare system is effectively breaking down the very norms that make the society function. As people become more and more accustomed on living of government one question arises: who is ultimately going to draw the short straw and become forced to pay for the supposedly free lunch?

[Jason Harvestdancer]

One of the problems with GDP is the way it is calculated in the first place.

GDP = consumption + investment + (government spending) + (exports − imports)

I see a problem there, in the third addend. Everything else is productive, but when creating the equation the economists were not sure how to include the government. It does not produce, it merely taxes and spends. So unlike all other factors this one merely measures spending. Some say it should not be included, others say it should be subtracted.

If all factors of the economy except government spending remain constant yet government spending goes up, then GDP is considered to have gone up. Yet the economy cannot be said to be improved in any way reflecting the GDP improvement.

I wonder what the comparative GDPs would be without the government spending variable. I think we need a companion variable, a GPP (Gross Private Product) that accompanies any and all GDP announcements.

[Tom Sawyer]

Which aspect of policy is that? Governmental support for students?

No. I mean the one that this thread is talking about.

[laughing dog]

One of the problems with GDP is the way it is calculated in the first place.

GDP = consumption + investment + (government spending) + (exports − imports)

I see a problem there, in the third addend. Everything else is productive, but when creating the equation the economists were not sure how to include the government. It does not produce, it merely taxes and spends. So unlike all other factors this one merely measures spending. Some say it should not be included, others say it should be subtracted.

If all factors of the economy except government spending remain constant yet government spending goes up, then GDP is considered to have gone up. Yet the economy cannot be said to be improved in any way reflecting the GDP improvement.

I wonder what the comparative GDPs would be without the government spending variable. I think we need a companion variable, a GPP (Gross Private Product) that accompanies any and all GDP announcements.In the calculation of GDP, it is gov't spending on final goods and services that is counted, because GDP is literally the monetary value of all final goods and services produced within a country during a year. Most of those purchases of goods are from the private sector.

[laughing dog]

If it worked so well, then why the substantial reforms during the deep recession in the 90's? Because there was a recession. Why would anyone think that any system is immune from external forces and should not adapt to changing circumstances?

[laughing dog]

Again, this doesn't address the point being raised by the OP. It's not talking about a socioeconomic system in general, but about one specific aspect of policy and how that policy would be sustainable in the long run. Except that the article has not one iota of evidence to suggest that the Swedes, as a nation, are not willing to make this work, or adapt this system to changing needs. What we do know from recent history is that the Swedes are willing to make this system work, and that they are willing to alter it when circumstances require changes.

[Nice Squirrel]

I guess there is still some confusion for me. The Swedish welfare system is effectively breaking down the very norms that make the society function. As people become more and more accustomed on living of government one question arises: who is ultimately going to draw the short straw and become forced to pay for the supposedly free lunch?

What are the norms that make society function which are breaking down?

[EricK]

But how prevalent is the attitude expressed in the OP?

If only a tiny proportion of Swedish students feel this way then it would be foolish to use their example as evidence that the system is about to fail.

[Caine]

Sweden's welfare system peaked around 1970 in terms of funding. Why would the whole thing suddenly fail almost 40 years later? Because "the kids of today are soooo lazy"? If the system was sutained through serious recessions and the 73 oil crisis, I seriously doubt that it is going to be killed by this new (:rolleyes: ) phenomenon of lazy students.

[Henry-Finland]

- The 'news' in the OP and some other posts are not an issue in Sweden.

- The "a student wrote in a paper"-stuff can be planted any day in a paper.
That kind of news are needed so that some think-tank can begin their spin.

- Nordberg has been writing his stuff for ages. Just another hired pen.

The real issue here is that the Nordic model is making some right wingers nervous. They are not concerned in "what could happen the people if and when the system collapses" as they try often to give that impression...
If they were, they had much to do at their own front- and back-yard.

They are concerned about the fact that the system works. => Free education for everyone and we can meet any hardship (because the citizens in our country/countries are well educated).

Think about it, and you will understand that it works better than in countries where only the rich can study at universities: Brazil, Venezuela, the Kongo and USA, just to mention a few.

USA is not a part of the 'banana-legue', but some half-way between that legue and the Nordic countries.
But yes, the military is really strong over there.
[That seems to be the important thing to some citizens.]


Henry

[Loren Pechtel]

I think a lot of this discussion has to do with basic differences in capitalist and socialist worldviews.

Capitalists view the success of a nation by its GNP.

Socialists view the success of a nation by its quality of life.

Personally, if I were to try and judge how well a particular government is doing, I would judge it as a function of quality of life as compared to GNP.

By that stardard, Sweden is doing quite well.

The problem is how the two systems behave over time.

At any one instant in time there's no question, people would be better off under a socialist system. The problem is what will happen to the socialist system over time. We're seeing it with Sweden--you cut growth, you cut job creation.

In other words, socialism is screwing the future. It's a very short-sighted economic policy.

[Pavlov's Dog]

It is really hard to argue with the author's evidence. I mean, he has the complaint of one college student. It is obvious that the youth of Sweden have lost their work ethic based on this insurmountable evidence. Case closed.

[Major Billy]

Who pays for Sweden's free lunch?Maybe Sweden's SEK 57bn budget surplus (http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/analysis-reports/flash-comment/2007-05-09.html)? How's your country's budget doing?

[xunzian]

I'm not so sure about that.

Both systems need occasional tweaking, that is true. Occasionally, the government needs to step in and give capitalism a human face and occasionally the government needs to step away and let market forces take care of some prices.

But look at what happened to New Zealand . . . It was, I believe #3 in the world for quality of life. Then it enacted a series of capitalist reforms and it plummeted to ~#20. Hardly a fair trade.

Compare that to what happened when America left the Laissez faire model around the turn of last century, when quality of life shot up.

It is always about achieving a balance. I would say that the Frankfurt School/ortholiberalism has achieved a near perfect balance. But that is me.

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Its easier to have sudden spurts when you've had slow growth for decades.
How do you know it is sudden and just a spurt?

From the link I posted earlier:
"From 1975 to 2000, while per-capita income grew by 72 percent in the United States and 64 percent in Western Europe, Sweden´s grew by no more than 43 percent. By 2000, Sweden had fallen to 14th in the OECD´s ranking of per-capita income. If Sweden were a state in the United States, it would now be the fifth poorest. As the Social Democratic Finance Minister Bosse Ringholm explained in 2002, "If Sweden would have had the same growth rates as the OECD average since 1970, our common resources would have been so much bigger that it would be the equivalent of 20,000 SEK [$2,500] more per household per month."
Why does this article arbitrarily stop at 2000 which was 7 years ago and why does it arbitrarily start on 1975 here but not 1975 elsewhere? 7 years of missing data...it appears that Sweden has actually been gaining in OECD ranking since 2000.
Sweden’s score of 113 put it ahead of both the OECD and eurozone averages of 100, and ahead of countries including the UK, Finland, Japan, France, Germany and Italy.
http://www.isa.se/templates/News____38877.aspx

In the early 1990s a deep recession forced Sweden to abandon a lot of the excesses from the 1970s and 1980s. Marginal tax rates were cut, the central bank was made independent, public pensions were cut and partially privatized, school vouchers were introduced, and private providers were welcomed in health care. Several markets were deregulated, like energy, the post office, transportation, television and, most importantly, telecom, which opened the way for the success of companies like Ericsson.

But Sweden retained the world´s highest taxes, generous social security systems and a heavily regulated labor market, which split the economy: Sweden is very good at producing goods, but not at producing jobs. According to a recent study of 35 developed countries, only two had jobless growth: Sweden and Finland. Economic growth in Sweden in the last 25 years has had no correlation at all with labor-market participation. (In contrast, 1 percent of growth increases the number of jobs by 0.25 percent in Denmark, 0.5 percent in the United States and 0.6 percent in Spain.) Amazingly, not a single net job has been created in the private sector in Sweden since 1950." emphasis added
Does this take into account stagnant population growth?

[Axulus]

If all factors of the economy except government spending remain constant yet government spending goes up, then GDP is considered to have gone up. Yet the economy cannot be said to be improved in any way reflecting the GDP improvement.


Really? Government spending provides nothing of value? Or are you saying the value has no correlation with the price actually paid?

[Axulus]

Because there was a recession. Why would anyone think that any system is immune from external forces and should not adapt to changing circumstances?

When they recovered, they did not revert back to the pre-recession ways of doing things. Thus, at least some things have shown to be unsustainable in the past.

[Henry-Finland]

When they recovered, they did not revert back to the pre-recession ways of doing things. Thus, at least some things have shown to be unsustainable in the past.
Right! The recession ended when the right wing was voted out from power and the social democrats took over again. :D
Just put up a chart who were in power when the downhills begun in countries like Sweden and Finland at the period of the last 20 - 30 years.
Take your pick of any time scale after WWII and you will be amazed of the result. :devil1:


Henry

[unrealist42]

The people of Sweden seem generally happy with thier state of affairs and seem willing to accept a lower growth rate and high taxes for a more equitable society. While other countries have had higher economic growth they have not closed the gap of inequity and many have actually increased it.

Sweden has had to adjust its program because of the economic pressure of competition from less equable countries but the Swedish people are not willing to abandon it because for them the benefits it brings are worth it.

They see no point in getting ahead while leaving others behind. They are all in it together. It is only when compared to the gross overconsumption in other countries that Sweden looks to be lacking. Thier standard of living is slowly declining but how big a house do you really need? How many cars?

They would rather have a guaranteed income and top flight health care so how can they be wrong? They invest heavily in education and quality of life and still remain competitive.

They show the world how it is supposed to be.

[Major Billy]

The people of Sweden seem generally happy with their state of affairs. They see no point in getting ahead while leaving others behind. They are all in it together. It is only when compared to the gross overconsumption in other countries that Sweden looks to be lacking. They show the world how it is supposed to be.Would this still be true if Sweden accepted its responsibility as an imperialist slave nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_slave_trade) as Britain, Spain, America, and France have done?

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I am looking forward to the answer as to why the data was missing between 2000-2006 which at least appears that it would have shone a good light on Sweden. This is especially the case since the article was printed in "Summer 2006."
http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=articles&articleid=151

Does anyone have an answer for this?

[JamesBannon]

I'm still waiting to see a cogent argument as to why the Swedish system is unsustainable. Just for your information you should try reading "Britain's Economic Problem: Too Few Producers" (I forget the authors) written back in the early eighties. The think tank paper is just a rehash of that and it wasn't very good.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

that's a weird name. I expected an Indian guy

http://www.lewrockwell.com/sanandaji/segerfeldt.jpg

[Major Billy]

Think about it, and you will understand that it works better than in countries where only the rich can study at universities: Brazil, Venezuela, the Kongo and USA, just to mention a few.Why are the European posters on this board so mindlessly nationalistic? I'm poor and I managed to graduate from The University of Iowa, (that's in the central USA about 1000 miles inland from Harvard)

We're supposed to skeptics you know.

[Metaphor]

Why are the European posters on this board so mindlessly nationalistic? I'm poor and I managed to graduate from The University of Iowa, (that's in the central USA about 1000 miles inland from Harvard)

We're supposed to skeptics you know.

Mindlessly nationalistic?

What's the lethal dose per kilogram of body weight (LD50) of irony?

[Bonniedundee]

The Swedish welfare system is effectively breaking down the very norms that make the society function. As people become more and more accustomed on living of government one question arises: who is ultimately going to draw the short straw and become forced to pay for the supposedly free lunch?You can ask the same question about any monopoly capitalist system.
We live in systems which the gov't and big business control and cartelise, and milk actually productive society for their own unearned economic needs.

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

that's a weird name. I expected an Indian guy

http://www.lewrockwell.com/sanandaji/segerfeldt.jpg
Okay, but what does the evil guy from Lost have to do with the price of a dozen of eggs in Sweden?

And who is this guy?
http://www.realtid.se/ArticlePages/200508/10/20050810163922_Realtid850/sanandaj_F_200.jpg

Does he have anything to do with the op either? I don't know.

But seriously, I would really like to know why the other article submitted after the op...is dated in Summer of 2006, but only has data from OECD up to 2000. And to top it off, the data from 2000 to 2006 is very good for Sweden.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

will the real Nima Sanandaji please stand up?

[Fedor Emelianenko]

The Awful Truth about Sweden (http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18844/article_detail.asp)
And second, while Sweden’s growth (around 3 percent) is above the European average, it is still relatively low. If Sweden were a state in America today, it would be the fifth poorest. Even more, the total tax pressure is 63 percent. In that perspective, perhaps it is not surprising that not a single large-scale enterprise—like IKEA or Ericsson—has been created in Sweden since 1970.

[Major Billy]

What's the lethal dose per kilogram of body weight (LD50) of irony?Not fair. We Americans know nothing of these 'kilogram's, LD50's, or iron knees. Go kiss a bunyip.

[Caine]

I will have to mention the terrible plight of their nation to some of the Swedish people I know. I am fairly sure they will be surprised that the conservative think-tanks have prophesised their doom considering that oddly enough they seem to really like their country.

Weird eh? It's almost as if selected statistics were being collected in a giant example of confirmation bias. Perhaps in order to demonstrate to people that don't give a crap about Sweden that welfare states are a terrible idea in general? :huh: Just a thought.

[CelticChic]

Well it depends on the Swedish people you talk to I suppose as I know a few who would agree with the OP. Either way it's hardly an argument.

[anders]

[B][SIZE="3"]handout ... handouts ... handouts
The "handout" part is minimal. Most money which the quoted student is arguing about is a loan.

Why are the European posters on this board so mindlessly nationalistic?
How is a guy from Finland supporting Swedish views "nationalistic"?

[Canard DuJour]

While the knee-jerk reaction of some may be to dismiss this piece because the author is a proponent of the free-market let's not do that and instead discuss if his article has any merit.

Apart from an unstartling employment statistic, it seems to consist of anecdotes about 2 or 3 individuals interspersed with a lot of opinion. It's not impossible that Sweden's generous welfare is destroying its work ethic, but these snippets of gossip give us no real clue. While Sweden's economy remains obstinately stable, these articles tell us more about the right-wing thinktanks who've been churning them out since forever.

[coloradoatheist]

Apart from an unstartling employment statistic, it seems to consist of anecdotes about 2 or 3 individuals interspersed with a lot of opinion. It's not impossible that Sweden's generous welfare is destroying its work ethic, but these snippets of gossip give us no real clue. While Sweden's economy remains obstinately stable, these articles tell us more about the right-wing thinktanks who've been churning them out since forever.


I agree with this, basing it off of one person is wrong. The author would need to survey a statistically significant percentage to say what he said. However it's very common for journalists to find one person that's affected the most and portray it as the norm too.

We need to come back to this thread in 50 years and see where it's at.


Mike

[Metaphor]

The "handout" part is minimal. Most money which the quoted student is arguing about is a loan.


How is a guy from Finland supporting Swedish views "nationalistic"?

We've watched Eurovision, we know how it works :)

[Metaphor]

Not fair. We Americans know nothing of these 'kilogram's, LD50's, or iron knees. Go kiss a bunyip.

The nearest bunyip-hole is hundreds of kilometres away, I'd need to find a sturdy kangaroo to ride that far in her pouch.

[CanoeMan]

Well, I am a college student in Sweden, and this is what I have to say about this.

1) I have never met anyone that thinks we should get money all year round "so we can spend money on clothes and partying." I have met people who complain about the weak economy of students during the summer, but that is mainly because students have to eat just like everybody else. The vast majority of us can get summer jobs to get us through the lean months. A lot of us also live in student apartments where you don't have to pay rent during the three summer months, which make it possible to save up enough money to get through it.

2) The government "handout" is about $1,000, $700 of which we have to pay back with interest. So it's not really a handout as much as it is a government based student loan.

3) Nitpick: The growth is about 4%, not 3%.


You know, I've seen these "OMG The Scandinavian systems are collapsing!!!1!" threads since I joined here back in whenever, and they always seem to say things that are completely at odds with what I can see living here. They're mostly based on the assumption that Sweden will collapse, and then try to find either a) Swedes who agree, or b) statistics that prove we're all fucked. a) is not a problem, you can always find someone believing anything, and b) always seems to produce slightly wonky statistics. (Like redefining economic growth, cherry-picking data, etc, etc).

Now, I'm not saying Sweden is Heaven on Earth, I'm saying that we have it pretty good here with no major signs of "the system failing".

[beausoleil]

I'm trying to think when I first read a report from a free marketeer about the impending collapse of Sweden's system. Some time in the early 1980s, I think. There may have been earlier ones but I wasn't old enough to engage before that.

It's not a case of "it's worked so far therefore it will always work". The argument is "free market theorists have been predicting its imminent collapse for 30 years, and there is no data supporting their predictions".

Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a Swedish system. But if it suits the Swedes, good for them.

[_Naturalist_]

Why it is viewed as a free lunch by anyone, is beyond me. Someone has to produce that lunch. Who could it be? Oh, that's right... we the people. Our system would not be possible if no one did anything, no one ever worked or produced anything. I don't believe we live beyond our means, and I find it hard (but not impossible) to believe that some people think that we don't do anything, or ever work.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, so please stop saying that there is one in Sweden. There isn't, and you know it.

Some people seem to think that if you live in Sweden you don't have to work. This is so obviously not true that it makes you wonder why people still claim to believe it. It is true that there are safety nets that will cushion your fall if, for example, you become unemployed. And why wouldn't there be? The unemployed are people too, and actually have to live somewhere and eat, and other such things. The fact that you don't get thrown out of your home doesn't mean you don't want to have a job again. I'm pretty sure that everyone knows that as many as possible must contribute to maintain a better society.

Our system will collapse if no one contributes to it. When that will happen, I don't know. Maybe the doomsayers do?

And Sweden is a mix of socialism and capitalism, another fact that seems to be ignored when necessary.

[Rudolph]

So it was a hard working ethic which allowed for a welfare state, but it's this welfare state which is undermining the work ethic, the erosion of which will threaten the capability of the state to provide welfare... Fair enough, except that you have to remember why the welfare state was set up: not to maintain society as it was, but to transform society! Rather than have part of the population simply working to survive, the state invests in its population so that individuals can have more control over their lives. This is done through education primarily. This measure alone is going to erode the work ethic simply because people aren't going to need to work crappy jobs for long hours to survive. It cetainly doesn't mean though that the country as a whole is going to become less productive... in fact the country is investing in its future, since more and more of the population will be more qualified and have more specialised knowledge, so their potential to earn more increases accordingly.

It's not very interesting to compare economic indicators without taking into account quality of life. In a question like this, I'm always reminded of Rawls' thought experiment.

lifted from here (http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/pophealth/2002-November/000420.html):

The way to create the rules for a just society, is to first imagine everyone in an "original position" behind a pre-birth "veil of
ignorance," where no one knows what their own traits will be - whether they will be rich or poor, beautiful or plain, smart or less so, talented or not, healthy or disabled. Only in this situation - where people don't know what place they are destined to occupy in society - can we see what kind of social order they would agree in advance was fair.

If you had a pre birth choice between the US and Sweden, knowing everything you do now about both countries, but not knowing in what position you would end up in, which would you choose?

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You know, I've seen these "OMG The Scandinavian systems are collapsing!!!1!" threads since I joined here back in whenever, and they always seem to say things that are completely at odds with what I can see living here. They're mostly based on the assumption that Sweden will collapse, and then try to find either a) Swedes who agree, or b) statistics that prove we're all fucked. a) is not a problem, you can always find someone believing anything, and b) always seems to produce slightly wonky statistics. (Like redefining economic growth, cherry-picking data, etc, etc).
Yes, and the perfect example of this is the article that was written in 2006 but used stats from 1975-2000 while skipping the 2000-2006 numbers. Those OECD numbers definitely showed Sweden doing better than the 1975-2000 numbers. It is of course no wonder that these articles are written by those who have a specific economic agenda.

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If Sweden were a state in America today, it would be the fifth poorest.
Can someone provide some numbers to show this? Thank you in advance.

[Metaphor]

If you had a pre birth choice between the US and Sweden, knowing everything you do now about both countries, but not knowing in what position you would end up in, which would you choose?

I've already asked hardcore rightwingers this question on the PD forum (RIP). You won't like the answer. It'll be either to ignore you, or they imagine that no matter what the system, no matter that they are born without opportunity or brains or into an impoverished environment, they are going to have the personal gumption and courage to make it in that system - and by God, the only system that rewards their efforts properly won't be anything like Socialism.

[coloradoatheist]

Can someone provide some numbers to show this? Thank you in advance.

Here's the one I found for Sweden

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Sweden

It has it as $29,541

Here is wikipedia's break down by state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal)

That comparison would have Sweden next to last.

Mike

[laughing dog]

Here's the one I found for Sweden

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Sweden

It has it as $29,541

Here is wikipedia's break down by state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_%28nominal%29)

That comparison would have Sweden next to last.

Mike
However, those comparisons are misleading - where would you prefer to live, Sweden or Alabama?

[coloradoatheist]

However, those comparisons are misleading - where would you prefer to live, Sweden or Alabama?

I visited Huntsville when I was about 13 and I thought it was okay, haven't been to Sweden.


Mike

[untermensche]

When your system relies on indoctrinating people to accept a life of wage slavery, it will wear down over time.

The techniques and propaganda you use to motivate the wage slaves and make them accept their predicament will not work forever.

[premjan]

Sweden offers free childcare, university education, and ceiling on healthcare costs. So that stuff is not represented by a simple dollar number.

[_Naturalist_]

What do you mean by wage slavery? That people have to work to make a living? I thought the criticism was that people in Sweden didn't have to work.

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here's the one I found for Sweden

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Sweden

It has it as $29,541
First problem: The concept of economic freedom being promoted by the ideological think-tank known as the Heritage Foundation is wrong. Economic freedom is not the freedom of corporations to do whatever they want (deregulation), but instead must include the freedom of the individual from corporations...in the same way that the Economic Freedom Index you cited lists something called "Freedom From Government." People can only be free from corporations when corporations are regulated by the government. Therefore, Freedom from Government can be good sometimes...notably the original invention of the US FDA was a good thing. Its state now might need some work, but it is better than nothing...because we had nothing before and look where that got us.

Second problem: The Heritage Foundation webpage you gave lists stats from various years, like 2004 and 2005, etc. What year is the GDP from? Who knows. It is also is using PPP instead of real exchange rate as a method to convert the Swedish krona to US dollars. On the other hand, the CIA Factbook lists the GDP as $371.5 billion when computed with exchange rate. Which method is better is debated by economists. If GDP per capita is computed with exchange rate, then it would be ~$41,300. And even if GDP per capita was computed with PPP, it would be $31,600 and not $29,541. And it would be much better if the Heritage webpage had a timestamp on it, so that we could ensure we are not comparing apples to oranges using wrong year with wrong year.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sw.html

Here is wikipedia's break down by state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal)

That comparison would have Sweden next to last.
That comparison is comparing apples to oranges since (1) we do not know the date of the GDP calculations and (2) PPP method of computing GDP is just as flawed and debatable as exchange rate method of computing GDP. Assuming we could gather stats for all the same year, then instead we could say that GDP per capita for Sweden is between rank X (where PPP was used) and rank Y (where exchange rate was used).

[Henry-Finland]

I am looking forward to the answer as to why the data was missing between 2000-2006 which at least appears that it would have shone a good light on Sweden. This is especially the case since the article was printed in "Summer 2006."
http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=articles&articleid=151

Does anyone have an answer for this?
Yes.
Johan Norberg is a hired pen and he takes the worst of it => When the right-wing was in power.
(He does not tell that, of cource. ;) )

In the 21st century the Social Democrats came again to power and everything went better.
That's why this writing-whore from the right left those facts out.


Henry

[xunzian]

One of the things I'd be interested in seeing is the standard deviation for Alabama vs. Sweden. Let's forget about PPP for a second (though I think that is really the only sensible way to calculate this sort of comparison), and just deal with that.

The range of wealth in Alabama (and the US as a whole) is much greater than that in Sweden. So, those averages are actually misleading. You have a few very, very wealthy people bringing the average up which hides the overall poverty.

There are some very nice mansions in the American south . . . and they are pretty much surrounded by hovels. That is the third world. I know from experience that Arkansas is the freakin' third world, it is disgusting. d

[JamesBannon]

If you had a pre birth choice between the US and Sweden, knowing everything you do now about both countries, but not knowing in what position you would end up in, which would you choose? This is a no-brainer. Sweden of course!

[Apollo13]

ksen,

to get back to your original post, the statements made sound suspiciously like Reagan's fictitious "Welfare Mom".

As with any system, there will be cheats, but it is a far cry from individuals getting a few Krona more than their share compared to the corporate rip-off of billions of Dollars in the USA.

What does welfare do?

It puts resources directly there, where it is most needed, no fuss, and no corrupt intermediaries to funnel the resources into black holes.

The money paid out in welfare goes directly into the local community. There is no point in having skills in an area, when no one can afford to pay for them because everyone is scratching to make ends meet.

Small businesses have a chance to become established and individuals can make the most of their talents.

Very few people are happy to sit on their ass and do nothing, especially not when the state has invested in the education infrastructure, where individuals can gain valuable skills, which they will want to apply.

One little known fact in the USA is the following:
Donohue and Levitt use statistics to point to the fact that males aged 18 to 24 are most likely to commit crimes. Data indicate that crime started to decline in 1992. Donohue and Levitt suggest that the absence of unwanted aborted children, following legalisation in 1973, led to a reduction in crime 18 years later, starting in 1992 and dropping sharply in 1995. These would have been the peak crime-committing years of the unborn children.

The authors argue that states that had abortion legalized earlier and more widespread should have the largest reductions in crime. Donohue and Levitt's study indicates that this indeed has happened: Alaska, California, Hawaii, New York, and Washington experienced steeper drops in crime, and had legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade.

Now what conclusions can one draw from the above?

If you want to reduce abortions, there has to be an infrastructure in place to enable families to bring up their children - even if neither of the parents has a source of income other than welfare.

When children are not born into a dead end situation - having to turn to crime for lack of other alternatives - then the choice to have children is no longer an existential question for the parent(s). Criminal energy is thus transformed into productive legal contributions to the society.

In the statistics for the abuses of the welfare system, how do those abuses compare to the reduction of loss to the system by way of a reduction of crime?

Through welfare "depressed regions" automatically invest in themselves, with no need for wasteful corrupt governmental "subsidies" paid to a few in the hope that some of the resources will find their way to the intended recipients.

Welfare also makes a fair distribution of wealth possible. Trickle down economics has run its course in the USA and it is culminating in the destruction of the US economy. The only question is, when it is going to happen (three to five years is my guess).

The losers in the collapse will be 80% of the US population, who cannot "diversify" or move offshore. The top of the economic pile will be unaffected, and don't really have an existential interest in averting a future catastrophe for the sake of extracting as much capital out of the system as possible in the mean time.

The explosion of top level siphoning of capital should be a flare lit tip-off that all is not well with the economy. America is quietly being sold off, and when the crunch comes, like in the case of Enron, there will be nothing remaining for those who could not pay themselves an exorbitant bonus.

Money is essentially a means to eliminate barter. It has now however become a means in itself.

The stock market, originally established for companies to gain an influx of capital to expand, has become a Ponzi Scheme. Who will be the last to know of an impending downward trend? The small investor. One glaring example of this is Enron.

When the economy is gone, it is too late for recriminations.

Sustaining a social infrastructure (of which welfare is a part) is investment in the continuing health of the public domain. If individuals get paid too much on welfare, what are they going to do with the excess? Ship jobs offshore? Invest overseas? Or are they most likely to spend within the community, and the economy?

A higher standard of living also has benefits to the mental and physical health and wellbeing of the individuals in that community.

Welfare is not a "hand out", it is an investment in the most precious resource a country has, namely human beings. If the individuals of a society are comfortable and do not live under existential fears and threats, the society as a whole is better off and more productive.

What really makes me laugh are the morons who prattle on about "Socialism vs. Capitalism" as if they were mutually exclusive. Every person born has at least 60 years to look forward to. The social infrastructure should reflect that. Some will fall by the wayside, no matter how generous the benefits are. That is a cost.

On the other hand, having a system where "devil take the hindmost" is the norm (as in the US) means that a large percentage of gainful employment and contribution is lost to the "collateral damage" of "maximising economic growth" (in the US that would be about 20% of the population).

What is the "maximisation of economic growth"? It is bean-counters run wild. It has no referent except to itself. In the US for instance there is an overwhelming reliance on "cheap imports". Why is that? Because large swathes of the population cannot afford American made goods, or the goods are no longer made in the US - exacerbating the declining social spiral all the while churning out reams of healthy spreadsheets.

Someone on this thread said to the effect, "We'll see who's better off in 50 years America or Sweden". Ask yourself this, when the US turns into a super Enron, who will survive? There is no diversification. There is no spread of resources. When the bubble bursts in the US, the bean-counters will say "Oops" and the general populous will be left with nothing to fall back on.

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

One of the things I'd be interested in seeing is the standard deviation for Alabama vs. Sweden. Let's forget about PPP for a second (though I think that is really the only sensible way to calculate this sort of comparison), and just deal with that.
I understand wanting to support PPP even though it is flawed somewhat. As an aside, can you explain how health care is input into this process of PPP computation?

The range of wealth in Alabama (and the US as a whole) is much greater than that in Sweden. So, those averages are actually misleading. You have a few very, very wealthy people bringing the average up which hides the overall poverty.

There are some very nice mansions in the American south . . . and they are pretty much surrounded by hovels. That is the third world. I know from experience that Arkansas is the freakin' third world, it is disgusting. d
Ever hear the story of the statistician who had one foot in a bucket of cold water and the other in a bucket of boiling water and said on average he was warm? Sure, yes, this would be interesting to get Gini index per state and compare to Sweden so far as rank.

[Henry-Finland]

I can not compare Sweden and Alabama, because:
- I have never been in Alabama
- In order not to be a Swedish nationalist, I have to speak about my own country. ;)

So, I am 56 years old - former carpenter, nowadays a student.
I begun my studies in January the 15th this year.
I get unemployment money about 530 euros per month while I am studying and some 200 euros because I am studying far from home (350 km:s).

I do pay this money back when I pay taxes, but I do not have any obligation to do so if I for instance move to Sweden and pay my taxes there, or Alabama.

In the end of January I got sick and had to be operated for my appendix. I was 5 days lying at the hospital. It costed me some 22 euros plus some 20 euros for the medicine and 10 euros self-risk for the taxi home (350 km:s.)
I got the same payments per day as usual, so in fact I made some saving lieing at the hospital.
I have also been thrice this year at my dentist. (I think the costs has summed up to some 30 euros.)

At this school I pay for my room/electricity/water etc., 140 euros per month and the food 4,30 per day.
The books, the tennis court, the sauna, the car repairing garage [where I repair my car by myself], the programs, the computers are free for me.

We have 3 - 5 teachers daily for 17 - 25 students.
We study computers (in Swedish, LOL, and English).

The main point for me, is not what I get, but the knowledge that any of my four children can study for free, and get paid for it if they are without work. And they can, as I also could, study at the university for free (getting "handouts" ;) and some governmental loans).

I do not have to worry about them when I am sent to the hospital "for the last time".
We are also discussing a system where everyone that is older than 18 years would get 440 euros per month. I think this will be reality within 10 - 15 years.

So what has this to do with Sweden?
Well we are their poorer neighbour, so I do not know the exact sums there, but they have a better system, that I know.
Poor us (in Finland). :frown:





So, now it is your turn. Tell me about the Alabama guy with this high standard of living and his huge salary. :)



Henry

[lpetrich]

Why not also bash armed forces for making their training free?

How much has anyone in the military ever had to pay for Boot Camp?

I think that subsidizing education is a legitimate sort of social-level investment.

One may need a certain amount of quality control, but on the whole, it is a good idea.

[Hawkeye]

The problem with the Swedish Model is that everyone knows about it. It becomes ammunitions in debates. The critics paints out Sweden like hell on Earth because of it, and the proponents like raises it to the skies.

As for undermining the work ethics; I'm just 26 years old and even I think some kids today are lazy: But then again, that's hardly a problem limited to Sweden.

If you want to have a welfare system, you will simply have to put some demands on its recipients. Reforms on that has been going on for a long time now, and will continue.

[_Naturalist_]

The problem with the Swedish Model is that everyone knows about it. It becomes ammunitions in debates. The critics paints out Sweden like hell on Earth because of it, and the proponents like raises it to the skies.

As for undermining the work ethics; I'm just 26 years old and even I think some kids today are lazy: But then again, that's hardly a problem limited to Sweden.

If you want to have a welfare system, you will simply have to put some demands on its recipients. Reforms on that has been going on for a long time now, and will continue.
Some critics seem to believe (or at least claim to believe, for argument's sake) that our welfare system hands out money left and right in a rather wasteful way, without thinking of what society will gain from it. Obviously if this was the case our system would be in danger of collapse. Good thing, then, that our system is not like that. What the critics are saying, possibly unintentionally, is that if things were different, the outcome would be, too. Imagine that...

[Loren Pechtel]

Sweden offers free childcare, university education, and ceiling on healthcare costs. So that stuff is not represented by a simple dollar number.

It's still part of GDP even if people don't pay for it.

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's still part of GDP even if people don't pay for it.
That's true because it is in there as government spending. However, if it's free, then everyone gets it...which is different than a market-driven service. In any case, does it really make sense to compare GDP when much of govt spending is going into debt? Does any of that count toward income to foreign govts?

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes.
Johan Norberg is a hired pen and he takes the worst of it => When the right-wing was in power.
(He does not tell that, of cource. ;) )

In the 21st century the Social Democrats came again to power and everything went better.
That's why this writing-whore from the right left those facts out.


Henry
Thanks, this is a good explanation. I guess this guy just cherry picked his data to prove a point.

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The range of wealth in Alabama (and the US as a whole) is much greater than that in Sweden. So, those averages are actually misleading. You have a few very, very wealthy people bringing the average up which hides the overall poverty.

There are some very nice mansions in the American south . . . and they are pretty much surrounded by hovels. That is the third world. I know from experience that Arkansas is the freakin' third world, it is disgusting. d
Well, I had to check out what you are saying. So, I looked up the Gini coefficient (income inequality) per state in the US. The Census Bureau has the listing for 1999 here:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/state/state4.html
Washington, DC is the worst. You can imagine why what with all the lobbyists, defense contractors, politicians, political strategists on one side and then all the low-income, crime-infested "hovels" all around on the outskirts. DC appears to be about the same level as Guatemala, if my understanding of the numbers is correct.

Now, so how does Sweden compare? Again, if my understanding of the numbers is correct, Sweden is much better than any state in the United States. Here is a list of the Gini coefficients per country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

[xunzian]

That makes sense and fits with what I've been advocating. Thanks for the statistics. I didn't even know about the Gini coefficient! That is a wonderful tool for future discussions.

As for PPP and healthcare -- I think it is about the hidden cost of American Healthcare. American wages seem higher, but they get bled twelve ways from sunday because of insurance. In the Swedish model, they get bled twelve ways from sunday because of taxes. The trick is, the Government is designed to try and give that wealth back to its people. It is a redistribution. In the insurance model, large amounts of that money gets siphoned off to benefit a profit-motivated company.

Given that, I do think that the PPP in America is artificially high because it looks like there is more money available than there is. After all, insurance is 'optional', right? It is a luxury.

[coloradoatheist]

That makes sense and fits with what I've been advocating. Thanks for the statistics. I didn't even know about the Gini coefficient! That is a wonderful tool for future discussions.

As for PPP and healthcare -- I think it is about the hidden cost of American Healthcare. American wages seem higher, but they get bled twelve ways from sunday because of insurance. In the Swedish model, they get bled twelve ways from sunday because of taxes. The trick is, the Government is designed to try and give that wealth back to its people. It is a redistribution. In the insurance model, large amounts of that money gets siphoned off to benefit a profit-motivated company.

Given that, I do think that the PPP in America is artificially high because it looks like there is more money available than there is. After all, insurance is 'optional', right? It is a luxury.

I think PPP is actually compared to an american basket. But it is a system that's hard to use and can be wrong just like measuring inflation is very hard too.

You are right Don, the heritage used 2004 for the $29,500 number and cia had it close to $31,500 by 2006. Comparing economies is very hard.

Mike

[Dime-a-Dozen]

I think a lot of this discussion has to do with basic differences in capitalist and socialist worldviews.

Capitalists view the success of a nation by its GNP.

Socialists view the success of a nation by its quality of life.

Personally, if I were to try and judge how well a particular government is doing, I would judge it as a function of quality of life as compared to GNP.

By that stardard, Sweden is doing quite well.

I would have to agree there. Sweden is rolling along quite nicely, and quality of life is much more important than a GDP indicator. ;)

[Loren Pechtel]

That's true because it is in there as government spending. However, if it's free, then everyone gets it...which is different than a market-driven service. In any case, does it really make sense to compare GDP when much of govt spending is going into debt? Does any of that count toward income to foreign govts?

I would subtract net foreign loans from the GDP.

[premjan]

It's still part of GDP even if people don't pay for it.
Maybe it is just cheaper.

[Henry-Finland]

Nobody wanted to tell me about the rich Alabama guys. :frown:
___________________


My take of life quality and living standard:
Peace, secure, free, worries minimized = High living standard





Henry

[premjan]

I think security is a big part of quality of life - freedom from scarcity and fear. Anything more is a bonus of course.

[Bialar Crais]

The "handout" part is minimal. Most money which the quoted student is arguing about is a loan.

Exactly. I took my degeree a few years ago, and as I recall it the loan/hadnout was in a 6000/1500 SEK ratio, it was tied to performance (rather stringent demands), and evaluated yearly. Don't measure up? No more dough, and you gotta pay back what you got so far. You graduate 5yrs later you got a rather nice debt to pay off.

Plus, that it's 9.5 payments per year (9 full 7.5K SEK, and one half) and you still gotta pay rent, food, and other things 12 months a year.

But it's a rather tired cliché some ppl drags out every now and then about the happy, lazy student loafing around getting enormous handouts to spend on beer. I'd say reality is different, most people in my class either lived cheap as hell (including no beer) and used spare time for more course work or worked extra.

Sorry for the derail, carry on.

[Henry-Finland]

Why not also bash armed forces for making their training free?

How much has anyone in the military ever had to pay for Boot Camp?

I think that subsidizing education is a legitimate sort of social-level investment.

One may need a certain amount of quality control, but on the whole, it is a good idea.
Right!
Money that is stolen from the people paying heavy taxes, used so that the youths can get into better physical shape. For free!!!!
Shame on them!

Why can't the soldiers go to gyms as normal people does, and pay for it, as every other law-abiding citizen?
I could understand if this treatment would be free for older people, but that it is given to the young and able ones, in their prime & blossom, is just not right!
Beside they get free lunches and accomondities. :eek:

And when everybody else has to buy their guns, these leeches get even rockets for free!
To use the tax-payers money in this way is theft! And this theft is swept under the carpet by the administration in every possible way and the main-stream media is cencored about this. Even the leftist media is silent about this. Whatta chicken-hawks!

This is taking poor old USA directly into communism.
The president should try to stop all this and found some corporations creating armies. Now when I think about it, that is exactly what our Saviour, Our Leader, is doing.
Long live Blackwater and other FCAs [Free Corporate Armies]!


And I am not joking!
Run also the jails as corporative ones. [You do? :eek: ]
Free jails for everyone!
Crush the commies, the money-stealing unconstitutional unpatriotic cockroaches at Capitol Hill!

But do not riot; sing an anthem, wave the flag and buy bumper-stickers!


Long live America! [and all that jazz]




Henry

[Hawkeye]

Exactly. I took my degeree a few years ago, and as I recall it the loan/hadnout was in a 6000/1500 SEK ratio, it was tied to performance (rather stringent demands), and evaluated yearly. Don't measure up? No more dough, and you gotta pay back what you got so far. You graduate 5yrs later you got a rather nice debt to pay off.

Plus, that it's 9.5 payments per year (9 full 7.5K SEK, and one half) and you still gotta pay rent, food, and other things 12 months a year.

But it's a rather tired cliché some ppl drags out every now and then about the happy, lazy student loafing around getting enormous handouts to spend on beer. I'd say reality is different, most people in my class either lived cheap as hell (including no beer) and used spare time for more course work or worked extra.

Sorry for the derail, carry on.

If I'm not mistaken, the current "handout" is about 2000 SEK (about $300). The rest, about 5400 SEK, is a loan.

In order to keep it, you have to pass 10 points of university course each term. That's 10 weeks of full time studies over a 20 week period. I live in a student apartement myself. If I fail to meet the criteria, not only will I lose my money, but I will also get evicted.

[Henry-Finland]

If I'm not mistaken, the current "handout" is about 2000 SEK (about $300). The rest, about 5400 SEK, is a loan.

In order to keep it, you have to pass 10 points of university course each term. That's 10 weeks of full time studies over a 20 week period. I live in a student apartement myself. If I fail to meet the criteria, not only will I lose my money, but I will also get evicted.
I think the system is good; No result and it's the highway.
And nobodyhas to take a loan, it is just something that is guaranteed to everyone. And the University is free.

Henry

[Tammuz]

So what has this to do with Sweden?
Well we are their poorer neighbour, so I do not know the exact sums there, but they have a better system, that I know.
Poor us (in Finland). :frown:

Perhaps we should conquer you back? :devil1:

As for undermining the work ethics; I'm just 26 years old and even I think some kids today are lazy: But then again, that's hardly a problem limited to Sweden.

I don't know if I'm alone in this, but it seems to me that Europe is in a deep sleep. Because things roll on relatively well, we have stagnated. Something must be done about that I think.

[Henry-Finland]

Perhaps we should conquer you back? :devil1:



I don't know if I'm alone in this, but it seems to me that Europe is in a deep sleep. Because things roll on relatively well, we have stagnated. Something must be done about that I think.
The western hemisphere has stagnated, not only Europe.


Henry

[Bialar Crais]

If I'm not mistaken, the current "handout" is about 2000 SEK (about $300). The rest, about 5400 SEK, is a loan.


I'll trust you on this one, was a few years since I was a student =)


In order to keep it, you have to pass 10 points of university course each term. That's 10 weeks of full time studies over a 20 week period. I live in a student apartement myself. If I fail to meet the criteria, not only will I lose my money, but I will also get evicted.

Only 50%? IIRC, 30/40 first year, 35/40 second year (MSc Comp Sci) was the goal we had to reach for continued loans.

[Hawkeye]

Perhaps we should conquer you back? :devil1:



I don't know if I'm alone in this, but it seems to me that Europe is in a deep sleep. Because things roll on relatively well, we have stagnated. Something must be done about that I think.
So, what are you sugesting? Another World War? A pan-european "nationalist" movement? :Cheeky:

[Theli]

Who pays for Sweden's free lunch?
“Why should I only get this handout only the months that I attend school?” Explaining that he needs money for going out with his friends and buying clothes all year round, the young author concluded: “I don’t have anything against working. But if the government doesn’t make sure that I have a job, it is their responsibility to pay me the handouts all year around”.
Ok, so you found a person who thinks he should get money all year long, even when he is not studying. Is this profound? Scientific? Relevant?
I am a Swedish university student (soon to be graduated) and I do not think students should get paid when they are not studying. Does that mean that I have disproved the whole OP?

And If anybody is interested, this is what I received from CSN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrala_Studiest%C3%B6dsn%C3%A4mnden) between 2007-03-23 and 2007-04-25:

"handout": 2,528 SEK ≈ 370 USD
loan: 4,836 SEK ≈ 707 USD
Total= 7,364 SEK ≈ 1077 USD

The interest for loans in 2007 is 2.1%

"Nima Sanandaji is the president of the Swedish free market think tank Captus and publisher of the weekly online Swedish magazine Captus Tidning...."
Shouldn't the terms "free market" and "think tank" set off some kind of alarm in your head, warning you that this person may distort or exaggerate in order to promote a certain political ideal?