A Reverse-Trump Tax Plan Delivers an Economic Miracle in Sweden

Swedish Equality
>The income of most Swedes has nearly doubled while that of most Americans has fallen:
https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iqaMU7N5LvoE/v2/-1x-1.png

>The numbers are compelling. Sweden has one of the world’s highest tax burdens, with tax revenue about 43 percent of GDP, according to OECD data. The equivalent figure for the U.S. is about 26 percent. Sweden’s economy has grown almost twice as fast as America’s, expanding 3.1 percent last year, compared with 1.6 percent in the U.S.

Read more on Swedish budget:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-18/sweden-predicts-wider-surpluses-as-spending-raised-on-police

>Sweden has the highest labor force participation in the European Union. Andersson attributes this to tax-funded parental leave and affordable daycare, which make it easier for both parents to work.

>In contrast to most of its European peers, Sweden has budget surpluses. The EU average will be a shortfall of 1.6 percent in 2018, while the estimated deficit in the U.S. of 5.7 percent of GDP, EU Commission data published in February show.

Debt Heaven
>Sweden boasts one of the world's lowest public debt burdens:
https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iSxSsTtzUn6s/v3/-1x-1.png

>The country also takes a pragmatic view of capitalism, which includes allowing businesses to fail if they can’t compete. Part of this includes providing a safety net and training for workers, features that Andersson says are crucial to keeping a dangerous anti-globalization sentiment at bay.

>“In Sweden, it’s accepted that society changes and that some companies expand while others shrink, but that’s based on the fact that there are bridges from the old to the new jobs,” she said. “It’s important to have security during that change, both in the form a well-functioning unemployment insurance, but also active labor market policies.”

>But not all Swedes are persuaded that more tax increases will help. Andersson faces a vote of no confidence from the opposition if she presents further hikes. Meanwhile, parts of corporate Sweden are rebelling. There are also numerical signs that the tipping point may have been reached, as GDP slows.

>Sweden’s government has started tapping its surpluses to raise spending on everything from health care to education to defense and a stronger police presence. With an election looming next year, the Social Democratic-led administration is contending with its own right-wing nationalists, who have gained followers in the wake of record refugee inflows.

>The center-right coalition that preceded the current government spent most of its eight years in power cutting taxes. They argue that Andersson and her boss, Prime Minister Stefan Lofven, are now putting economic gains at risk, and warn that generous benefits discourage people from working. The opposition also notes that Sweden has fallen behind in wealth per capita since taxes were raised in the 1970s, culminating in an economic crisis in the early 1990s when taxes as a share of GDP exceeded 50 percent.

>According to the website Ekonomifakta, which is run by Sweden’s largest employer organization, the highest marginal tax rate has again crept up, reaching about 70 percent, including payroll taxes. With that in mind, the opposition is threatening a vote of no confidence against Andersson this autumn unless she withdraws her tax plan.

>Banks and Sweden’s private equity industry have railed against the tax environment, with Scandinavia’s biggest financial group, Nordea Bank AB, threatening to leave. And a vibrant startup scene, led by music-streaming service Spotify Ltd., is calling for changes in how options-based income is taxed in an effort to attract more talent.

>Andersson acknowledges there are limits, saying there’s no need for “big” tax increases in the coming years.

>“They of course have negative effects,” she said. “All taxes do, but what you use the money for can have positive effects and that’s exactly what the Swedish model shows. You can have high taxes and high employment and growth.”

Sweden as a model for America? A nation with 1/4th the population of California?

Interesting thread, bump. I wonder how is there growth when a company could do business elsewhere and pay less taxes. Are there tariffs?

I don't think America will ever try this. Unless we add in some sort of clause about enriching politicians and corporations.

>>141433

Let some companies leave the US. We're a country of 350M+ with the highest per capita income, greater combined wealth than any single country. If they, and the countries offering them a lower tax rate, want benefit from economic relations with the US, they'll have to negotiate with the rules we want.

I obviously don't think we should chase them all off, but if we lose a share, on balance with other consideration, I don't necessarily see that as ultimately a bad thing for the economy as a whole.

>>141418
> 97-2016
Funny since they had an 18% fall.in the last 2 years. And Sweden is forecasted to become a third world country by 2030 according to the UN

>>141464

Conventional economic wisdom in the US tells us a lot of nonsense. Like we have to let wealth filter through the wealthiest individuals, down to the majority of the population, for whom it will make greater impact in terms of quality of life and will be more likely to spend and invest it immediately on domestic goods and services.

Even the democrats have been brainwashed by corporatist ideology. The folks making the policy on both sides of the isle are insisting on forcing this one avenue toward economic growth to work to the exclusion of attempting anything else, because they don't dare challenge the folks that'll be sending cash their way in the future.

>>141464
http://ww.rrojasdatabank.info/HDRP_2010_40.pdf

The study you're referencing to when you say that. If you actually read it, the claim that Sweden will be a third world country is kind of baseless.

The 2030 figure comes from using only HDI changes from 2010-2015. Any longer time period would show a much more positive change.

"Sweden is forecasted to become a third world country by 2030 according to the UN" seems like sensationalist bullshit given the actual content of the study.

>>141418
>Economic Miracle in Sweden

EU hang out massive sanctions against russians and other former USSR countries. Sweden is lucky that EU decided to put all profits there instead. additionally EU opened heavy the market to swedish products in last 3 years.

and the best shit is that Sweden is now the biggest importer of slave workers from east europe.

its bullshit, the only reason Sweden's economy is growing is because of the population increase.

>>141418

meanwhile in the real world swedish debt is increasing every second.

>>141485
Still lower than German or US.
Truth of the matter is there is more national debt in the world than there is money. If you are betting on capitalism, you are betting on trojan horse.

>>141528
>capitalism = usury
>trojan horse = [i dont know what you meant but its wrong]

>>141530
I mean - our current economic model in not economical. It destroys itself (bailouts), it destroys democracy (democrats and republicans all work for banks), it destroys society and culture (dumbing down of schools and art), it destroys the planet (pollution, climate change, relying on nonrenewable resources).

Before you go telling me to go back to USSR - that would be a false dichotomy.

its ironic that the era (1950s) that some conservatives tout as America at its finest had an effective income cap.

>>141551
>ironic
nAH, JUST GOOD PROPAGANDA.
sORRY FOR CAPSLOCKING

What a shitty clickbaity article
This has literally nothing to do with trump and trying to compare Sweden and the US is fucking stupid

>>141544
Fine, go back to "false dichomy" idgaf wtf u call ur commie starvation machine

>>141429
1. Cut california into 4 equally large pieces
2. Implement this in each piece
3. ???
4. profit

>>141589
>dichomy
I see.

>>141589
Right, because any economic policy that isn't pure free market capitalism is a "commie starvation machine". Tell me that when you can't eat because your corporate overlords you love so much cut your salary to 1/12th so that in two years they can replace you and all your co-workers with AI-driven machines.

>>141640
>Tell me that when you can't eat

That would never happen. Food is easy to produce and it gets cheaper every day.

Only with communism does the ptogress of humanity stop.

>>141646
>that would never happen
Well, I didn't realize I was talking to Jesus. Sorry, man, I am after all just a lowly mortal. Tell me, if I buy lottery tickets today, will I be a millionaire tomorrow? After all apparently you know everything and see all things. Oh, and sorry for what I did with my girlfriend the other day, I know that it was technically sodomy

All jokes aside, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and it's very obvious not only to myself, but others that you talk to, and your utter confidence in yourself makes you out to be a fool.

>>141646
Also, just another quick aside
>implying that the cheapness of production and availability of a resource inherently determine market price
Right, new iPhones are totally worth $700, and diamonds are absolutely rare enough to be worth thousands of dollars for the tiniest piece of rearranged coal.
>what is demand
>what is monopolization/price fixing
But, of course, you can trust the rich to run the economy. After all, the free market will keep prices in check! Oh, and food production is constant, there's NO WAY environmental or climate factors could POSSIBLY influence something like that, absolutely not. And why are all these farms being subsidized? Bunch of liberal bullshit, that's what! Just more big government getting in the way of the free market! Let the economy balance out prices, so only the biggest farms with the most aggressive farming strategies will survive!

Don't worry, I'm waiting for your smug, self-assured response. Somehow /pol/tards manage to say the stupidest shit while maintaining that shit-eating I'm-always-right fuck-you hyperaggressive attitude, like they're eternally making up for that time in middle school where they asked a girl out to the dance and she went with Jamaal instead, who was a bisexual weed-smoking liberal jewish marxist and is now a mid level manager for a fortune 500 company.

The US could grow its economy by opening the borders and offering flesh sacrifices to foreigners. Unless they're putting in more than they take out, the country will eventually go broke.

>>141727
>The US could grow its economy by opening the b

FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS

STEP 1. FUCK OFF

>>141656
>this entire post

other anon: BTFO'D

>>141589
>>141646
>COMMIES GET OUT REEEEEEEE
Are you a paid to astroturf here or are you just incapable of thinking for yourself?

>>141437
basically Reagan fucked us and Americans fell for the free market meme. Our GDP has been increasing for 40 years with middle class incomes staying the same and losing to inflation. We used to have swedens model, we invested in shit. We built subways and bridges and invested in college educations after ww2, now we hardly do any of that. Right now, the DC metro is catching fire, the LA one is being denied federal money, and the new york metro has funbding pulled over a scandal. The war on the poor is real. In the 50's, trains had cushioned seats and shiny paint, now we somehow cant afford to keep them running. Somebody's doin the rapin.

>>141743
My dad had a family trip where we visited American super infrastructure like the hoover dam across the nation. Really kickers.

>>141418
>high taxes
>income redistribution
>strong unions
>equal distribution of wealth

So .. Venezuela's policies, to choose the most recent enactment by a country pumping its riches from the ground.

"Communism will totally work this time!"

Is it possible to short a whole country? I'd like to short a whole country.

>>141748
Venezuela's policies are standardized price fixing and relying on the petrodollar.
Sweden has an actual economy.

>>141753
for now. Just wait until they go full commie

>>141418
Propaganda thread fuck off shill

>>141799
>>141754
>>141728
>>141646
>>141589
>>141575
Why have none of the conservative put forth a decent argument besides insults?
Kind of makes you think.
In all seriousness though, it is pretty dumb to compare Sweden and Scandinavia in general to the U.S. when all their wealth came from massive oil and timber exports. And then there is the smaller population: almost every system, even free market capitialism(see Quatar and UAE) works in smaller countries. Then there is places like Singapore or Switzerland also small in population.

Plus their populations for the longest time were homogenous..not necessarily racially. just cultural homogenous is enough tbh. Everyone is intent on helping each other and not taking advantage either.

>>141743
In the 50's, trains were privately owned.

>>141429
>A nation with 1/4th the population of California?

The more people you have paying into the system, the better it works.

Not only is the price spread out among a higher number of people, (which is how ALL types of insurance works) but a higher population mean the hypothetical US universal healthcare system would be able to negotiate even better prices with healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies.

>>141418
Socialism only works temporarily

>>141727
They're already open to the worthy.If you can't get in its because you suck.

>>145075
Having safety nets for the unemployed is not socialism. Bailing out failing businesses to employ workers is socialism. America does socialism wrong. We only resort to it to keep people from starving and try to recover from economic shocks. Instead we should use the government's power to keep people employed doing jobs the free market actually wants.

>>145225
Saftey net is called savings. If you need/think the government should manage your accounts then its no surprise you think socialist wealth redistribution programs are ideal. They're great for those who fail in a free market, because it allows the lowest achievers to avoid the full brunt of their failure.

It's not the govenments job, or feasably in their power, to keep people employed. The market is way to complex for a government to correctly plan around ever shifting circumstances. The only way to address this is to force people into certain sectors, to manipulate peoples lives toward a "common good" ie communism/fascism.

The free market gets what it wants. If people want fidget spinners, thousands if people sell them off the batt. Saftey nets put unnecessary drain on top producers and wealth makers (the harder you work, the more money you make, the more taxes you pay)

>>145232
>Safety net is called savings

Uh bud. If you have enough savings to support yourself when you lose a job, then you are not one of the people that need the safety net. That's the whole point.

>>145273
In the united States, if you're not doing well you're either challenged mentally, lazy, or dumb and bad with money.

>>145232
You touch on many different topics in a single post.

>They're great for those who fail in a free market
And myself, because I can appreciate the well-being of others, the macroeconomic success of the nation, and a safety-net for myself and others.

>because it allows the lowest achievers to avoid the full brunt of their failure.
Very few are underachievers. In fact, they're predominantly the creative risk-takers, many of whom inevitably fail, and people who fail through no fault of their own, and people who simply don't inherit the same advantages as others, because wealth in hereditary, even though hard work and comparative potential is not. Human history has been grossly unfair and much of the concentrated wealth has been transmitted through generations to those who are thoroughly undeserving judging on their skills and their propensity toward hard work. The free market is often inherently profoundly anti-meritocratic.

>It's not the govenments job, or feasably in their power, to keep people employed.
I disagree. The government has a duty to ensure the largest portion of citizens possible is gainfully employed. And this can be accomplished via regulation and training programs.

>The market is way to complex for a government to correctly plan around ever shifting circumstances.
No, without government you end up with highly anti-competitive economies featuring monopolies. That's the extreme example but there are countless other ways in which the government interferes to stabilize the economy against depression and prevent from conflicts of interests (e.g. glass steagall act). The subprime mortgage crisis happened on the heels of government deregulation.

>>145274
k

>>145232
>The only way to address this is to force people into certain sectors, to manipulate peoples lives toward a "common good" ie communism/fascism.
We need capitalism because market economies are great at getting skill and risk-taking to where it can be leveraged best toward demand. That's not possible for the government to micromanage across an economy.
We also need to recognize that money looses value the more of it one has. A rich man earning an extra 5 dollars produces far less of an impact on quality of life and development of society as a whole as a poor man in want of basic needs and unable to contribute at his full potential as a result.

>>145280
Noone admits they're underachievers. Look at the decision pattern of any poor individual in the US and it's easy to see why they're poor.

Drugs. Children out of wedlock. Bad education, maybe a bad upbringing. Bad choices. No saving. Over spending.

Giving these people money won't help them remedy what got them poor in the first place.

>>145283

I think you need to stop looking at societal interest through the lens of what's deserved and start prioritizing macroeconomic and humanitarian good, because there's often a very large distinction between what is fair and what does the most good.

There is some room for choice and bad choices should be proportionately punished and good choices rewarded insofar as feasible (which is certainly not to say the free market is the most fair arbiter of determining reward / punishment either).

It's true we need ways to keep people honest about their life choices but at the same time i don't expect folks to starve in a cardboard box on the street because they made some relatively poor choices.

But almost nothing is fair about any of our lives. It's nonsense to litigate who gets what on the basis of what is "deserved" because almost everything about what you and I have, viewed in the context of world history but even just in our own country, is largely to almost totally dependent upon the environment we are born in and whom we are born to.

Capitalism has a value, and that value has largely nothing to do with fairness. It's able to produce a system of incentives that encourages people to leverage their talent, creativity, and risk taking to where the demand is greatest for it. And we can't expect government to micromanage that effectively. That's why we need a bedrock of capitalism, and then social programs, along with reasonable economic controls superimposed by a government upon that foundation of a free market that apply uniformly across industries to avoid creating uncompetitive distortions in the market in so far as possible.

>>145291
If you break down values and move away from earning, deserving, and achieving then people become useless cogs in a machine that provides for their basic needs like a domesticated animal in a state run trough.

Capitalism is the most fair, because you earn what society sees as valuable and those who understand what society wants (lacking) are rewarded. It rewards individual strength, effort, strategy, and communal understanding. Crony capitalism (government unified with companies and banks) is basically an oligarchy.

Social programs don't work. Charity and community are the best, because the money is localized and it comes from friends and family, people who want you to succeed. The family, the church, and the community need to be celebrated. The state is not the answer.

>>145310

That's a strawman; nobody is calling for scrapping profit incentive.
We need balanced solutions, involving capitalism along with government penalty, subsidy, and social programs.

>Capitalism is the most fair
Again, you are returning to this concept of fairness. Little about our lives is deserved even when comparing individuals within the same country. An economic system only has merit if it can serve the interests of society (and some would argue additionally protect from suffering whatever can suffer insofar as feasibly achievable).

Some corruption is to be expected and managed but that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Social programs and regulation not only works but is essential. The US has variously had among the most progressive tax structures in history and some of the most robust social security systems of any other country at times in our history. And as per OP, today a faster growing western economy than our own with higher HDI than the US is a country that has been widely recognized as among the most socialist in history.

>>145315
But where do you draw the line, and at what cost are you willing to initiate these programs?

Hayek did extensive review on the topic, and concluded that "Democratic socialism" or "welfare propped economies" would always eventually creep toward more extensive aid, more invasive government, and more reliant people. His claim is that eventually social regression and growing government control (it's always growing) would gradually turn the state into a communistic tyranny in the end.

>>141743

Unfortunately Americans have too short of an attention span to last more than one election cycle.

>GOP: let's deregulate everything to ensure short term growth
>market proceeds to crash
>Dems: that wasn't really a good idea in the long run since it allows market abuse and ensures the economy will crash so let's make sure that never happens again by preventing that sort of kike fuckery
>average but steady growth over 8 years
>Dems: hmm that worked out pretty well, we would've liked to achieve more bu-
>GOP: haha yeah too slow pal back to deregulating everything see you in 2024 after we reelect Trump in 2020 and leave another Democrat to clean up the inevitable crash in 2022

>>145321
It was the Democrats who promoted everything that deregulated the mortgage lending and housing crisis - sub prime mortgages were an effort to promote minority house ownership.

Then it when belly up, and Obama bailed the fuckers out and cashed in his sweet Citibank checks

>>145319

Is government intervention into the economy really that much of a slippery slope? I guess it's conceivable that over time, with social programs that are too "cushy", people will get too soft / comfortable at some point and be willing to sacrifice fewer living standard protections for the sake of further economic development.

First of all, if we begin to move too far in the direction of redistributing wealth, I do trust people will observe that and will actively say, maybe we don't need so many protections, or maybe we need to enhance our systems to prevent abuse of safety nets.

But even if we reach that point of too much social spending, I'd hesitate to argue folks will stop working, because most folks in high power fields (lawyers, doctors, engineers, business owners &c.) aren't entirely in it for the money. And for the most committed and motivated, many of them view money as a distraction to be concerned about rather than their primary motivation to creating and innovating.

And as we move toward post-scarcity, with greater automation it seems like we're going to have to un-link in our minds the concept that society can't develop unless employment is made necessary to sustain one's quality of life. I'm not under any illusion that we're close to achieving that yet, but I don't think we're anywhere near a social safety-net that's too burdensome either.
Folks will argue that there's a threat of a police state if we allow government the power to be the middle man in everything. But someone's going to have to be the middle man at some point. Otherwise we're going to allow the corporatists a monopoly on all means of production. A relative handful of people can effectively own all the means of production, all the farmland that's otherwise meant to feed hundreds of millions. When it comes to control by multinational corporations and control by government, at least in the latter we each are guaranteed a vote.

>>144277
>Why have none of the conservative put forth a decent argument besides insults
>In all seriousness though, it is pretty dumb to compare Sweden and Scandinavia in general to the U.S.
You aren't very smart, are you

>>145327
We provided a data. You guys alluded to the fact that there could be important differences without citing any and explaining why they were important.

Keep in mind, even if the successful Scandinavian model wasn't perfectly translatable to US government, we've at least established that socialism doesn't necessarily mean weak economic growth or communism. Norway is a similar case as Sweden with respect to robust social programs and government regulation but is quite socioeconomically stratified.

>>145333
>it's a "Scandinavia is socialist" episode
kys

>>145322

Bill Clinton actually did have a hand in this but it was the result of Reagan era policies.

Either way it speaks measures when one party decides to initiate preventative measures and the other party takes it away for some reason.

>>145232
>safety net is called savings
You can save money, have money to fall back on, and call that a safety net. However, a lot of people don't have that ability. Healthcare, secondary education, and housing are extremely expensive in some areas
>Safety nets put unnecessary drain on top producers and wealth makers (the harder you work, the more money you make, the more money you pay)
I have to disagree. You seem to believe that higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for safety nets for the poor takes away too much of the incentive to succeed. Not true. Despite the fact that you will have to pay more in taxes if you make $500k+ a year than if you made $250k a year, you'd still make more money after taxes making the 500k. You're fine. Second you imply that those that are most wealthy are the ones creating all the wealth. Not true. They only have as much capital as they do because of the labor of the working class
>>145274
>If you're not doing well, you're either challenged mentally, lazy, or dumb and bad with money
A common misconception. A lot can happen in life that is unexpected, and can leave a very negative impact on one's finances. Shit happens

>>141443
This, especially since a large number of companies have already jumped ship to avoid taxes anyway.

>>141433
Despite the memes, most companies are loyal and domestically based. Leaving the USA is essentially cutting yourself off from 70% of your revenue.

Similarly in Sweden. The vast majority of shareholders and workers are Swedes.

>>141477
No

>>141418
They're doing a china. Time to bail before it blows, as china at least has exports.

>>147777
Immigrants create jobs, comrade

>>147780
They take jobs. How do they create them, especially when they're all retarted?

>>147804
>immigrants
I worked at a mexican restaurant through high school and college. Immigrants create plenty of jobs too, anon

>>147838
How are they creating jobs, setting up leagues of Mexican restaurants?

Immigrants from 3rd world counties are a net loss. They take a shit ton of money to educate and are usually on welfare/stamps for generations after joining the country.

We need more asian and European immigrants - primarily anyone with an education and skills we need. We don't need anymore taco stands and lawnmowers

>>141551
We also weren't trading with countries that use slave labor and have no regulations. You could work in a factory and make enough to live on. Thanks to some politicians insanely shortsighted idea to use India and China for labor, conditions in the US will degrade while theirs improve.

>>147843
Anon, you're wrong

>>141640
If your workforce is entirely mechanical, and your customers have no money, you've effectively put yourself out of a job. I'm not sure why Luddism is a thing in 2017.

>>147843
How about you provide affordable education for everyone in your own damn country, why the fuck would you need any kind of immigrants then?

>muh commies want gibz college

>>147843
>How are they creating jobs by creating businesses
Nigger wut

>>147849
Primary and HS Education is free in the US

Well, of course, if you raise taxes and take money from those that produce, and then import a bunch of poor people with no money, and give the taxes to them, you'll enrich some business owners that are able to shoulder the burden or find ways out of their obligations, but the middle class shrinks and gets poorer, and you lose the competitiveness of small business innovation, because the middle class slaves are locked into their jobs with 70% tax rates and are threatened with getting robbed by the poor if they try to reduce their tax burden. Sure, in the short term, it looks nice. Then in the long term, anyone with actual skills looks away to other countries where they can enjoy more of their produce instead of giving it away and having whatever they can save eaten away by massive inflation.

>>147959
>Those that produce
It's the working class that's doing all the producing, anon
>Import a bunch of poor people
>Then give all the taxes to them
Idk about Sweden, but refugees make up a very small percentage of the population. Also, those taxes are spent on safety net programs for every citizen regardless of ethnicity
>The middle class shrinks and gets poorer
Pretty unlikely that they'll get poorer if they don't have to pay for healthcare or their children's college education
>70% tax rate
Bullshit
>Anyone with actual skills will have to move to another country
Or they can stay and not have to worry about starving or not being able to get healthcare if the economy goes to shit

Trickle down economics doesn't work. All it will do is make the rich richer while the poor stay poor. History has taught us plenty of lessons already. Look back at the 1870's and the Great Depression during Hoover's presidency. Laissez faire economics is dog shit. In the richest country in the world, there is no excuse to bar someone from eating or going to the hospital because they didn't win the lottery of birth

>>145338
>it's a "using common terms" episode

Colloquially you dip. The word gets misused so much here that it may as well mean intensive social programs, given that it has the context to mean so.

>>147909
Pretty sure he means college

>>147906
Mate, he was being facetious. He was implying that just because they do well working in a Mexican restaurant that doesn't mean it's feasible to stick a Mexican restaurant on every street corner.

>>147992
I'm not saying Mexican restaurants need to be on every street corner. I'm saying immigrants create jobs. I used a Mexican restaurant as an example because it's the only mehican-owned business in the small, hick town I live in

>>147996
Uneducated, third world immigrants take more jobs than they create, cause more crime, and drain more resources.

>>148066
Any evidence to support any of those claims? Also, they don't commit more crime
http://www.newamericaneconomy.org/research/is-there-a-link-between-refugees-and-u-s-crime-rates/

>>147978
>It's the working class that's doing all the producing, anon
That's true, if you're using the term to describe people that actually work, and as you take money from them to give to people that refuse to (obviously we're not talking about disabled/infirm/elderly/etc) people are less inclined to go after high paying jobs.
>Idk about Sweden, but refugees make up a very small percentage of the population.
Not just talking about refugees, but immigrants in general. It's been going on since before the refugee crisis. Estimated that 27% of their population is foreign born now, though not all of them are on welfare. Native Swedes can take advantage too. But point still stands.
>Pretty unlikely that they'll get poorer if they don't have to pay for healthcare or their children's college education
Yeah, they're only paying for everyone else's regardless whether they are ill or not or choose to have children or not...
>Or they can stay and not have to worry about starving or not being able to get healthcare if the economy goes to shit
The ones inclined to leave probably don't have to worry about this since they are most likely skilled workers or entrepreneurs, and the tax rate may be too high but probably isn't far off the mark. And keep in mind income isn't the only thing taxed.
>Trickle down economics doesn't work...
Did I say Sweden needs to adopt laissez faire Capitalism? Nice strawman. Just saying that this tax and spend Keynesian economics Sweden is adopting isn't sustainable.

>>148218
>you take money from them to give to people that refuse to (obviously we're not talking about disabled/infirm/elderly/etc) people are less inclined to go after high paying jobs
Wanting more safety nets doesn't mean I want higher taxes for the middle class. We can pay for them by taxing millionaires and corporations more in addition to trimming the fat from our oversized defense budget. Also, there will still be plenty of initiative to seek higher education and skilled jobs. I have the shitty job I have because I have few skills and little experience/education. The initiative to better myself will still be there whether my health insurance is paid for, or welfare programs for the poor exist
>The ones inclined to leave probably don't have to worry about this since they are most likely skilled workers or entrepreneurs
Carpenters and building designers are skilled, aren't they? There wasn't much work for them after the housing bubble popped, though. Skilled or not, every American should be able to live without having to worry about putting food on the table for their family
>Keynesian economics isn't sustainable
Worked pretty well for us when FDR took office. Just sayin

>>144295
Insurance at its core is essentially a pyramid scheme, which only works because more people are paying in (and lining someone else's pockets) than there are people being paid out. Not even getting in to social responsibility, because the idea that society as a whole is responsible for the health of its individual citizens is another debate, but by the very nature of insurance, the majority of people are going to be facing a net loss buying in to it.

The entire system needs to be revamped, possibly to a more cooperative based nature that sees upwards of 95% or better return to the people who pay in.

>>148224
>Keynesian & FDR success

it wasnt a success until WWII, the greater catalyst for our recovery and superpower status

>>148224
>>148676
It wasn't a success at all. Without WW2 the depression would have continued thanks to FDR's disastrous policies. This is a historical fact.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409
https://mises.org/library/how-fdr-made-depression-worse
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/01/did_democrats_prolong_americas
https://fee.org/articles/fdrs-folly-how-roosevelt-and-his-new-deal-prolonged-the-great-depression/
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/opinion/columnists/national/thomas-sowell-fdr-s-policies-prolonged-great-depression/article_3f80432e-e6c5-11df-affe-001cc4c03286.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123353276749137485
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/19/moore-the-enduring-myth-of-fdr-and-the-new-deal/
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2003/7/powell.pdf
https://almostclassical.blogspot.com/2011/11/fdrs-policies-prolonged-depression-by-7.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt

>>141418
I've seen the graphs, and while I admit it looks good it still seems likely that Sweden will get fucked over anyway. Third world nation or not, Sweden's "socialism" (or better put crypto corporatist welfare state) is not going to last. Do they seriously think that such a bureaucratic nightmare can last forever? Their system will eventually degenerate as their debt increases and they can't find anymore of their citizens to take money from.

I'm not arguing for MUH FREE MARKET GOYS I'm just saying that this immigration shit is merely a forced redistribution of wealth from high iq Swedes whose ancestors earned it to low iq immigrants who suck the tit of the welfare system

tldr: Sweden is a gilded pile of shit.

Ffs sweden is borrowing money to pay for refugees and denies it has a rape problem why should i believe anything that comes out of there?end of argument

>>148692
It's not a historical fact because it didn't happen. What did happen is there was a depression, there was FDR, then there was no depression.
We can debate the complex circumstances that produced the history we had and how it might have been difficult but I always find it difficult to take folks seriously when their response to an argument is a wall of copypasta links sans a single evidence or explanation within the post itself.

>>141418
GDP Growth is an inherently flawed concept and related statistics are very easy to manipulate
this is nothing but propaganda from central banks to keep the endless debt going so they can keep skimming the bond trading profits off the top
and they love that altrightcucks can't help but bring up the "refugee" issue every time yuro economics comes up because that turns what should be an argument about economics into an argument about race, which functionally invalidates any criticism levied against shysty banking

>>145321
>GOP: let's deregulate everything to ensure short term growth
>market proceeds to crash
>deregulation caused the crash
This didn't happen, you're an idiot