| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 89.1 | Leave some to the individual | TLE::SAVAGE | Neil, @Spit Brook | Wed Dec 03 1986 12:06 | 127 |
| This is not an answer to Per-Olof's plea for a solution, but because
the subject matter is the same I choose to put it here:
The Christian Science Monitor Friday, November 14, 1986
Changing Sweden takes a hard look at its 'model' welfare state
Some are disillusioned, some grateful, others want overhaul
By David Winder - Staff writer of the Christian Science Monitor
Stockholm
The Rosengrens are what the Swedish welfare state, which provides
a vitual cradle-to-the-grave safety net, is all about.
Each morning, sometimes as early as 6:30 a.m., Mikael and Ann-Chatrine
Rosengren leave their vast housing complex built by the government
back in the 1960s and drop off their children at the state day-care
center.
They are no different from all the other couples in Sweden who must
work in order to pay for the welfare state, which extracts the world's
highest per capita tax burden -- about 50 percent of everyone's
pay packet.
For many Swedes, this is too high a price to pay for a system that,
its critics claim, is not working either as effectively as it should
or as it once did.
Too big. Too costly. Too intrusive. And too impersonal. These
are the sorts of complaints being voiced about what is often cited
as the world's model welfare state.
To a Western ambassador with many years service in Sweden, "the
welfare state has run out of steam." He notes a growing
disillusionment within the country. Part of this is unhappiness with
the high level of taxes. Another problem is that the traditional
method of amicably settling wage claims and disputes between employers
and employees has soured and resulted in labor disputes.
One sharp reminder of this was the recent public-sector strike.
No area of employment has increase as rapidly in recent years as
the public sector, which now accounts for 6 out of every 10 jobs
in Sweden. How to pay for that expansion is a major concern.
Health-care costs, for instance, which include national health
insurance covering medical and dental treatment and hospital visits,
are now the equivalent in cost of 10 percent of the gross national
product. They amounted to only about 3 percent in 1960.
Yet the Rosengrens have no quarrel with the welfare state. If anything,
they feel that many young people are not sufficiently grateful.
"They have it so good, but they don't know where it came from. It's
been dropped on them. They don't have to learn how it earned," Mikael
says.
For their taxes, the Rosengrens get more than full-time day care
for their children. Each of them is assured five weeks of fully
paid vacation. If Mikael (who is a metal worker with a computer
manufacturer) or Ann (who works at the post office) fall ill at
work or are injured on the job, they will get health benefits amounting
to 90 percent of their salaries. If either loses his job, the state
will retrain them without expense and try to find them alternative
employment.
If Ann-Chatrine becomes pregnant, the family income is not severely
reduced. Under the parental insurance system, childbirth entitles
them to 12 months' leave of absense between them, including nine
months where they would receive 90 percent of their salary, and
three months at a lower rate.
While Mikael Rosengren may feel he has the best of both worlds,
the same cannot be said for Per Unckel, secretary-general of the
nonsocialist Moderate Party. He feels the welfare state is in serious
need of an overhaul -- starting with the day-care centers.
He is incensed that after paying his taxes and his day-care enrollment
fees, his four-year-old son, Nils, attends first one day-care center
and then, for two hours, must go to a second one. The first day-care
center is running out of money and can't keep Nils for the entire
day.
"We are paying for a system, but we don't get enough for the money
we pay. The simple answer is to give all parents the right, through
lower taxes, to decide what system they would like to use," Mr.
Unckel says. So far, only state-run day-care centers are allowed
to operate.
Talk of radically reforming the welfare system makes some Swedes
nervous. Many do not wish to contemplate the alternatives.
A British teacher who now lives in Sweden concedes that "it can
be dangerous for one's state of mind to get everything and have
nothing to struggle for." But he believes that the Swedish welfare
state's advantages far outweigh its drawbacks. "The welfare state
buffers the bad things and distributes the good things," he says.
As a teacher, he's also an admirer of Swedish education. "The fact
that you get the same education eliminatess class and that's very
healthy."
Another Briton, a successful businessman who has made many trips
to Sweden, is troubled by trends he says he's seen emerging in Sweden
over the years.
In his view, "incentive, intuitiveness, and deep thinking have been
stifled. You don't find many people who want to talk about life.
The average person wants to live for today and 'don't bother me
about tomorrow.' Socialism has given everything to everyone."
To the visitor, Sweden does seem a place of middle-class abundance.
But Jan-Erik Wikstr�m, a member of parliament and former education
and culture minister, suggests that some Swedes have doubts about
this materialism. He says that while a good life and social progress
is available, he also notes that "young people come to you and they
have a feeling there's an emptiness in their lives." He defined
it as "spiritual poverty."
To Nordal �kerman, author of some 30 books on the welfare state,
the complexity of society has made some people feel alienated from
the state. At the same time, he doubts that the state can provide
all the answers. "My quarrel with the Social Democrats is that they
are super-rationalists. They believe all problems are inherently
solvable. The state can't solve all problems and shouldn't try to,
because some should be left to the individual."
|
| 89.2 | Well-written! | STKTSC::LITBY | Per-Olof Litby, CSC Stockholm/Sweden | Wed Dec 03 1986 15:30 | 19 |
| The above article paints a very accurate picture of the
situation. I'm one of the 'ones who want overhaul' - but
even have to admit that the welfare system has its good
points. I think, however, that a tune-up is inevitable and
on its way.
Here in Stockholm, interesting things have happened in the
City Hall - the city's 'finansborgarr�d', or sort of finance
minister, has resigned and been replaced by a conservative.
This should pave the way for some changes, probably - among
them private daycare centres, which are not illegal at all
(as the article stated) but are not eligible for government
financing help, unlike their city-operated counterparts.
If this changes, it will mean that the cost of daycare will
be the same regardless of who operates the daycare centre -
the way it is now, private daycare is much more expensive.
-- Per-Olof
|
| 89.3 | The bureaucracy of a mental institution? | TLE::SAVAGE | Neil, @Spit Brook | Wed Feb 25 1987 16:32 | 21 |
| Associated Press Wed 25-FEB-1987 13:33 Sweden-Film
Cuckoo's Nest Closing After a Record 11 Years
STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) - Milos Forman's film "One Flew Over the
Cuckoo's Nest" is closing in Stockholm after a world-record run of 573
straight weeks, the distributor said Wednesday. The American movie,
starring Jack Nicholson as a defiant patient at a mental institution,
premiered in the Swedish capital on Feb. 26, 1976. Its last show will
be Thursday, 11 years later.
About 2 million people, about one-fourth of Sweden's population, have
seen the movie, said Inger Johansson, information chief of the Sandrews
distribution company. The movie opened at the downtown Cinema Theater
and moved to various houses during the 11 years but never missed a day.
It is back at the Cinema Theater for its closing.
Mrs. Johansson speculated that audiences in Sweden, which has an
extensive bureaucracy that is sometimes accused of overregulating its
citizens' lives, can identify with someone who defies rules at the
mental institution depicted in the film.
|
| 89.4 | Controlling comsumption | MLTVAX::SAVAGE | Neil @ Spit Brook | Mon Nov 06 1989 16:26 | 57 |
| From: [email protected] (Torsten Ek)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Forced savings program
Date: 1 Nov 89 21:42:04 GMT
Organization: HP SESD, Fort Collins, CO
When I last visited my native country I was amazed by the "progress"
the social democrats have made in "reforming" the peoples home of
Sweden.
I'd like to hear how the people on the net will react to the following
concrete example:
Evidently, the Swedish treasury has concluded that the Swedish economy
is "overheated", i.e. the consumption rate is going up faster than the
GNP, resulting in inflation. What to do?? Well, it has been related
to me that the reasoning went: People are not saving enough money. In
a free economy the classical way to fix this is to increase the
discount rate, thereby providing an INCENTIVE for saving.
Unfortunately an increased interest rate also means increasing the
cost of capital as well as the price of Swedish products abroad. We
don't want to deal with this, but we REALLY want to stifle private
consumption. Ergo - we'll simply FORCE people to save money!!
(Fortunately, this option is not open to Alan Greenspan :-)
Now the government simply deducts a sum of money from your pay check
(or your pension check if you happen to be a senior citizen, sitting
in your rocking chair, overheating the economy). The government has
promised to pay back the money some day, with an unspecified (probably
negative) interest, but few people believe it. Needless to say, most
of the senior citizens will not be around to enjoy it.
What really blows me away is not the measure itself, which no doubt
will be most effective, but that the Swedes continue to tolerate this
kind of blatant contempt for the rights of the individual. Not even
the conservatives had any serious problems with the PRINCIPLE of this
forced savings program, they were merely moaning about the way the
program was constructed.
I have a theory about this. The reason it's possible to boil a live
frog is that the change is slow and continuous. The frog looses its
perspective as it's slowly cooking in the socialistic boiling pan.
When you have been away for a couple of years though, the change is
chocking.
Not that *I* care about this, but.. any opinions expressed are my own
and are not necessarily shared by anyone in HP.
Torsten Ek
Product Marketing
SESD Software Engineering Systems Division
Hewlett Packard Company
3404 E. Harmony Rd. Ft. Collins CO, 80525-9599
tel: +1 (303) 229-4930
telefax:+1 (303) 229-2180
email: ..hpfcla!hpfcses!torsten ([email protected])
|
| 89.5 | A frog can be boiled in many ways... | COPCLU::GEOFFREY | RUMMEL - The Forgotten American | Tue Nov 07 1989 03:04 | 15 |
| Regarding 89.4:
As in Sweden, the conservative coalition government in Denmark
also wants to suppress private consumption. This they are trying
to do by imposing a 20% tax on net interest paid on consumer
debt (mortgages and student loans are exempt).
Of course, in effect they did the same in the U.S. when they
removed interest deductions on consumer debt as part of the tax
reform...
Cheers from the cold, wet, rainy, foggy, dreary, dark north -
Geoff Rummel
|
| 89.6 | More on forced savings program | WHYVAX::SAVAGE | Neil @ Spit Brook | Tue Nov 07 1989 09:58 | 65 |
| Re: .4 & .5:
From: [email protected] (Thomas Sj�land)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Re: Forced savings program
Date: 6 Nov 89 16:52:03 GMT
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
It seems evident that the decision was not very well founded. In fact
the minority government (social democrat) needed some other party to
support them to get their economic policy through the Swedish
parliament in May. Since the communists did not want to support their
original proposal to increase the VAT (sort of a sales tax, 23.45 % (?)
on almost everything), the government had to come up with something in
order not to be forced out of power. The non-socialist center party
(used to be the "farmers party" agreed to support the "forced saving"
idea which was then implemented after two days (!) of thinking.
This caused strong reactions especially from the organizations of
retired people and other organisations speaking for those with low
incomes (remember that in Sweden vital policies are often proposed and
controlled by organizations like the big trade unions). Just last week
the government announced a change which in effect will stop the forced
saving for individuals with lower incomes than 100000 SEK as a reaction
to this criticism and prime minister Carlsson (s) apologized saying
that "we social democrats are flexible enough to change our minds as a
response to criticism".
The conservatives and the liberals (our two "right wing parties") were
negative to the idea all along also in principle on the grounds that
Torsten Ek points to (individual rights).
One must realise that one reason behind this "reform" is that the banks
and various financial institutes like credit card companies have become
very generous in granting credits to the households causing many
individuals to borrow more money for consumption than they can afford
to pay back. This leads to a strong pressure on the social welfare
program which guarantees a minimum standard to all individuals in the
country, in effect causing the tax payers to pay back the loans and
interests of those irresponsible individuals, and this tends to
jeopardize the planned tax reform.
A system, similar to the one in operation in Denmark already, whereby
individuals with particularly severe debt problems can get a court
decision to get rid of their debts is also discussed but no decision
has been made. The idea is to make it more risky for the financial
actors to lend money to irresponsible individuals than it is currently,
and to protect the tax payers, not all that "socialist" an idea in my
opinion.
The "forced saving" program was described by one (former) social
democrat professor of economy, Assar Lindbeck, as "a hard blow out in
thin air", and it was evidently made in desperation to show that
SOMETHING could be decided by this weak government.
Personally I think the social democrats have to rethink the whole idea
behind the welfare system in order to cope with various economic
problems and to be able to eventually adapt the tax level down to that
of the rest of Europe, and THAT is a hot potatoe in this country.
--
Thomas Sjoeland SICS, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Tel: +46 8752 15 42 Ttx: 812 61 54 SICS S Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
Internet:[email protected] or {mcvax,munnari,ukc,unido}!enea!sics.se!alf
|
| 89.7 | Social democracy in Norway | NEILS::SAVAGE | | Wed May 16 1990 11:31 | 72 |
| From: [email protected] (Stein J�rgen Rypern)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Re: (Norwegian) socialism (was oil and morals)
Date: 14 May 90 01:49:53 GMT
Hi,
When it comes to the US freedom of choice - of course you have more
freedom! But at a price, the lack of social safeguards which are an
important part of the nordic, or at least scandinavian, way of life.
Take labor unions - an important part of scandinavian life. Most people
are probably organized in a union. Union representatives have seats in
the company board. people cann't be sacked without proper reason. The
wages for the whole country is more or less settled by central
negotiations between the 3 large unions and the organization of the
employers. Is this freedom for the individual ? No, but it is safety
for everybody.
Public health care, public schools - at least most Norwegian children
still know the difference between the USA and the USSR on the map.
Student loans from the government - without these loans many of us
would not have been able to study for 5 or 6 years at a university. But
again - there are few choices when it comes to what school you can
attend. From the 1st through the 9th grade you have close to zero
choice. Little choice for you, but it makes sure that we all have a
common ground in education - there are no A- and B-teams.
Socialism - one part of it is the "common good before individual
liberty", "society before individual" or whatever label you prefer
sticking on it, another, perhaps just as important, is the feeling of
equality it has brought into scandinavian life. It is probably the same
phenomena which insures lousy service at Norwegian hotels and
resturants, "a free man don't need to kowtow to anyone". It also means
that Norwegian society is relatively homogenous, very few rich people,
few poor people.
"Equality before freedom and brotherhood", is one slogan which have
been used by opponents to describe the Norwegian social democratic
party. This, IMHO, is absolutly true, but is it a problem ?
Let's take a look at the US society from _my_ personal viewpoint : The
prevalent view on society and individual seem to be "I'm going to do as
I darned well please, and no government busybody are going to be
allowed to interfere with my liberty". Take drunk driving, the right
to keep and bear arms, people driving two blocks to the shop instead
of walking, highway shoot-outs in california. Is this liberty ? Is it
worth the cost in destroyed lives ?
"Drunk driving ?" I hear you say, "what has that got to do with
Norwegian socialism ?". Easy - you DON'T drink and drive in Norway,
it's part of the "society before individual"-complex. Of course it's a
bother for me to arrange for transportation back home when I know I'm
going to drink, but it's part of what society expects of me. I
wouldn't even consider stopping at a bar a have a drink with friends
driving home from the univerity. (Okay, I _know_ that there are some
few norwegians who drink and drive, I'm talking about the general
population)
Enough of this. Let us have some comments from the US netters on the
advantages of your system, and the disadvantages of ours :-) And yes -
I already _do_ know that we scandinavians are very good at the
'holier-than-thou" act, so you don't have to tell me that :-)
Have a nice day,
/Stein
==============================================================================
Stein J. Rypern, Student I "Kapitalisme - varer uten ideer,
Inst. of Informatics, Oslo U I Kommunisme - ideer uten varer"
Oslo, Norway I "Capitalism - wares without ideas,
[email protected] I Communism - ideas without wares"
|
| 89.8 | Group identity vs. individualism | NEILS::SAVAGE | | Wed May 16 1990 11:36 | 79 |
| From: [email protected] (Hans Henrik Eriksen)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Re: Which came first?
Date: 14 May 90 18:14:38 GMT
In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] (Peter Herman x5495) writes:
> I would like to raise a point or question related to the
> debate raging on individual's rights in socialist countries. Which
> came first, the strong scandinavian sense of "group" or the current
> social democracies.
> [...]
> Case 1. An american friend had 2 daughters going to school
> in Stockholm. Time came to publish the class list ...
Cultural collision. Scandinavians have a different opinion
of what is private information and what is "public" than the
Americans. As the phone number is listed in some phone book
an thus accessable anyway, why bother trying to keep it secret
to the class?
Also, I think Scandinavians have stronger group feelings
about their school class than the average American, as the
kids which make up a class spend a significant portion of their
lives together. As a contrary (I'm not 100% sure on this)
to the schools in USA, kids don't have one "math class" and
a separate "geography class". They are together with the SAME
20-30 other kids 6 hours a day for NINE years! (The classes
are perhaps regrouped for the last 3 "high school" years.)
> Case 2. A group of swedish and american students and
> researchers were on a bus from Florence to Milan to catch a plane
> back to Stockholm after some scientific meetings.
[The group decided not to wait for two individuals who left the bus
during a traffic jam - TT]
In '88 I was with 16 other Norwegian students on a tour through
USA and experienced the same attitude toward "individualists"
as you mention. Persons that went their own way (or overslept)
were not waited for, I even remember some murmuring when people
wanted to go places on their own when we had agreed on doing
things together...
> Now to the question. Do social programs (and by extension,
> social democracies) work in norden because this "group sense" has
> always been part of the nordic culture or character? Or is it the
> alternate hypothesis that "group sense" has come about after nearly
> 2 generations of social democracies stressing group.
I think the latter. But I also think that it would have been
impossible to retain that "group sense" if most people didn't
think they gained anything from the social programs. Along with
post-WWII social democracy also came a substantial raise of
living standard for almost all parts of the population, and the
man in the street coupled his higher living standards with social
democracy. Ask a 65 year old swedish ex metal worker why he still
votes for the Social Democrats and he will sincerely tell you
"I owe it to them. They have given me everything: a house, a job,
education for my children etc. etc". Many from the youger
generations find this a little funny and naive (almost annoying),
but they have inherited some of the "social democracy is good for
the people" mind-set, and they don't see his views as a result of
a lifetime of 1st May "Oompah Ompah Social Democracy -- The Only
Truth!!" parades propaganda but a result of his very real
post-WWII increased standard of living.
Now it may sound to someone who has not been to Scandinavia that
individualism is banned and dictatorship of the masses prevails
here. Not true, but there are many examples of social democratic
interpretation of "equality" as "identical" and not "different
individuals, but equally worth". It was not until 1972 that the
Lapp minority of northern Norway were allowed to read Lappish in
school because everybody should be equal (and learn Norwegian).
But times are changing, and individualism is a growing trend (in
Norway, at least).
Hans Henrik Eriksen ([email protected])
University of Oslo
|
| 89.9 | Stereotypes abound | OSL09::MAURITZ | DTN(at last!)872-0238; @NWO | Fri May 18 1990 04:59 | 115 |
| re .7 and .8
I have to start thiS REPLY by imposing upon myself some restraint;
my wish is to answer with an essay, but I have neither the time
nor the energy at the moment. Therefore, some loose and disjointed
statements will have to do.
First of all, I believe that .7 is grossly misleading in attributing
all sorts of basic Scandinavian (and in some cases European) attitudes
to "socialism" and "socialists". On that same particular point,
I would disagree with part of .8, the part that claims that Social
Democracy PRECEDED the feeling of collectivism. Secondly, I belive
that bothe of the entry's (though .8 less so) exagerrate the
differences between the US and Scandinavia by seeking (really digging
for) differences that purport to reflect the former society as very
individualistic and the other as wholly collectivistic. Thirdly,
there are many areas of life where US society is actually MORE
collectivistic and conformative and Scandinavian society is more
individualistic.
I'll start with the last point first. Since personal examples are
in the vogue, let me relate of a visit with my family to the US
a few years ago (for the record, I shall note that I grew up in
the US and speak the lingo without a "foreign" accent, and thus
am able to "pass as a native"). We went swimming in the town pool,
and we had our 2 daughters along, one who could swim and one who
couldn't (the youngest). Our youngest did have along a set of "tanks"
that are used a lot here; these are designed to help kids learn
to swim properly, yet still keep them afloat till they learn the
proper motions (and at the same time letting them have some fun).
They are used in swimming instruction and are totally approved as
"safe". We were told in no uncertain terms by the life-guard that
the use of such things were banned, and we would be kicked out of
the pool area if we tried to use them (girl life-guard, by the way).
The older girl had to take an impromptu swimming test in order to
be allowed in the water.
The point I would make is not to criticise the practice of enforcing
rules of that sort. I disagreed with the first rule (ban on the
"tanks") but agreed with the second (swim test) which I thought
was a good thing. The point I would make, however, is that this
sort of "running of private lives" would be very strange in Scandinavia
(and, indeed, most of Europe). (I shall not go into the area of
hysteria surrounding the absolute need to have bath-houses to change
into bathing suits---though this may have changed in more recent
times).
Individual freedom of action, even at the risk of ones own life,
is a right that is defended quite adamently here. Witness other
areas of endeavour such as mountain climbing, jumping with parachutes
off mountain tops (a recent controversy in Norway), sailing/boating,
skiing, etc. In many of these areas laws in the US tend to be more
restrictive on individual behaviour than in "collectivist/socialist"
Scandinavia.
Another area of wider individual freedom is the area of politics.
Despite the implications of the last 2 enties (especially .7) political
opinion in Scandinavia is far from uniform (would we have 13 parties
here if everyone was so "social democratic" as .7 implies). These
parties range from the far left to the right. Furthermore, there
is a general tone of acceptance that individuals can have views
that are very different. In the US, any party outside the Democrats
and Republicans are regarded as either freaky or subversive (or
perhaps both); I suppose that the tremendous difference beteen these
two parties are supposed to give scope to all the individualism
that is necessary in a society of 240 million people (!).
Actually, my point number one from above requires an even longer
answer (on whether our society and mores have come from "socialist"
ideas). However, here the objective evidence is so overwhelming
against that view that a few remarks will suffice:
o For the record, even Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations, 1776) listed
a number of areas of endeavour as being best done by public
(government) means and not by private: Education, Central (national)
bank, transportation infrastructure (canals at that time). He also
gave clear reasoning why these areas were unsuited to private effort
(I'll not go into this here).
o European conservatives in general (and Scandinavian ones in
particular) have never had the "anti-government" tradition, which
almost seems to define what an American Conservative IS. Bismarck
was the great pioneer of national health service. Conservative
governments in Norway had put in place most of the social legislation
in the early parts of this century, long before the first Social
Democratic governments of the 30's (including: National health service;
free public education at all levels; concession laws limiting private
exploitation of natural resources; etc., etc.).
The one area where the Social Democrats (and other socialists) have
represented "social progress" has been in the trade union movements,
and I would not belittle their effort and achievements in this area;
however, it is questioned more and more today (even among the labour
unions) whether this tie-up between the two movements truly constitutes
"progress" in our day and age. As a little nit-pick with regard
to .7, employee representatives on the boards of companies in Norway
are NOT "union representatives"; they are freely elected by the
employees totally separate from any trade union arrangement that
the company may or may not have (example: Digital Norway---election
to board members done after a round of open nominations, then elections
from that list---all through the wonder of our great ALL-IN-1 system,
and its many fine features for assuring security, etc). <For the
record, I do believe that Sweden has different legislation in this
area, where the unions are more coupled into the process>.
That's all for now. My main point: Don't swallow all the superficial
stereotype stuff in the popular press and popularized history.
Secondly, if you are on the look out to confirm certain stereotype
ideas, I will guarantee you that you will always find examples from
personal experiences to do so. Try this experiment: Try to find
specific examples that show THE OPPOSITE; you might be surprised
at the results.
Mauritz
|
| 89.10 | it is a liability issue | NORGE::CHAD | Ich glaube Ich t�te Ich h�tte | Mon May 21 1990 12:25 | 23 |
| While I won't start a flame war about political philosophies (this sentence is
not a reply to any previous post), I would like to give an explanation
to Mauritz's personal example of taking the family swimming.
I would like to wager that the rule about no swimming-helps (those float things
for kids) and the swim-test rule were both very selfish rules imposed by
the service provider (whether a private swimming pool or city/gov swimming pool
is immaterial) for his (the service provider's) benefit only. While nobody
wants people to drown etc., the rules were probably not imposed for the
benefit of the group or anybody but the service provider. You see, if somebody
drowned in your pool, you could be sued by them/their relatives/parents/etc
[the drowned person wouldn't be around anymore] and perhaps lose lots of money.
Your insurance company has to pay -- in the end -- any judgment against you. To
minimize the chance for someone drowning the insurance company will make all
sorts of rules that you have to abide by if you want insurance. Or, you will
make all sorts of rules to limit your liability.
So you see, the rules you encountered were selfish rules meant to limit someones
liability, not because of any concern for someone perhaps making a wrong
decision to swim without knowing how.
Chad
|
| 89.11 | Compared with Switzerland | CHARLT::SAVAGE | | Mon Jul 02 1990 10:37 | 54 |
| From: [email protected] (Magnus Rimvall)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Re: Socialist Scandinavia
Date: 2 Jul 90 01:45:41 GMT
Organization: Schenectady, NY
Comparing the relative development in two demographically very similar
countries who cared to take different political paths:
1) Sweden and Switzerland both started poor. Both "lost" a significant
portion of their population through emigration in the 1880's. Both
suffered badly in the 1930's (as did many other countries). Both
countries were spared WWII. They were the two richest European
countries in the 1960's.
2) Now, 1990, Switzerland is the worlds richest country (GNP and
purchasing power). Sweden is still near the top in GNP, but below most
North-European countries in individual's purchasing power.
My argument is that the Swedish public section was relatively modest
during the 30's - 50's, giving the two aforementioned countries an
"even race".
With the major "social reforms" of the 60's and 70's (ATP,
Sjukvaardsfoerstatligandet, utbyggd Socialfoersaekringarna,
AMS-Verksamhet, Foerstatligande av Varv, aktiv Regionalpolitik,
Skolreformerna, offentlig Barnomsorg, etc), the picture changed. The
public section grew to be 3 times larger than in Switzerland, and with
the inherit inefficiency of this section Switzerland got a major
competitive advantage. The result: a major difference in purchasing
power (51% of Switzerland in 1988).
Note that the above list contains many reforms that each individually
have increased the security and quality-of-life of the average Swede
significantly. However, this has been obtained at a high price in the
inability the average Swede to influence his own life in important
areas.
BTW, the choice of Switzerland and Sweden for this comparison is not
coincidental:
- they both have a homogenous population in the 6-9M range
- the population is regarded as very industrious
- both stand outside of EG, both are members of EFTA
- both are neutral, they have similar defense spending patterns
- I know both of them very well (22 years Sweden, 8 years
Switzerland)
Comparing Sweden with for example USA or West Germany would be much
harder, as the similarities are less distinct.
Magnus Rimvall
All disclaimers apply
|
| 89.12 | Socialism and Swedish history | CHARLT::SAVAGE | | Thu Jul 05 1990 10:12 | 57 |
| From: [email protected] (Lars Aronsson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Re: Socialist Scandinavia
Date: 3 Jul 90 20:24:20 GMT
Sender: [email protected] (Lord of the News)
Organization: Lysator Computer Club, Linkoping University, Sweden
[email protected] writes:
> ... I do think that Sweden
>did start out poor. If you look back to the second half of 19th century
>(1800-talet) you will find a country that was not at all rich and facing such
>serious problems such as famine.
I am in no way an expert on Swedish history, but since I am a hard
anticommunist and antisocialist, I fear not following up on this one
without checking dates and numbers.
Ms Reenstjerna suggests we look at the second half of the 19th century
and I agree.
I think the last wars were fought in the late 18th century, at least
the last battle fought by the Nerike Regiment was in 1790 at
Svensksund. Gustav IV was about to start one in 1804 but the army
refused and forced the king to resign. After that, our present
Bernadotte dynasty was elected. I suppose there had not been enough
time after the wars to build a lasting wealth before the really bad
harvests in the mid 19th century that caused sever famine. Swedes
grinded tree bark mixed with flour to get more bread. Many emigrated to
America.
In 1850, the industrial revolution had just arrived in Sweden. During
the next 50 years, railways were built, sawmills were put up (we still
have a LOT of forest), iron ore mining city Kiruna was founded, many
inventions started new, strong industries like the L M Ericsson
telephone company, SKF bearings, and ASEA electric motors.
By 1900, Sweden was quite well off. But the wealth was not that well
distributed. Here starts the role of the Socialdemocratic Party: to
distribute wealth that is already there while ensuring more wealth will
be produced. The last part makes the difference from communists, though
it has never been stated openly. In fact, the party's effective control
over the trade unions has made it quite popular among employers, not to
the extent that they vote for it though. While almost all Swedish
schools and hospitals are governmental, we have fewer state-owned
industries than France. Taxes are extremely high for individuals, but
very moderate for companies.
Swedish journalists tend to believe that Socialdemocracy is the thing
for East Europe (they were shocked by Chamorros victory in Nicaraguan
elections, a recent survey showed Swedish journalists are 30%
communists). Some radical Soviet politician who has realized the need
for something to distribute said, however, that importing
Socialdemocracy to the USSR was like trying to grow bananas on an
iceberg.
Lars Aronsson
[email protected]
|
| 89.13 | Pension benifits to spouse cut | CHARLT::SAVAGE | | Mon Aug 20 1990 14:18 | 35 |
| From: [email protected] (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Re: Swedish weddings
Date: 15 Aug 90 09:24:10 GMT
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] writes:
> I recall reading that there was a large stampede of weddings around this time
> last year. This was due to a change in the pension rules that said (I believe)
> that only couples married before Dec 31 1989 would have pension benefits
> extended to the spouse after the death of the pensioner. This sparked a panic
> that led to at least a doubling of the marriage rate even among couples who had
> lived together for some time.
What happened was that the pension benefits of the wife were reduced
and the husband got equal pension benefits (previuously he had none).
In short, the old rules let the widow use the previous income of her
late husband in addition to her own, when calculating her pension.
However, there is a maximum previous income that count when
calculating a pension. So if both man and wife were working (which is
almost always the case), the benefit of this arrangement wasn't very
great anyway - the rules were made when many women were housewives,
and then made a great difference.
I believe that the only cases where the old rules were substantially
worse than the new (so that a marriage would make much of a
difference) was if the husband was rather old, and the difference
between the income of husband and wife was large. Of course, these
kind of fine points are difficult to get out in media headlines -
"WIDOWS TO SUFFER PENSION CUT" sells much better....
Lars-Henrik Eriksson Internet: [email protected]
Swedish Institute of Computer Science Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263 Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
|
| 89.14 | Swedish and US building codes compared | NEILS::SAVAGE | | Fri Oct 05 1990 14:51 | 48 |
| From: [email protected] (Magnus Rimvall)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Date: 4 Oct 90 00:27:12 GMT
Organization: Schenectady, NY
Whereas it is true that building codes and community standards exist
both in Sweden and in the US, the political motivation for these
standards are somewhat different.
1) Both Sweden and the US have MINIMAL building codes to ensure safety
(electricity), interchangeability (dimensions of kitchen appliances),
community conformity (color of house, minimal lot size), etc.
2) Sweden has also introduced politically motivated codes MAXIMIZING
the utilization of a house (under the motto "rather equally low
economic standards than higher but unequal standard").
During a recent vacation in Sweden I rented a house next to a house
under construction. The house being built had a one-plane layout, but
with a quite steep slope of the roof. Ideal for adding on a second
floor at a later time. However, I noted that the attic was filled with
thin inner support rafters, making it impossible to later furnish it
without removing these support rafters.
I asked the builder why he didn't prepare for future extensions by
installing thicker outer rafters/ridgepole to leave the central area
free, and he told me that the Swedish building code specified the
rafter layout, and that the individual rafters/support had to be so
thin that the roof would not be self-supporting - making an extension
impossible (unless you rebuild the whole roof). He thought that this
building code was optional, but he knew you could only get "goverment
mortage" (which has a considerably lower interest rate) if this code
was followed.
The rational behind this and similar laws is obvious. How can you
maintain an equality in housing if a young couple build a small house,
and then adds 50% or more to the floor space by rebuilding it when they
have saved enough to afford such an extension? Using the generalized
classification that "leftist" or "socialist" governments work towards
economic and social equality and "rightist" or "capitalist"
governments merely support equal opportunity (if that), then the
Swedish housing laws (among other laws) land far "left" of the US ones.
Magnus Rimvall
Standard Disclaimer: The expressed opinions (if any) are my own and not
those of my employer by choice or country by choice.
|
| 89.15 | Nordic 'flu' | TLE::SAVAGE | | Wed May 01 1991 11:05 | 30 |
| From: [email protected] (Marcus Gustavsson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Sick leave
Date: 30 Apr 91 13:15:07 GMT
Sender: [email protected] (Evald Nyhetsson)
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
I worked at the Volvo plant Torslanda in Gothenburg, for one year.
Most of the workers were very sick. Some months I as an example had a
40 % sick leave, this was not because the job was boring or any such.
No as many else have guessed it was because I got as much money, being
at home as being at work. My salary was some 150k swe. crowns a year.
That amount was enough for me to make some travelling every now and
then. That's why I didn't work. Before the change my father was sick
pretty much. He took some days off, because he wanted to work with our
house instead. These reasons however are minor ones. I think that most
Swedes simply used and still uses the good terms of salary when sick in
combination with the high taxes, for to make some black money. I could
name some guys that alongside their known work did alot of other work.
One was sick at the Volvo plant while working as a carpenter and
average handyman, another one was sick at Gothenburg's bus company when
he had to run his fish retail. Pretty sick system if you ask me.
/MOF
--
Chalmers | USENET: [email protected] | "You cried for night.
University | SNAIL: Marcus Gustafsson | It falls.
of | Harald Hjarnesgata 2 | Now cry in darkness."
Technology | 417 20 Gothenburg SWEDEN | - Someone
|
| 89.16 | Periodical report | TLE::SAVAGE | | Mon Aug 05 1991 10:03 | 27 |
| From: [email protected] (Robert Jacobson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Subject: "Social democracy's death throes?"
Date: 4 Aug 91 21:37:48 GMT
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle
The current edition of the LEFT BUSINESS OBSERVER (#47, 19 July),
features a two-page analysis of the plight of Swedish social democracy.
The author, newsletter editor Doug Henwood, is very sympathetic to the
Swedish form of political economy but pessimistic about its future.
Henwood notes, "Against the argument that a dose of misery is necessary
for the market to work its magic, fans of greater egalitarianism could
argue that Sweden's economy works quite well." But, he warns,
solidarity in Sweden is break- ing down as productivity in the domestic
industry lags behind multinational firms (particularly in the public
sector), unions disintegrate into self- interested factions, and
membership in the EC and European Monetary System force Sweden to
"conform to more conventional economic policies."
"In the 1990s, it seems that even social democracy in one country looks
unsustainable," concludes Henwood. "A big dose of melodrama for once-
placid Sweden."
(LBO, 250 W. 85th Street, New York, NY 10024-3217; phone, 212-874-4020.
$20/individual domestic subscription, $50/institutional & high-income.)
--
|
| 89.17 | Abundant wealth or the edge of ruin? | TLE::SAVAGE | | Fri Aug 23 1991 14:54 | 52 |
| From: [email protected] (Johan Garpendahl)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Re: swedish socialism
Date: 21 Aug 91 10:59:21 GMT
Sender: [email protected] (Lord of the News)
Organization: Dept of EE, University of Linkoping
[email protected] (ken campbell) writes:
>Here in Canada, the home of mainstream socialist governments, we have a
>party called the NDP (New Democratic Party). The knock against the NDP
>(by parties I don't consider much different, actually) is that they are
>"too socialist, they will ruin the business sector" etc.
The opinions about how it is in Sweden varies a little. Depending on
who you are asking and what you are asking about, Sweden is somewhere
between the edge of ruin (if you ask the opposition) and one of the
wealthiest countries in the world (if you ask the government).
I'd say that we have rather a good life in Sweden. Nobody is very
likely to starve and if you don't have a job it's possible to get money
from the welfare to pay the bills.
Naturally, sometimes the system goes too far and the administrational
overhead becomes too much and it does cost a lot for the taxpayers,
BUT:
Those who complain most about the taxes are the ones with means and
ways to avoid paying any tax.
It's funny to hear that you have problems with a "new democratic"
party.
In Sweden we have a new party called "Ny demokrati". I don't think I
have to explain what the name means, do I? :-)
It's a rightwing party. They are occused of being hostile to
foreigners. (We don't use the word "racist" very often anymore ;-) They
are called populistic, clowns, etc. Most of their program was stolen
from the swedish conservative party.
So the conservatives have a problem with critising ND. They don't like
them, they don't want them in the government, but they don't know what
to say about them.
Johan
--
Johan Garpendahl | Email: [email protected]
Linkoping University | Phone: +46 - 13 - 28 13 24
Dept. of Electrical Engineering | Fax : +46 - 13 - 13 92 82
S-581 83 LINKOPING // SWEDEN | This space is left blank.
|
| 89.18 | Sweden isn't proof of the success of socialism | TLE::SAVAGE | | Fri Sep 13 1991 17:25 | 128 |
| From: [email protected] (Bertil Jonell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.nordic
Subject: The Myth of Swedish Socialism
Date: 12 Sep 91 09:59:30 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
Along with sex, smorgasbord, blondes, and bork-bork-bork, the one
"fact" that people abroad claim to know about Sweden is that it is
socialistic, and that socialism works there. But *is* Sweden really
socialistic? I claim that it isn't. At least not in the usual sense of
Socialism.
The right to own property exist in Sweden. There is private enterprise
in Sweden. There are *big* private corporations in Sweden. There are no
restrictions on the passage of money in or out of Sweden.
None of these points look especially socialistic to socialists.
Sweden is a pluralistic parlamentary democracy. There are *no* banned
parties or organizations in Sweden. There is free speech and free
newspapers in Sweden. There are free elections in Sweden. (one now on
Sunday, btw:)
None of these points look especially socialistic to non-socialists.
I don't believe that there is a country in the world today that could
be described as 100% capitalist, yet most non-libertarians agree that
there are capitalist countries in the world. Even the US has it's share
of state-owned corporations and a history of government intervention in
economic matters, some of which were perpetrated by Republicans and
some by Democrats. So what we should be talking about here is *degrees*
of socialism. And I present all the points above to prove that while
Sweden certainly is more socialistic than the US, Sweden isn't
*socialistic* in the proper sense of the word.
But if Sweden isn't socialistic, why do everyone keep claiming that it
is?
I believe the answer can be found in what Eric S. Raymond wrote:
In article <1ckNrt#[email protected]>
[email protected] (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>Asked to find a model of socialism that worked, reformers in Eastern Europe
>and the Soviet Union used to look to Sweden. The place was rich, had hardly
>any unemployment, and had been run by Social Democrats for 6 of the last 59
>years.
Note that it was not only Eastern European socialists that pointed to
Sweden as "proof" that socialism worked, this was common all over the
world. The line of thought went someting like this:
1. Sweden is a nice and wealthy democracy.
and
2. Sweden is socialist.
therfore:
3. Socialism leads to wealth and will make nations nicer and democratic!
But if (2) is false then the proof is invalid.
Not only socialists used Sweden as an example, non-socialists did it
too. Their line of thought was probably like this:
1. Sweden has [wellfare programs | public health insurance | etc]
and
2. Sweden is socialist.
therefore:
3. If we get [wellfare programs | public health insurance | etc] we will
become socialists too!
As you can see it was in everyones advantage to keep on repeating the
myth that Sweden was socialistic. And a myth repeated rapidly becomes
"truth".
So, what is the real story about Sweden?
WWII is the real story. The only time bombs fell over Sweden during
WWII was when some Soviet planes misstook Stockholm for Helsinki (!).
The Swedish industry was up and running the day after 'V'-day, while
the rest of industry in Europe was in ruins. This created an enormous
influx of wealth to Sweden at the same time as the Social-democrats
begun the work on their "Folkhem". ('national home' the concept that
the government should take care of the whole nation like it all was one
big happy family.)
This industrial boom continued throughout the 50's and 60's. The sky
was not the limit. Economic growth was predicted to just accelerate
indefinately. This is the time when the horrendous retirement pay
system arrives. The money from those who work today goes to paying the
pensions of today. That way the first generation could get money for
nothing and the last would get nothing for money. But nobody thought
about that, since economic stagnation was unthinkable, it was heresy.
Time went, and the social reforms marched forward. The public sector
grew in personell and cost faster than it grew in productivity, but
that was not a problem, cause economic growth would continue forever
and ever, amen.
Time went, and taxes went up and up and up to pay for this, but since
the growth was still fairly fast, the standard of living still just
increased and increased.
Then a breakpoint was reached. It was the breakpoint where the money
collected actually *decresed* when the taxes increased. People begun to
take extra salary bonuses in time off instead of in extra money,
because the taxes wouldn't allow them to keep that money. Very few
small companies had grown large in a long time due to taxes and
regulation, and the large companies begun to go move out to greener
pastures or go belly-up like the majority of the Swedish shipyards,
merchant fleet and steel mills.
Some Social-democrats like Lars Engquist, former editor-in-chief of
Arbetet ("Work") in Malmo" saw the situation like it was and admitted
that it was Capitalism that had created the wealth and the
Social-democrats had merely redistributed it.
So in a way I could say that Sweden isn't a proof of how great
socialism is. It is a proof that capitalism is strong enough to drag a
*small* percentage of socialism with it for 60 years without tiring.
But now it has grown tired. And somehow I don't think *more* socialism
is the solution.
-bertil-
--
"Det a"r en Svensk grej. Du skulle inte fo"rsta^..."
|
| 89.19 | Costs of running a 'just' society | TLE::SAVAGE | | Fri Dec 06 1991 10:48 | 98 |
| From: [email protected] (raymond thomas pierrehumbert)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Date: 5 Dec 91 19:30:43 GMT
Sender: [email protected] (News System)
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
>Seriously, US citizens barely understand Canada, whole
>culture is so much like our own. And bearing in mind that the US State Dept.
>reports that only 8% of US citizens even posess a passport, how could we even
>attempt to understand Scandinavia?
Actually, I think the situation is much more insidious than this.
Large numbers of Americans, the news media, and right-of-center
government officials very badly want to believe that things are going
badly in Sweden. This stems, I think from several causes. First, the
Right is afraid of swedish-style socialism (or whatever you want to
name the kind of government that provides a very high level of high
quality government services). Second, decent Americans feel guilty
about how we treat our underprivileged citizens. Sometimes this
results in affection for Sweden, but more often it seems to come out in
a desire to believe anything negative about Sweden. In the press, this
almost amounts to outright propaganda sometimes.
I recall a few years ago one of the US morning News programs was in
Stockholm for a week. They focused on the "day care crisis" in
Stockholm leading to long queues. OK, its real. In America, the very
well off like me can buy day care more easily with less wait than in
Stockholm. The price is about ten to fifteen times what we paid in
Stockholm for equally good care (and we were paying at the top rate of
the Swedish barnomsorgbyran sliding fee scale). Poor people can't
afford this here. Hell, even my secretary can't afford this.
Out and out poor people [in the United States] go on welfare, or leave
their children locked up at home. One was so desparate she locked here
her four year old daughter in the trunk of her car. It's just awful
what people do to children here. The day-care crisis reporting is
typical of the unbalanced reporting of Swedish affairs here. They
never mentioned that:
(1) There are vastly more day care slots available in Stockholm per
person than here. There is practically a dagis on every corner. It's
just that the demand is very much higher because (a) the care is
affordable, and (b) most couples are both working after the first year,
in fact, I think almost all.
(2) I Sweden you get the first year (or maybe a little more) off with
full pay when a child is born. You get job protection for several
years more. So you can afford to wait longer to get your kid into
dagis.
(3) The situation is particularly acute in Stockholm. It is not nearly
so bad elsewhere.
(BTW, to close the day-care gap in Stockholm would cost about as much
as the Swedish defense budget. The costs per child spent by the state
in Stockholm are around $10K (the parents rarely pay more than about
$1K in fees). This is just what it takes to run good day care. It's
what I pay for my toddler, out of my own pocket. Not complaining-- I
can afford it. But others can't).
OK, is it perfect in Sweden? No, not nearly. I have lived there for a
year with my family, even considered emigrating; it was a close
decision. We have been back for long visits maybe four times, and have
had 3 Swedish au pairs from humble strata of Swedish society that we
didn't have much contact with in our social circles in Sweden. So I
think we know something.
Basically, though, the top 5% of society here (say professionals like
doctors and professors) can have a more comfortable and financially
secure life in the US than in Sweden. For the other 95%, Swedes are
better off, I'd say. The educational system in Sweden is mediocre, and
society really does seem to discourage ambition, but on the whole it is
clear to me that Sweden runs a much more just society than we do here
in the US.
In college, we used to sit around discussing how much we would pay to
live in a just society. The Swedish tax rate (MOMS plus income tax
plus laneskatt) gives you an idea of what it costs to run a just
society. It's pretty expensive.
The social disaffection that persists in Sweden is an indication that
even a willing government has trouble reaching certain groups of
people. There is a lot of adolescent drunken-ness and general
depression in the suburbs of Stockholm; there is an awful lot of
graffiti and vandalism (worse and more visible than in the middling to
better parts of Chicago). There are homeless people and drunks in
Stockholm (one used to camp out in our stairwell in Vasastan). It is
hard for the best of governments to reach people who basically do not
want to be helped. (or think they don't).
Anyway, I think the Swedes on the net have some legit cause to be
thin-skinned about criticism from our side of the puddle. However, I
hope that doesn't interfere with productive and reasoned discussion,
since it is clear that both American and Swedish society are facing
serious hurdles in the next decades.
..
|
| 89.20 | Apartment rental alternative | TLE::SAVAGE | | Thu Dec 26 1991 12:09 | 61 |
| From: [email protected] (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Re: bostads-r�tter
Date: 21 Dec 91 21:33:58 GMT
Sender: [email protected] (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Organization: SICS, Kista (Stockholm), Sweden
A "bostadsr�tt" is the right to live in an apartment owned by a
"bostadsr�ttsf�rening" (-association). A "bostadsr�ttsf�rening" is a
special kind of corporation that owns one or more buildings and is
jointly owned by its members, the inhabitants. The inhabitants pay fees
(not rent) to the "bostadsr�ttsf�rening" to cover the cost of running
the building.
To aquire an apartment in such a building, you buy the "bostadsr�tt" to
the apartment from the previous owner. You then become a member of the
"bostadsr�ttsf�rening" and thus indirectly a co-owner of the building.
By law, you have to be a member to own the "bostadsr�tt" and the
"bostadsr�ttsf�rening" has to accept you. They can refuse membership
only on a few well-defined grounds (such as if they can reasonably
assume that you will be unable to pay the fees).
So, a "bostadsr�tt" is the abstract right to an apartment. Loans
(mortgages) to a "bostadsr�tt" have interest rates slightly higher that
those to individual houses.
The typical cost varies enormously with size, location etc. The fees
also varies a lot, but they are in the same range as rent to a similar
rental apartment. There are certainly more protections. Since you own
the right to live in your apartment and is a co-owner of the building
with the influence that goes with it, you are in a much better position
than if you lived in a rented apartment.
The main drawback with a "bostadsr�tt" is that you have to buy it.
Since you buy from the person who lived there previously and not the
"bostadsr�ttsf�reningen" you don't even benefit from having the money
form part of the capital of the "bostadsr�ttsf�rening".
Of course, when you sell it you get money back. More, or less,
depending on what the market has been doing.
I personnaly think that the "bostadsr�tt" system has become completely
perverted with inflated prices that have no relation to the worth of
the apartment considered as part of the building. A recently sold a
"bostadsr�tt" for about 800 000 Swedish crowns. The value of the
apartment calculated as the apartment's share in the capital of the
"bostadsr�ttsf�rening" - the value of the house plus other assets minus
debts - was about 25 000. This is in no way an unusual situation.
Again, I find this completely perverse. About the only advantage is
that when you pay property tax, you are only taxed for the 25 000 and
not for the 800 000, so owning a "bostadsr�tt" is a good way of hiding
money from property taxation. However, there have been discussions
about changing this.
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
Internet: [email protected] Swedish Institute of Computer Science
Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09 Box 1263
Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09 S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
|
| 89.21 | Housing costs and subsidies | TLE::SAVAGE | | Wed Apr 08 1992 15:32 | 127 |
| From: [email protected] (Bertil Jonell)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Re: Dagens Nyheter April 6th
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:37:53 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Anders
Sundin) writes:
>Today DN presented the main proposals for new subsidies to help
>the retired to pay their rent. The KBT investigation was formed
>with the hope that the 8000 million kr in subsidies could be
>stretched to allow the retired to live in new expensive houses.
>KBT main proposal costs 9600 million kr yearly.
>6 kr is about 1 US dollar.
This shouldn't be needed if it wasn't for a severely broken housing
policy, a broken land-utilization policy and a almost as broken tax
policy.
The roots of this problem date back to the 60's and 70's when the
entire country should be planned. In the General Plan for Sweden (that
we studied in highschool) it is clearly stated that even though people
like to have vacation homes in certain parts of the country they
should be forced to accept other parts of the country that was
'underutilized' like the coast of Sma'land and Norrland.
Then there was the Beach Protection Act which put a total ban on all
new houses closer than 500m from the beach. Those that still were there
would be allowed to stand.
The third part of this is that the property tax on houses are tied
directly to the current market value of the house.
A house on the west coast, or in the Stockholm archipelago is very
attractive. A lot of people would like to have one. Especially close to
the water. So when the building of new houses in those and other areas
was limited, and when the number of houses close to the water was
frozen the prices skyrocketed. It is like Mark Twain said: "Buy land!
They've stopped making it."
So suddenly the old houses of fishermen and merchant mariners was worth
their weight in gold. Every little shed made to store nets in was worth
enormous sums. Some people I know who live in a (formerly) small
(formerly) fishing village was offered in excess of 1.5 million SKr for
a uninhabitable 4x4m shed they have their Evinrude in.
But as the value went up, so did the tax, and a lot of people who had
lived there for generations couldn't afford to keep their houses
anymore. Their homes was converted into vacation houses. The number of
around-the-year inhabitants fell, the ships closed in the winter, the
schools shut their doors for good, and the tax base left. One after one
old fishing villages was converted into summertowns that only live for
a few months every year.
Everybody agrees that this is a problem, and measure after measure have
been taken to correct it but nothing have worked. Laws were passed that
no more sheds was to be converted into vacation homes. Laws were passed
that prevented the sale of the houses to people who didn't intend to
live there the whole year, but so far only an economic crisis have
mananged to put even a dent in the high values of beachfront property.
"Start building new houses, so that the supply will increase and the
prices will fall all by themselves!" you say? No, that hasn't been
tried because it is all too logical.
-bertil-
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected] (Anders Sundin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Re: Dagens Nyheter April 6th
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:06:00 GMT
Sender: [email protected] (LTH network news server)
Organization: Organic Chemistry 2, Lund University, Sweden
Bertil Jonell writes:
>>[email protected] (Anders Sundin) writes:
>>Today DN presented the main proposals for new subsidies to help
>>the retired to pay their rent.
>
> This shouldn't be needed if it wasn't for a severely broken housing policy,
>a broken land-utilization policy and a almost as broken tax policy.
Isn't this is the effect of removing the subsidies for building new
houses? Do you seriously think that the retired would pay less in rent
if every square meter of beach on the islands outside Stockholm was
explored? Nor do I see how an "almost as broken tax policy" has
anything to do with the ability of the retired to pay their rents. The
retired usually don't pay taxes, and I am sure that most of our foreign
readers will agree that rents are low in houses that are more than 10
years old.
> The roots of this problem date back to the 60's and 70's when the entire
>country should be planned.
All right, lets stop all planning. Welcome to the anthill.
>"Start building new houses, so that the supply will increase and the prices
>will fall all by themselves!" you say? No, that hasn't been tried because it
>is all too logical.
I agree that the protection of beaches is too strong today (its more or
less total) but it is basically a sound policy. I want to be able to
walk down to the beach at least somewhere in the area I am at. In many
countries this is impossible.
The problem is who should be allowed to build on beaches? The ones with
good connections to the ruling parties in the local area (kommun) or
who? There is a lot of room for the *good old boys* type of corruption
here.
However I do know of ridiculous cases where people have been prohibited
from building a house close to a small pond that is located deep in the
forests of Norrland, and where no one except the landowner and an
occasional elk ever sets their feet.
--
Anders Sundin e-mail: [email protected]
Organic Chemistry 2 [email protected]
University of Lund [email protected]
P.O. Box 124 [email protected]
S-22100 Lund phone: +46 46 108214
Sweden fax: +46 46 108209
|
| 89.22 | School voucher (skolpeng) proposal | CASDOC::SAVAGE | | Wed Apr 15 1992 10:48 | 49 |
| From: [email protected] (Bertil Jonell)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Re: Skolpeng
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:21:21 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology
In article <[email protected]> [email protected]
(Bob Hammar
[about skolpeng]
>This is the same idea as the voucher system that the conservatives in the US
>are trying to push through.
Surprise surprise, in Sweden it is "pushed" by Moderaterna (the
Moderates, usually called conservative, but in reality spanning from
the center of the Republicans to the right wing of the democrats with
some libertarians mixed in), Folkpartiet Liberalerna (The Liberal
Peoples Party, stretching from the right wing of the democrats to the
center of the democrates), Centerpartiet (the Center party, a farmers
special interest group), Kristdemokratiska Samlingspartiet (The
cristian democrats, spanning from center democrats to the right wing of
the republicans) and probably by Ny Demokrati (New Democracy, spanning
from to the right of the republicans to the center of the democrats,
with a lot of looneys and libertarians mixed in). The closest thing to
what you describe is probably the xtian democrats, but they are a close
to insignificant party due to their size.
I've found some new data on how the proposal debated in Stockholm (a
lot of local counties want to jump the gun): All schools run by the
local government get their real-estate payed for by the kommun
(county). County schools in "socially burdened" areas get extra special
subsidies. They also get 100% of the voucher of each pupil.
Private schools get 85% of the voucher, and perhaps some subsidies from
the kommun, if the kommun feels like it and have money to spare (Kommun
with money to spare? Don't make me laugh!).
Does this seem like a nasty conservative proposal?
>Parents who do not send their children to
>public schools (where horrible-liberal humanism is taught) would get
>vouchers from the state that could be used to pay the tuition in Good
>Christian Schools. We horrible-liberals regard this as a very regressive
>idea.
-bertil-, hemsk ateist och liberal, tenderande mot ny-liberal.
--
|
| 89.23 | Consumers: no relief in sight | CASDOC::SAVAGE | | Wed Apr 15 1992 10:54 | 58 |
| From: [email protected] (Bertil Jonell)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Re: Swedish Capitalists
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:09:12 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology
In article <[email protected]>
[email protected]
>Well, I went to a talk by the Swedish Ambassador to the U.S. organized by my
>Swedish School, basically about the changes with the new government. Two
>things he said are relevant to this discussion.
>
>1) When the VAT was reduced from 25% to 18% on food/goods (?), the prices in
>the stores didn't go down at all (or very little). The store owners said "At
>least the prices didn't go up." !!
Yes, all stores did the same thing at the same time, there really
weren't no choice but to pay up. This is because of several factors:
1) The anti-trust laws in Sweden is a lame duck if ever I saw one.
Basically, if a number of companies come forth and confess that they
have been setting prices in collusion with eachother they will have to
pay a *very* small fine. Take the price of gas for example. All oil
companies raise it the same amount on the same day, and when questioned
blame it on pure chance.
2) There is an extra level between the producer and the consumer. In
the case of food, viritually all foodstuffs sold in quantity in Sweden
pass through one level of distributors more than in other countries. To
compound this problem, this extra level of distributors is held in a
near-monopoly by a handfull of big corporations that have the
individual stores tied up for life.
3) The Swedish consumer is among the weakest in the world. There is no
consumer organization. Why is this? It is because there exists
something called Konsumentverket (Department of Consumers) which is the
government consumer organization. Government consumer organizations are
about as good an idea as government-run trade unions, government-run
corporations or even corporaton-run trade unions or corporation-run
governments. Konsumentverket is pretty much another lame duck.
4) Local boards that wants to protect the local businessmen by not
allowing the competition to set up shop within their jurisdiction.
>2) There is a saying in Sweden that if you own a food store and aren't a
>millionaire after a year, you must be doing something wrong.
Yes, an example of the above might be that foodstuffs made in Sweden,
exported to Denmark, slapped with Danish import taxes (?), run throguh
Danish chains of distribution and subjected to Danish sales tax are
cheeper than the very same foodstuffs sold in Sweden 10km from where
they are produced.
-bertil-
--
|
| 89.24 | Personal assistant for disabled persons | TLE::SAVAGE | | Fri Feb 26 1993 16:10 | 18 |
| Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
From: [email protected] (Mats Winberg)
Subject: New Bill enhances rights of disabled persons in Sweden
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Ericsson
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 10:50:14 GMT
The governemnt of Sweden is proposing new legislation which will
enhance the rights of disabled persons in Sweden. According to the new
legislation each seriously handicapped person should have the right to
a personal assistant to help them with everyday doings, thus making it
possible for them to live a more comfortable life. The cost of this
program is, if I remember it right, 1.6 billion SEK.
Mats Winberg
Sthlm, Sweden
|
| 89.25 | Freedom of public assembly | TLE::SAVAGE | | Wed Dec 01 1993 15:48 | 93 |
| Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
From: [email protected] (Ahrvid Engholm)
Subject: The Great Hate Day
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Stacken Computer Club, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 01:15:26 GMT
A short report from the day that has turned into the Greate Hate Day in
Sweden during the last years: November 30th. On this day, in 1718, the
Swedish king Charles XIIth was shot in Norway, while he in the spirit
of true Nordic cooperation was trying to invade this country. As with
our more recent national leader, Olof Palme, no one is sure who did it.
A lucky hit from the Norwegian trenches is the best guess.
Charles XIIth was a so called "hero king", the last generation of kings
who would personally lead his troops to battle. He fought against
Denmark-Norway, Poland, Russia, some German states etc during his
reign. When he for the first time heard the sounds of a battle in
progress he is believed to have said "Detta skall h�danefter bliva min
musik" (This shall from now on be my music). A true hero.
Or at least, that is what the tiny groups from Sverigedemokraterna (The
Sweden Democrats, a right wing party that gets a few thousand votes in
elections) and VAM (Vitt Ariskt Motst�nd, White Ayrian Resistance - a
group probably numbering less than 100 active) think. So they gather on
the day of death of Charles XIIth to honour "Swedish patriotism" and
and shout "Ausl�nder Raus" (but in Swedish).
People who don't like this and feel that extremism must be met with
extremism on the other side gather to try to beat the shit out of the
right wings on this day. They dress themselves in black and call them-
selves "anarchists". In south-Sweden they will get support by busloads
of imported black (dressed) trouble making labour in the form of Danish
so called BZ activists.
Last year on November 30th the police made the mistake of letting these
two groups get into almost close combat with each other; scenes that we
hadn't seen since the days of the supporter gathering of the peacful
game of soccer (the European Cup in Sweden in 1992) took place on the
streets of Stockholm. This year the police took no chances: They
outlawed all demonstrations.
The government met on Monday to process appeals, and concluded: Well,
sorry guys, but we found something. We have something called The
Constitution so you can't outlaw demonstrations. Good luck!
The police didn't rely on pure luck. They relied on a gathering of
strength: 1500 policemen in riot equipment were called to service in
Stockholm. About 500 were called to service in Lund. They showed the
racists a place south of downtown Stockholm where they could
demonstrate, and a place north of downtown Stockholm for the
anarchists. In between the established a number of Checkpoint Charlies
where people shouting "Heil!" wouldn't be let through in the northbound
direction, and people carrying anarchist bombs (this group has proven
to have some sort of non-profit bomb factory) wouldn't be let through
in the southbound direction.
The police won the game in Stockholm. I passed through the central
parts of the city a couple of times during the day. Many areas were
sealed off from traffic (the Stockholm Transport buses had to make
detours) and there were reports of numerous arrests as the two groups
moved towards each other for confrontation. They never made it. A group
of so called skinheads were for instances surrounded below the Royal
Castle and put on buses out to the suburbs. (I don't think they even
had to pay tickets, so this saved them a lot of money.)
The anarchists went around smashing some windows, but according to a
report a group of ca. 100 were surrounded by the police on Government
Street (Regeringsgatan) and taken care of.
In Lund there was more of a battle. The Heil-guys never really had a
demonstration in Lund this year, so the anti-Heil guys in their
frustration (supported by 11 busloads of BZ's from Denmark) had their
own show, attacking the police with rocks and sticks. 290 BZ'ers from
Denmark were arrested. (I think there were fewer Swedish people
arrested.)
Conclusions?
A few:
1. It was pathetic.
2. The government is ready to defend the right to demonstrate, even if
the demonstrations are pathetic.
3. These groups are quite small. There were MORE policemen on the
streets than demonstrators. (At least in Stockholm.)
4. If I wanted to get PR for extremist views I couldn't hire a PR
company to do a better job than the publicity I'd get for free because
of the media's hysterical coverage of these events.
|
| 89.26 | Sifo poll | TLE::SAVAGE | | Thu Jan 20 1994 09:30 | 64 |
| Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
From: [email protected] (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Subject: Swedish views on the welfare society
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 11:40:41 GMT
The Swedish newspaper "Dagens Nyheter" had an interesting article today
about a poll made by Sifo, a major Swedish poll institute. The article
is not a news article but a debate article, but that does not make the
presented facts any less interesting.
Sifo had made interviews with 14000 Swedes about their views on Swedish
society. They recorded a dramatic shift in public values during the
last three years. The most important points were:
53% of the interviewed Swedes prefer increased taxes over further
reduction of the "welfare society". The belief that increased use of
market economy will solve economic problems has gone down drastically.
Three years ago, 53% of the Swedes wanted a reduction of the public
sector, today the figure is 35%, about the same as in the 1980ies.
The prevailing trends in the values and expectations of Swedes were:
* A desire to go return to the old (1930-1980) kind of Swedish society,
"folkhemmet".
* A desire to preserve Swedish customs and small communities, and regions.
* Affirmation of a development towards international and decentralised
cultural and economical development.
* Expectations of a rapid economical development in a global deregulated
market economy.
The first trend is the strongest. The author notes that these trends
are mutually inconsistent, but we are dealing with people, so that
should not be surprising.
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson Internet: [email protected]
Swedish Institute of Computer Science Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263 Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
From: [email protected] (Ulf Sundin)
Subject: Re: Swedish views on the welfare society
Sender: [email protected] (USENET News System)
Organization: Da Capo
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 12:42:21 GMT
In today's issue of Dagens Nyheter the poll and the conclusions drawn
from it are questioned.
Bo Ekman (Sifo mgr), who wrote the article in DN yesterday which claims
that 53 % of the swedes prefer increased taxes of welfare cuts seems to
have been manipulating the results of the poll. According to Toivo
Sj�ren, responsible for the poll, claims that the question concerned
whether to lower the taxes, even if government spending then must be
cut. In swedish: "�r du f�r eller emot en s�nkning av skatten �ven om
de offentliga utgifterna m�ste s�nkas?"
Ulf Sundin, DaCapo AB
|
| 89.27 | Municipal services deteriorating | TLE::SAVAGE | | Mon Jan 24 1994 10:30 | 59 |
| Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
From: [email protected] (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Subject: Re: Swedish views on the welfare society
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 13:05:22 GMT
If we look at Uppsala (my home town) as an example (granted, Uppsala is
among the worst places, but these problems are by no means unique).
- The opening hours of public libraries are decreasing all the time.
Many small libraries in suburban areas have been closed. The library
service has also become worse.
- Daycare is becoming a joke. The local administration of my part of
Uppsala (Almunge-Knutby kommundel) even sent out a flyer last year,
where they said that due to budget cuts they will no longer offer
daycare of children but day storage. (Fortunately my kids are at a
cooperative daycare centre.)
- The subsidies to the city bus company has been severly reduced. This
means increased ticket prices and reduced services, leading to fewer
passengers, leading to even less revenue.
- To save money on welfare, people needing it are subject to a
humiliating and degrading treatment. There have been cases of people
braking down at the welfare office.
- The city has essentially stopped maintaining its parks.
I don't believe this to be the right way to go. It seems ludicrous that
we can't get a descent level of municipal services considering that we
start to earn money for ourselves someday in July (skattebefrielsedagen).
I think we need to audit public spendings in a higher degree.
It seems that whenever public money is being used things cost much more
than if someone takes it out of his own pocket.
BTW: municipal services are normally paid for through municipal tax.
This tax is proportional so increasing it will also increase the tax
for all those not being as well paid as you. [Does anyone] suggest that
more taxes should be imposed on them as well or do you suggest a
special municipal tax for people being well off?
Fees for municipal services (like daycare) are often differentiated
according to income, so are many subsidies. I would prefer
differentiation through taxation, since otherwise uncoordinated effects
of differentiated fees could mean that people lose money by earning
more.
How this could be done is a technicality. A very simple way would be to
increase the basic deduction for municipal tax could be increased.
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson Internet: [email protected]
Swedish Institute of Computer Science Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263 Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
|
| 89.28 | Is Sweden's approach "affordable and sustainable"? | TLE::SAVAGE | | Mon Jan 31 1994 11:16 | 35 |
| From: [email protected] (UPI)
Newsgroups: clari.news.economy,clari.news.europe,clari.news.trends
Subject: Swedish, Belgian leaders say welfare reform key to European growth
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 94 11:37:01 PST
DAVOS, Switzerland (UPI) -- The prime ministers of Sweden and Belgium
said Saturday that long-term economic growth and job creation in Europe
are dependent on restructuring welfare systems.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, they said such reforms
require reasonable cuts in taxes and social benefits as well as more
dependence on individual savings.
Carl Bildt of Sweden and Jean-Luc Dehaene of Belgium said welfare
systems had become a disincentive for employment and a burden on
economies as a result of the last few years of economic turmoil in
Europe.
"We must have systems which encourage people to work and to save,"
Bildt said.
Dehaene added, "We must organize another way. The amount spent on
social welfare has reached the highest level possible."
Both prime ministers predicted such change could be brought about
without social upheavel.
Bildt said reform was underway in Sweden through changes in the
pension system, sickness insurance and unemployment compensation. Step
by step, he explained, Sweden was creating an "affordable and
sustainable" approach to welfare.
Dahaene said the European Union should not strive to achieve welfare
uniformity across nations. Instead, he said, the EU should encourage
diversification, decentralization and flexibity.
"We must have flexibility in labor markets," Dahaene said.
Dahaene added that labor market rigidity in Europe had created a
situation where employers hesitated to create jobs. By reducing the cost
of labor, he argued, entrepeneurs could be encouraged to support new
jobs.
The current system of taxing labor to finance the welfare state is
"one of the reasons for less and less jobs," Dahaene said.
|
| 89.29 | Diabetics are special case | TLE::SAVAGE | | Mon Feb 14 1994 10:46 | 46 |
| Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
From: [email protected] (Mats Winberg)
Subject: Re: Swedish views on the welfare society
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Ericsson Telecom, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 11:00:20 GMT
There is an odd discrepancy in the Swedish system: The absolute
maximum you have to pay for health care in Sweden is 1600 SEK
(~200 USD), This is what we call "hoegkostnadsskydd" i.e "high
cost protection". This means that every time you see a doctor
(price 100 SEK), buy medicine or undergoes some treatment, you
get a stamp in a card. When the sum has reached 1600 SEK, you get
a "frikort" ("free card") which entitles you to free treatment,
medicine and other medical services for one year from the date that
the "free card" was issued. Now, if you're a diabetic you need
insulin and insulin is FREE in Sweden, whereas people with other
chronic diseases have to pay up to 1600 SEK a year for their
medicine/treatment.>
The reason for this discrepancy is probably historic, many people
are diabetic and it has been possible to treat diabetics for a long
time now. It is not free because it is life-sustaining because
dialysis patients have to pay 1600 SEK a year.
The "market revolution" that swept over the world during the last
decade has of course affected Sweden as well, but there are
overwhelming support for the common health insurance, I believe,
because it is a GOOD THING and the best way to ensure good health
care to everyone. Sweden is a very egalitarian society and Swedes
are vehemently opposed to the notion that sickness should mean an
unreasonable economic burden.
The problem now in Sweden is that the state has expanded so much
(there are subsidies for child-care, housing, sport, culture
activities, immigrant language training in THEIR languages, etc...)
that the important sectors in the society are getting hurt.
This is because the political system in times of shrinking economic
resources, don't seem to be able to make priorities, they cut money
to hospitals while income-related subsidies for children is a big
no-no...(In Sweden, you get the same amount money for your children
regardless of what you earn).
Mats Winberg
Stockholm, Sweden
|
| 89.30 | Will the security blanket be pulled away? | TLE::SAVAGE | | Tue Sep 06 1994 12:06 | 95 |
| LINKOPING, Sweden (Reuter) - In the heartland of Sweden,
ordinary people are coming to grips with the idea that the
blanket of state welfare which has kept them warm for decades is
slowly being pulled away.
``People waited for Santa Claus. Now they have to
participate more actively in solving problems,'' says Hakon
Lofstedt, a Social Democratic Party councillor in this Swedish
city 125 miles south of Stockholm.
``Before there was the view that the state and the
municipality would take care of everything,'' he added.
The thought of a society without the traditional safety net
is slowly beginning to dawn on some Swedes, although its
attraction still appears to outweigh its financial cost.
Opinion polls tip the Social Democrats, who promise to
retain most of the country's comprehensive welfare state, to
defeat a conservative coalition in the general election on
September 18.
``The security in this country is so self-evident. I don't
think people realize what society would be like if we didn't
have it,'' said self-employed Carina Kalmer, 36.
``There are no guarantees for anything, but people still
think society will fix everything,'' said Kalmer, who works at a
window repair shop in Old Linkoping, the restored town center
made up of preserved buildings from the 18th and 19th centuries.
Many ordinary Swedes wonder where their country is heading.
``We will have to change our welfare state. It's a scary
truth which people don't like to talk about,'' said a
32-year-old hospital worker.
Gone are the days when the center-left political parties
could be relied on to guarantee full social cover.
Even the Social Democrats, architects of the welfare state,
say they will trim benefits and raise taxes, a campaign pledge
which in most countries would mean political suicide.
``This is the first time politicians are not promising any
reforms -- quite the opposite. They have said they will cut
down,'' said Birgitta Johansson, chairwoman of the conservative
city council.
``It's like a competition -- the party which cuts the most
wins,'' said a Linkoping taxi driver.
Politicians giving speeches in front of little wooden
election huts in the city center and passing voters agree that
the overriding election issue is record high unemployment.
Linkoping, bordered by farmland, forests and lakes, has seen
its social payouts rocket to $26 million a year from $11 million
a few years ago, mainly due to the sharp rise in payments of
unemployment benefits -- about $13 million worth.
``The building up of the welfare state in the 1950s went too
fast, there was one benefit after the other,'' said Elis
Jarhall, a 71-year-old pensioner.
``No one told us we wouldn't be able to afford it,'' he
said.
Paying for the welfare state has left Sweden with an big
budget deficit and huge debt supporting a massive social
infrastructure -- regarded in the 1970s as a global model for
social democracy -- that still guarantees generous support from
birth to death.
Perspective is important in Sweden, where poverty is
relative. There are no soup kitchen lines or groups of homeless
in Linkoping, Sweden's fifth largest city, where the jobless
rate is about nine percent.
However unemployment is a reality that is creeping into the
lives of most people. Linkoping, like many Swedish towns, has a
small town feel.
Shops are closing, sales of radios and televisions have
dropped, hospitals are cutting staff and people are staying at
home rather than taking holidays overseas since the crown fell
sharply in value.
``I've been unemployed for a long time, but I feel more
sorry for my father who is unemployed. He's 54-years- old and it
isn't easy to get a job at that age,'' said 22-year-old Cici
Edlund.
Many students at the University of Linkoping have given up
hope after being bombarded with the number of new jobless every
week.
``It's all just about jobs, jobs, jobs. We're constantly
being told there aren't enough jobs,'' said Christian Ericsson,
a 29-year-old student. ``I don't dare hope for anything..''
Apathy has spread to many of the 129,000 population, where
the main employers are the state or municipality, the university
and its hospital and the automotive and aircraft group
Saab-Scania.
Some voters in Linkoping, which has swung back and forth
between conservative and socialist local governments in recent
elections, said they might vote for the Social Democrats.
They hope the party, which has about half of voter support
in opinions polls, would give Sweden the stable, majority
government they believe it needs.
Others say there is little difference between the parties.
``I'm blase. Sweden is in a crisis so things won't get
better no matter who wins,'' said Ann Stern, a 33-year-old
mother of three.
``We had a conservative government after the Social
Democrats and that didn't help. It goes in waves. People are
disappointed so they may vote for the Social Democrats again.''
|
| 89.31 | WSJ article, January 1995 | TLE::SAVAGE | | Tue Jan 31 1995 11:41 | 145 |
| To: International Swedish Interest discussion list SWEDE-L
<[email protected]>
From: Tom Astrom <[email protected]>
From Wall Street
International: Sweden's Welfare State Stares Down Reform Efforts ---
Citizens Demand Continued Benefits Despite the Economy's Problems ----
By Dana Milbank Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal
Source: The Wall Street Journal (full text) via DowVision
Date: Jan 30, 1995 Time: 11:09 pm
Politicians and economists world-wide may be coming to the conclusion
that generous social welfare benefits are no longer sustainable. What
with high unemployment, large budget deficits, slow growth and aging
populations, the money to support such largesse just isn't there.
But getting voters to give up some of their perks is another matter. As
in the U.S., welfare reform is proving an elusive goal in Europe,
limited largely to quick fixes for specific programs rather than
fundamental, systemwide overhauls.
Such is the state of welfare reform in Sweden, the granddaddy of
universal welfare states. In Sweden, a parent can take a year off work
to care for a new child and still receive 80% of his or her salary,
paid for by the government from social welfare levies it collects from
companies. Seeking to trim the budget deficit, the government wants to
cut the amount -- to 75%. But even modest cuts such as these go too far
for some Swedes.
"There is very strong anger," says Roland Spant, chief economist for
the country's 1.3 million-strong white-collar union. "Swedes support
the kind of general welfare state we have and they are willing to pay
for it." Indeed, to avoid steeper cutbacks in welfare, the new Swedish
government is raising taxes.
Although some European politicians and many economists may be coming to
the conclusion that such social systems are unsustainable, voters,
accustomed to entitlements, have no intention of surrendering them,
regardless of the economic situation. As a result, the European welfare
state defies predictions of its demise.
"There's a great deal of sound and fury, but nothing changes," says
Nicholas Barr, a welfare-state specialist at the London School of
Economics. "Despite all this rhetoric about how communism lost and
capitalism won, the welfare state is very robust. It has weathered an
economic hurricane and an ideological blizzard."
In France, for example, the government has tried to reduce its pension
burden by switching indexing to inflation rather than wages. Belgium
wants to phase out unemployment benefits for part-time workers. Germany
proposed putting a time limit on unemployment assistance. The
Netherlands imposed higher contributions from employers that have high
absenteeism. Italy passed a law raising pension ages. Denmark has
privatized some hospital facilities.
Sweden, which has the most extensive welfare system -- and probably the
highest taxes -- has the most difficult task. Sweden's universal
security includes pensions, health, sickness and parental leave,
disability, child care and education, and unemployment insurance. The
system distributes wealth so evenly that only about one in 20 Swedes
live in poverty, compared with nearly one in five in the U.S. Even
wealthy Swedes put their children in public day care.
But this also is costly. Social programs command 34% of Sweden's gross
domestic product, compared with 26% in Europe and only 15% in the U.S.
The bill for these services is a major reason behind Sweden's slow
emergence from its deepest recession in 60 years. True unemployment is
about 13%. The budget deficit is 11%, government debt is 1.3 trillion
Swedish kronor ($173.6 billion) and some banks have required bailouts.
When a conservative coalition took power in Sweden in 1991, it sought
to put an end to what the world came to view as the "Swedish model" of
the welfare state. That government instituted waiting days for sickness
pay and other benefits. It reorganized health and pension systems to
require higher contributions and froze or reduced various other
benefits. The government abolished many social agencies and introduced
competition and private contracting. Conservatives say they cut 90
billion Swedish kronor from the budget, while reducing taxes by 17
billion kronor.
But angry voters kicked out the conservatives last fall in favor of the
socialists, who promptly increased taxes. The Social Democrats also are
rescinding the waiting period for sickness pay. The government says it
has knocked 113.2 billion kronor off the deficit with an austerity
budget, with half the reduction coming from tax hikes. The opposition
complains that the overall tax burden will climb to 52% of GDP in 1998
after dipping to 49% from 55% in 1990.
Neither governments' changes are forcing Swedes to go hungry. Sven
Nelander, a researcher for the country's blue-collar union, says half a
million members of his union have had to forgo their vacations, and
some have put off new car purchases and home repairs. Single parents,
who had problems before, are in even more trouble now. Even so, he
adds, "it's not poverty in the meaning that you starve or can't get new
clothes." Mr. Nelander himself is a typical victim: The biggest bite
from the changes will be a reduction in the government funds he gets
for his two children to 15,000 kronor a year from 18,000 kronor.
Welfare reform is, if anything, more difficult in Sweden than in the
U.S., where welfare programs are mainly for the poor and old. Because
Swedish welfare is universal and often not based on income, "it's for
everybody and therefore everybody supports it," explains Walter Korpi,
professor of social policy at Stockholm University. A university study
found that two-thirds of Swedes would rather pay higher taxes than see
their benefits cut.
In the eyes of many foreign observers and Swedish business leaders, the
government must make deeper cuts or face a worse crisis in the next
downturn. Downgrading Swedish debt earlier this month, Moody's
Investors Service Inc. said the Swedes need "large-scale modifications
to their public benefit program." Adds Charles Andersen, a Codan Bank
economist in Copenhagen: "It takes some change in attitude and I don't
see attitudes changing. They have a crisis, but they're not prepared to
make serious cuts."
But the Swedes remain defiant, and their welfare state, for better or
worse, appears to be here to stay. "I don't think we have to move
toward an American system. I can't see any justification for such an
argument," says Leif Pagrotsky, an undersecretary in the finance
ministry. The Swedish welfare state "will be cheaper, leaner and
hopefully more efficient, but it will not disappear."
---
Costly Reform
Social protection expenditures as a percentage of GDP, 1990*
Sweden 34%
Netherlands 32%
Denmark 30%
France 28%
Belgium 27%
Germany 27%
Luxembourg 26%
Austria 25%
Italy 24%
U.K. 23%
U.S. 15%
Japan 12%
|
| 89.32 | Swedes answer some tough (biased) questions | TLE::SAVAGE | | Fri May 19 1995 16:17 | 216 |
| From: [email protected] (Tobias Hellsten)
Subject: Re: Sweden
Sender: [email protected] (Tobias Hellsten)
Organization: SKOM
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 09:44:06 GMT
Questions hereby answered by Tobias Hellsten, resident of Solna,
Sweden.
> Sweden Interview Questions
1. Sweden's economy is in recession right now, why?
This is due to a lot of unfortunate circumstances. To some extent the
economic situation in Sweden right now is an effect of the disastrous
conservative regime 1991-1994. Their attempts to make major changes in
traditional Swedish politics was a failure, or at least their short
time of power wasn't enough for them to succeed, and together with the
world-wide bad economic situation this brought the Swedish economy to a
recess. Another sad element is the national debt, which we blame on
social-democratic failures and miscalculations. The interest payment is
now 15% of our national expenses (ca 8,500,000,000 ECU a year).
2. Do you think part of Sweden's economic slowdown has to do with it's
huge deficits and high taxation policies? Explain please.
No. Since taxes are used to build the country, high taxation can never
slow down economy. The moderate party (conservative) wants to alter our
high taxation policies, and as we can learn from history Sweden have
had major crises both times the conservatives have been in power the
last few decades. It is of course unfair to blame this only on the
conservatives, they've never had the chance to rule Sweden when in a
good economic situation in modern time, but still, Swedes are used to
have a very high living standard, vast social security and free or
cheap elements of culture and pleasure in their life. The Swedish
every-mans welfare society is depending on a high taxation, so when
taxes are cut most Swedes have to accept cut-downs in their welfare. Of
course, most Swedes _don't_ accept getting a lower living standard,
therefore our high taxation policies are essential for our system.
3. How does Sweden's entrance in the European Community benefit
Sweden? What are the disadvantages?
The benefits or disadvantages are not of an economic kind. At least not
as yet. There has been a rise in food and electronics prises due to EC,
but this is only marginal effects. The real benefits are in the area of
extended co-operation and communication between the countries in the
EC. Disadvantages seems to be mainly the many rules of bureaucracy,
which in many cases seems to be unnecessary or even stupid. "Don't
blame me, I voted NO!" is a slogan that is getting common in Sweden,
due to the EU-bureaucracy and due to the lack of expected improvements
after our entrance.
4. Since Sweden focuses a lot on full employment do you think that in
the future Sweden will have trouble with this as a member of the EU?
Not really. People tend to stay in their home country if possible
rather than to adapt to a different culture. Furthermore, in the
perfect society the influx of people creates as many new jobs as they
take - Sweden is probably one of the closest countries to that perfect
system (although even Sweden isn't by far close enough), and because of
that the rest of the EU is willing to listen to our ideas of how to
keep the unemployment low.
5. Do you believe Sweden's neutrality will remain intact as a member
of the EU?
That is impossible, and Sweden are not very neutral any more. We
participate in the increasing UN activity world-wide, and that is not
always a very neutral behaviour. Still, Swedes will never accept
military violence as a method of negotiation.
6. How will Sweden resolve one of it's worst disasters the health-care
system?
The health-care system of Sweden is great. The only bad thing about it
is the long waiting lists for non urgent treatment we have right now,
but that will of course be better as soon as the economy is on the
right course. If, however, the economy does not improve soon, there
will be major problems in the health-care (for example a rise of wages
for our nurses is a somewhat acute matter).
7. Why does Sweden have such a problem with the number of people on
the housing waiting lists when there is such a low population?
That is because Sweden have a high and rising urbanisation. The waiting
lists are only long in the city areas. On the countryside you can find
a house right away and get it for 1/10 of the cost as if it would have
been located in a city. There is also big differences in different
areas of the cities.
8. What are the living standards of Sweden compared to other European
countries?
It is very high. For example Sweden have the most mobile telephones and
home computers per capita in the world. Swedish houses and flats are
also very modern in comparation to other countries (especially compared
to southern and eastern Europe). However, Sweden are in top position of
cases of asthma and allergies too, which some believe is an effect of
an too clean and protected environment. Other qualities of the high
living standards of Sweden are a high quality infra-structure, vast
amount of cultural elements, modern health-care technology and methods,
good child-care, good regulations and methods of fitting elderly or
disabled (physical and mental) persons into the society. Although most
of this suffer from the bad economic situation right now, our systems
are still in a world-leading position in most cases.
9. Why does Sweden have such a problem with it's lakes and forests
suffering from acid rain and lead poisoning? Can it be improved soon?
This is believed to be an effect of the close industrial areas of
Poland and Balticum. Sweden have a few programs which aims to get a
cleaner environment and industries of these countries, and hopefully
that will improve the situation in Sweden.
10. Sweden has a reputation for their high alcohol consumption. Is
that improving?
The alcohol problem is not of an overwhelming kind. In 1955 our liquor
consumption were 3,59 litres of pure alcohol per Swedish adult and
year, today it is down to 1,72 litres. On the other hand, the
consumption of wine and cider has increased, from 0,16 litres of pure
alcohol 1955 to 1,67 litres today. Altogether the consumption decreased
by 0,8% in 1994 compared to 1993.
11. Should there be hope for Sweden's economy to reform itself? Why
or why not?
Yes, the economy is about to turn, and the government seems to be
willing to do something about our national debt.
12. If you could change one thing that could improve your country what
would it be?
Major disarmament. Our military defence is 7,5% of our expenses (or ca
4,000,000,000 ECU a year). This money cold be better placed in another
department, since Sweden is not in a likely situation of a future war
and therefore this money is wasted when spent on a military defence.
In a recent inquiry this opinion was shared by a large part of the
Swedish people, together with cut-downs in our refugee receptions and
aid for poor countries.
13. Will Sweden be resuscitated and the "Swedish Model" live up to
its world-famous reputation?
Maybe. But what does the world reputation matter, as long as Swedes
consider the Swedish Model is the best for Sweden and themselves?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected] (Kurt Swanson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Re: Sweden
Date: 18 May 95 15:34:06 GMT
Organization: Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Further commentary, Kurt Swanson, resident of Lund, Sweden, citizen of
the United States.
> 1. Sweden's economy is in recession right now, why?
Not technically. There is about 3% growth. But unemployment is still
excessively high (~12% real unemployment).
Many of us see that the previous conservative government added more to
the national debt that had been done since the dawn of time....
> 5. Do you believe Sweden's neutrality will remain intact as a member
> of the EU?
The Soviets never considered Sweden as neutral. And Sweden had
"secretly" prepared for NATO intervention in case attacked.
> 6. How will Sweden resolve one of it's worst disasters the
> health-care > system?
If you think the Swedish health care is a disaster, then you've been
listening to too much Republican propaganda.
> 7. Why does Sweden have such a problem with the number of people on
> the housing waiting lists when there is such a low population?
The long waiting lists are for publicly controlled housing is downtown
urban areas. These are controlled by the government to hold down the
price of urban dwellings. These units are of course just as attractive
to live in as without government control, but the have the added plus
of being cheaper than they would be in a freer market. Note that the
government only controls a small percentage of the market - there is
still an open, private market in all areas, but these units are of
course much more expensive.
> 10. Sweden has a reputation for their high alcohol consumption. Is
> that improving?
Comsumption is relatively low for Europe, but then the problem is that
many people drink great amounts less frequently than small amounts more
often, as in Mediterranean countries.
> 11. Should there be hope for Sweden's economy to reform itself? Why
> or why not?
The positive action on the debt has already shown some positive
effects.
> 13. Will Sweden be resuscitated and the "Swedish Model" live up to
> its world-famous reputation?
The "model" is always changing to meet present and future needs. Most
Swedes are committed to a high degree of social welfare, education,
etc.
--
Kurt Swanson, Department of Computer Science, Lund University.
[email protected] (http://www.dna.lth.se/EHP/kurt)
|
| 89.33 | Would a USAn want to move to Sweden now? | TLE::SAVAGE | | Mon Aug 28 1995 13:15 | 183 |
| From: "Kimura, Keiko" <[email protected]>
To: "International Swedish Interest discussion list"
I wonder why an American would want to move to Sweden. As an American
who has lived in Sweden for two years, I don't recommend it. Many
Americans I knew in Sweden had a tough time adjusting, including
myself. The culture shock included the socialism in Sweden (we all earn
the same income, live the same way, eat the same foods, etc) and
navigating daily life in another language.
Swedes are excellent in understanding and speaking English, and you can
get by in Sweden without speaking Swedish. But then, often you feel
left out, because you can't interact even in the simplest situations
like responding to the supermarket cashier.
I moved to Sweden because of my Swedish husband. I could tolerate
living in Sweden, but I was glad to moved back to the US. Swedes are
really stoic people and they never seem to laugh or tell a joke, unless
they're drunk. I've had a difficult time meeting friends there, outside
of my husband's friends.
The other thing is that Sweden is currently in bad economical shape.
They have a huge national deficit and are struggling to cut down on the
many social welfare benefits that have been the cornerstone of Swedish
government. The government is expected to make more huge cuts in the
coming year, so I don't think this situation would get any better in
the near future. Part of this means that it's tougher for foreigners to
get good jobs (a job that corresponds with your qualifications) and
rising anti-foreigner sentiment (more towards the refugees).
Does this make you want to move to Sweden??
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Fredrik Osterberg <[email protected]>
To: "International Swedish Interest discussion list"
... a lot of stuff that makes sense in a narrow sense. I am sorry to
hear that you did not like Sweden, but I think that you had some bad
luck. My general experience is that americans that try to learn
Swedish, join Friluftsframjandet, and make an effort, do really well
over there.... As a Swede I was always amazed how some Americans so
easily could strike up well needed conversations.... I never forget the
day the American came to my mothers home village on the island Obbola
outside Umea...
Is this worse than the suburbs of St Louis or Atlanta? ... The Swedish
economy sucks as some parts of the american. This is not what makes
you like it. The party in Sweden is still going on (look at the
deficit), and I never feel depressed while over there because of that.
After all, there IS progress to correct the economy...
Fredrik Osterberg
Swede in the US since 7 years..... (and still a swede loving the US as
well as Sweden. After all, I could be a Kossovo-Albanian in Serbia....)
___________________________________________________________________________
To: "International Swedish Interest discussion list"
From: "Kimura, Keiko" <[email protected]>
I just would like to point out that there is a difference between the
experiences of an American living in Sweden and a Swede living in the
States. In my opinion, it is more trying for an American who is plunged
into a homogenous socialist culture like Sweden.
Don't get me wrong, there are nice things about Sweden. It is
relatively crime-free and people respect common property and each
other's properties. There's also respect for nature and the outdoors
and they pay attention to the environment. The so-called slums of
Sweden are nothing like the slums of New York, that is, NOT dirty,
dangerous or overflowing with garbage.
___________________________________________________________________________
From: Fredrik Osterberg <[email protected]>
To: "International Swedish Interest discussion list"
YES ??!?
I think you don't have an idea what it is like to try to fit into the
American society PRECISELY in NY. I lived on 146th and Amsterdam for 2
weeks, and I can tell you, it was not easy "bein' white" up there. And
what about the american midwest??? How many Swedish au-pair girls do
you think left because they couldn't take the conservatism... I still
stick to my point: It is what you make of it!!
Fredrik Osterberg
___________________________________________________________________________
To: "International Swedish Interest discussion list"
From: [email protected] (David Curle)
Wow, there is lots to respond to in this post, but I'll keep it short
and let others add their own comments.
As an American who lived in Sweden for 5 years:
- if you want to be comfortable in Sweden, you have to learn the
language. And you have to make an effort to speak it in everyday life.
If you have the advantage of a Swedish-speaking spouse, this should
be no problem.
- Two years is an awfully short time. If I had left after two years, I
would probably have had similar feelings, because after that length of
time in any new place, you are still a bit of an outsider.
- This "socialism" talk is nonsense. Certainly there are political
differences between the two places. But to the average person, daily
life is pretty much the same as here: you go to work, pay your taxes
(which in the end are not all that much more than in the US for a
middle class person), and you have a standard of living quite similar
to living in the US. Everybody has an opinion about politics, but I
really don't think the differences are so huge that they should have a
bearing on whether you are comfortable living there.
- The ability to feel at home in Sweden, or in any other place, is a
very personal one. Some like it, some don't. But the most important
factor is not the nature of the Swedes, Swedish politics, or anything
over there. The most important factor is your own attitude and
willingness to work at finding your place there.
David Curle
[email protected]
----------------------------------------------
David Curle East Harriet Associates
[email protected] http://www.webcom.com/~eha
tel +1-612-824-5360 fax +1-612-824-7274
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce Brolsma <[email protected]>
To: "International Swedish Interest discussion list"
Regarding the ongoing discussion of "why would anyone want to move to
Sweden, especially now?"...
The reaction of Americans living in Sweden has always been, and will
continue to be, a bell curve of experiences: There are those who,
conciously or unconciously, hold on to the "American way" of thinking
and doing things -- they don't feel comfortable learning the language,
they miss American habits and foods. There are the vast majority who,
to varying degrees, learn to adjust to their new environment. And,
finally, there are the few who excel at adapting Swedish customs and
language, who work very hard to understand and master many of the more
obscure customs that are a part of native Swedish life.
All of these groups have something to say, and they're all worth
listening to. Representatives of each of these groups have, from time
to time, contributed to this group's discussions.
Simply keep in mind that no one of these points of view is the only
point of view. Just because someone you know or read about had a
bad/OK/terrific experience in Sweden doesn't mean you will have the
same experience. Your own abilities, strengths and weaknesses, as well
as your efforts, will shape your stay in Sweden (whether it's for 1
year or 10) into your own unique story.
Finally, remember that for all the negatives we read/hear about,
there's a lot of positive things going on in both America and Sweden.
You can come out of the experience in a more upbeat fashion by keeping
in mind the many fun/good/fascinating experiences you had. [I think
I'll pop open a can of surstr�mming and watch the rest of the family
run away for a few days until the aroma subsides :-)]
Haelsningar,
Bruce Brolsma
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: "International Swedish Interest discussion list"
From: [email protected]
Most studies of the expatriated show that it takes more than two years
to get over the "hump". Essentially everyone is excited for the first
six months, followed by "trauma" for the next year and a half. Yes, you
must make a concerted effort daily to acclimate yourself. If you expect
it to be like home you have already begun to fail.
Of course, the first thing is to find employment over there. Regardless
of economic conditions, the easiest way to find the right opportunity
is through networking. How were you able to find a job there? How was
it that you were there? If you or anyone can help me I certainly would
appreciate it.
|
| 89.34 | On welfare and socialism | TLE::SAVAGE | | Wed May 15 1996 13:37 | 267 |
| From: [email protected] (Johan Olofsson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Norden part 2.8 - welfare and socialism
Date: Mon, 13 May 96 00:38:00 +0200
Organization: -
Sender: [email protected]
In the series of proposed amendments to the FAQ, I've now come to the topics
discussed last year. In the following I'm using the words of several different
contributors, maybe Arne Kolstad the most, but trying to compile it to a whole.
It _is_ a lengthy writing. (Hej Jorma!) I hope that in case someone have energy
enough for comments, that this someone also have energy enough to read all four
sections (2.8.1 - 2.8.5) before replying.
Do I need to add that comments would be highly appreciated?
------------------------------
Subject: 2.8 Nordic socialism and welfare
2.8.1 Wouldn't the Nordic economies gain from abolishing the Socialism?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's make a few things straight!
The words "Socialism" - "Liberalism" - "Conservatism" are used in a very
different way in the USA compared to the usage in the continental Europe and in
Norden. In soc.culture.nordic we use these words as they are understood in
Europe:
Liberalism and Socialism are in Europe basically defined as ideas with a great
deal of heritage from early liberal and socialistic writers. Liberalism could
be said to revolve around freedom from the power of the mighty, and socialism
around freedom from the power of the rich.
Democratic freedom is per definition a liberal virtue.
Some social democrats might be classified as much of a liberal, but most are
definitely not. The program of the Social Democratic parties are not understood
as liberal, but when it comes to practical pragmatic politics and policies the
outcome might be a mixture between the own program and other ideas.
Conservatism is likewise defined as ideas succeeding the writings of Burke,
Disraeli and other classical political writers. There are two major branches
among the conservatives: the social-conservatives and the value-conservatives.
The value-conservatives? Oh, that's people who speak a lot of the importance of
the church, the army, the family and maybe the crown (king/ government) and are
very happy to spend all the tax money on those institutions instead of
extravagances on children, disabled and unemployed.
Socialism is the people's control over the means of production.
High spending government is something different.
This phenomenon comes in different wrappings: Feudal, authoritarian
conservative, fascist, social liberal, social democrat, christian democrat and
so on.
As an ideology, socialism deals more with the political basis than with the
implementation. Nobody can justify taxation as a goal, that politicians and
civil servants are always better, that it is a goal to confiscate any kind of
private property. There are some socialist ideologies that want society to
build upon omnipotence. All but tiny extremist groups have survived. Most were
slaughtered in Eastern Europe.
The socialist ideology was more a visionary romantic one than a practical
political theory. There is a little bit of the rhetoric left (for internal use)
in the social democratic parties, so maybe one could call them socialist. Then
there are the proper socialists on the left of the social democrats. Some of
the Nordic still worships Carl Marx.
2.8.2 Doesn't the Nordic states have huge welfare expenditures?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'Welfare' in this context has nothing to do with welfare as the word is
understood in the USA. It stands for a word (v�lf�rd as spelled in Swedish)
approximately translated by the intention to control un-employment and poorness
by governmental regulation and actions. This is not a particular phenomenon for
Scandinavia, or for recent times, but have to greater or lesser extent been on
the program for nearly all parties ruling in the industrialized Europe (i.e.
for over a hundred years).
Subsidizes to industries have been popular among nearly all parties, for
instance. The health care system, the tax financed school system (including
student loans) and the mandatory participation in schemes for loss of income at
retirement, disability, sickness or unemployment has become a solid support by
anything like 90% of the politicians and 95% of the Nordic voters. The
differences regards adjustments, not the idea as such.
2.8.3 But you do pay terrible taxes, don't you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also people who are conservative, by Nordic standards, support the basic
concept of sharing a public responsibility for education and health care. We
can discuss the effectiveness of the government in running these programs, but
you're not going to convince many Nordeners that the solution to inefficiencies
is to move the responsibility to the individual.
Since the education for the youths are paid for through taxes instead of
parents earnings, the most intelligent kids get educated regardless of poverty.
This is an advantage for the country as a whole. You can also say: The educated
pay back for the education through taxes.
The same applies to the health care, which additionally seems to be remarkably
cost effective in the Nordic countries (compared to the US at least).
We all will need support around our birth, during the time when we grow up,
when we get ill and when we get old. We all need education. Those needs are as
common as our general need for streets and law and order and protection by an
army. All will probably become seniors. In any case, all have reason to prepare
for that time. If the preparation is made by individual savings or by mandatory
contribution to a general system is the difference. The _cost_ for living and
health care during your last years won't change if you live in a libertarian
state or in the nanny-states of Europe. The only thing which changes is the
method for paying. Here you pay in advance via the tax system.
The same goes for primary and secondary education. All who earn money have once
upon a time used the pre-schools and schools, and in our society you pay for it
through the tax some years later. In other systems you "borrow" it from your
parents when you use the service, and then "pay back" to _your_ kids when they
grow up.
Neoclassical economists use to argue that the high taxations in the Nordic
countries must lead to high unemployment, low productivity, low rates of
investments and too little incentives to work and innovate. Now and then these
arguments are presented in s.c.n., and regularly the following will be
presented:
The Nordic experience shows that 50% taxation is not too high to keep most
people from working. In the 80s there was full employment despite high taxes
and an extensive social security system. People still prefer work to
unemployment. Sweden could maintain full employment until 1990s, but now the
open unemployment is higher than in the US, although the criteria of the
statistics differ.
The Nordic model worked well till the 90'ies economic depression, but it may
have gotten into trouble in some of the countries now. On the other hand, one
could argue that thanks to this model the recession in the beginning of the
90'ies became moderated in a very favorable way, compared for instance to the
development in the United Kingdom.
It's often noted that the level of investments in Finland only some 5-10 years
ago was very high, maybe too high, and that Sweden has a trade surplus (i.e.
producing to a higher value than they consume) whereas USA has a trade deficit.
Productivity is relatively high in Norden. Social security does not lower
productivity. In fact U.S. style low pay employment does not have as great
incentives to high productivity as the Nordic union negotiated pay model.
Among the positive sides of this high-taxation system, one can note:
- Almost no poverty or starvation, as is the case in American ghettos
- Virtually no homelessness problem
- very little crime
- Equal opportunity to education & health care,
regardless of the wallets
Another example is that if a US worker is forced to have an expensive car and
drive for two hours each way to get to work, spending money burning gasoline,
that shows up as a bigger contribution to GDP than that of the Finnish worker
who lives in a comfortable cogeneratively heated house out in K�pyl�, doesn't
need a car, and rides an inexpensive tram in to work.
2.8.4 Now, when the Soviet Union has fallen,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
you are free to liberate your economies!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What often seems to be forgotten is that the Nordic countries have the same
balance in political life as Canada and the US - namely (apparent) democracy.
Nordics have a right to choose whether they want to spend public money on
welfare, health care and education or not. They do so by participating in
elections, in numbers varying between 70% and 90% of those eligible to vote
(unlike the U.S. where 50% of _registered_ voters is considered a great
turnout). Our representatives come from many parties in approximate proportion
to the vote (whereas the U.S. is often "winner-takes-all"). They enjoy
(relative) freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and (most) benefits of
market economies. That's why you'll get a cold shoulder if you try to label
them socialists, plainly state that their welfare system is broken and needs
fixing, that their culture needs to be preserved from outside influence, and so
on. It's a choice, and the Nordics are doing their best in exercising this
choice in a manner consistent with their values and their culture.
But it IS a fact that the countries in the western (democratic) part of Europe
never became "free capitalistic" states as the USA, and Americans see clear
similarities between the western European societies and the communist ideals.
Some writers use to argue that it's because the US didn't introduce any of what
is now known as libertarian thought, that hardly any countries in this part of
Europe bothered to try them. Or that the Nazi influence scared most countries
off in trying a political ideology other than communism.
It's a misconception to believe that all of Europe was forced or tended to
adopt a "socialistic" policy after the 2:nd world war. After the war, the only
thing which with force could have been an agent for socialist or collectivist
policies where the politic, economic and historic realities _IN_ the respective
countries. What happened in East could not enforce Leninism (or related
ideologies) in the democracies west of the iron curtain. Quite the contrary.
An alternative view is that Marxism is a product of collectivist Old-world
thinking, and that it's the Old-world customs which Americans recognize in
socialism.
One outgrow of this Old-world collectivism and stress on homogeneity is most
probably the way people feel responsible for each other, and each others kids,
in Scandinavia. Maybe it's wrong to connect this with press reports on
scientifically determined sign of how unpaid voluntary work is more prevalent
in Scandinavia than in any other part of Europe. But it's tempting when Yanks
stress this aspect of their society as something where they are world leading.
:->>>
One could say that after WW2 not much changed. The societies were as
centralistic and non-individualistic as they had been since god-knows-when.
Democracy was re-established in the parts of Europe which weren't governed by
Soviet troops. THAT was the main influence of UK/USA - except for the
economical and cultural.
Liberalism was not at all unknown to Europeans. Nor conservatism. All the time
from the 1848-revolutions is marked by the reaction on the danger of the urban
concentrations of proletarians. Marxism, late 19:th century social conservatism
and liberalism are the most obvious signs. What happened after the first world
war, 1918, was the success of Liberalism with full democracy in all countries,
and then a lash-back when non-democrats came to power either through democratic
elections, or as a response to the unstable governmental situation which the
democracy had led to: In short the political map of the pre-ww2-societies in
Europe could be described as consisting of three blocks. Socialists, Liberals
and Conservatives. All three in opposition to the other two. (The fascistic
movements are then associated with the conservatives, which is true if one
regards alliances, but not quite true if one looks more directly on propaganda
and programs.)
The socialistic block was split between reformists and revolutionist. And in
some countries it was the reformists and the liberals who together were strong
enough to compete the anti-democratic forces.
After the second world war the fascist parties had lost all creditability.
For the people in the destroyed Europe (well, west of the iron curtain)
non-individualistic solutions were judged as most fit, as typical in the German
sick insurance system or centralized accords for agreement on wages. I think
one could say that most people (sympathizing with all three blocks, the
Conservative, Liberal and Socialist) favored collectivist solutions, seeing
democracy as collectivist. The most individualistic tendencies were to be
discovered among liberals.
The difference between Germany and Norden was _not_ the intentions, but the
different positions the societies had to start from.
Germany was destroyed. The Nordic societies were not.
The eastern part of Europe (if Russia included, far more than the half) learned
to know the Russian masters and their ideology. It was however only a tiny
minority in West who aimed at a development as in the Soviet satellite states.
2.8.5 What are the differences of the economies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
of the respective Nordic countries?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Norway - the oil incomes, the fish industry.
Denmark - virtually none. (Lower beer taxation.)
Sweden - lower income taxes; other taxes and national dept higher.
Finland - the highest unemployment rate.
Iceland - higher inflation.
|
| 89.35 | Opinion: greed and the 'model' economic system | TLE::SAVAGE | | Fri Nov 22 1996 10:31 | 66 |
| 89.36 | 1997 commentary | TLE::SAVAGE | | Thu Feb 06 1997 10:48 | 66 |
|
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 17:51:06 -0600
From: [email protected]
Subject: General strike
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Organization: Deja News Usenet Posting Service
Much to the surprise of the workers of Europe, who have regarded the
Swedish workers as being rather content with the Social democratic
government, the Swedish workers are starting to revolt against the
Social democratic government. This is a historical turnpoint for
Sweden. In the last two years, the general mood of the working class
has turned against the Social democratic party, which for centuries has
dominated the political scene of the country and also has enjoyed the
support and confidence of the absolute majority of the working class.
For most part of this century, the Social democratic party has enjoyed
the support of almost half the population. Recent polls however show
that this support has dwindled to less than 30 per cent. In reality,
the support is even weaker than so, since the "new" political line by
the social democrats has resulted in a massive outflow of workers and
an influx of less stable middle class voters.
The massive social cutdowns undertaken by the social democratic
government has provoked workers� reactions unseen in this country for
decades. Last March saw the formation of a protest movement, "Movement
for Justice", comprised of a. 100 different organizations, many of them
"heavy" local trade unions such as the miners� trade union in Kiruna.
The elected spokesman of this new workers� protest movement was Arne
Johansson, of of "Arbetarforbundet Offensiv"/Committee for a Workers�
International. This organization�s call for a political general strike
against the bourgeois politics has been adopted by a growing layer of
workers, including the miners�trade union ("Gruv-12").
Social democratic government held its congress. The demands put up at
the protest rally were that the social cutdowns were to be halted. In
October, thousands of workers staged a spontaneous, quite similar
protest demonstration outside the Swedish parliament building. On
November 26, 1996, followed a third anti-government demonstration
outside the parliament building in Stockholm, this time organized by
the "Movement for Justice" and even larger.
During the last demonstration, the miners� trade union at Kiruna
("Gruv-12") demanded a political general strike against the
government�s bourgeois politics. However, the social democratic
government still controls the upper layer of the trade unions. Through
these contacts it has been possible to weaken the protest movement.
After a meeting with PM Goran Persson, one of the main leaders of the
protest movement, Therese Rajaniemi, spoke out against the general
strike. In January, 1997, Therese Rajaniemi and some of her followers
tried to cut off the radical wing of the protest movement,
"Arbetarforbundet Offensiv". This however soon backfired. The mine
workers� trade union "Gruv-12" immediately withdrew their support of
Rajeniemi et al in an act of solidarity.
The outcome of the attempts to manuever on behalf of the centrist layer
around Therese Rajaniemi might well be a radicalization of the
"Movement for Justice". The call for a political general strike will be
renewed in the months to come. As an ever increasing number of Swedish
workers, unemployed and youth seek a radical solution to the current
social cutdowns, the political general strike may be realized in the
next few months.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Searched, Read, Posted to Usenet
|