Scandanavian Economies

[The Man]

How does it exactly work? What type of economy do they have? (Specifically Sweden.)

[Sword and Shield]

Social democracy, fueled by imperialism.

Well more recently they have started to cut social services and stuff, so they are heading towards just neoliberal capitalism.

[Sadena Meti]

Sweden's Economy - Aided by peace and neutrality for the whole of the 20th century, Sweden has achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits. It has a modern distribution system, excellent internal and external communications, and a skilled labor force. In September 2003, Swedish voters turned down entry into the euro system concerned about the impact on the economy and sovereignty. Timber, hydropower, and iron ore constitute the resource base of an economy heavily oriented toward foreign trade. Privately owned firms account for about 90% of industrial output, of which the engineering sector accounts for 50% of output and exports. Agriculture accounts for little more than 1% of GDP and of employment. Until 2008, Sweden was in the midst of a sustained economic upswing, boosted by increased domestic demand and strong exports. This and robust finances offered the center-right government considerable scope to implement its reform program aimed at increasing employment, reducing welfare dependence, and streamlining the state's role in the economy. Despite strong finances and underlying fundamentals, the Swedish economy slid into recession in the third quarter of 2008 and growth continued downward in 2009 as deteriorating global conditions reduced export demand and consumption. Strong exports of commodities and a return to profitability by Sweden's banking sector drove the strong rebound in 2010.

Source = CIA

[Sadena Meti]

Sweden GDP - per capita (PPP):
$39,000 (2010 est.)
country comparison to the world: 23
$37,500 (2009 est.)
$39,600 (2008 est.)
note: data are in 2010 US dollars

USA
GDP - per capita (PPP):
$47,400 (2010 est.)
country comparison to the world: 10
$46,700 (2009 est.)
$48,300 (2008 est.)
note: data are in 2010 US dollars


Sweden Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 3.6%
highest 10%: 22.2% (2000)

USA
Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 2%
highest 10%: 30% (2007 est.)

[Lt. Ferret]

how are scandinavian economies fueled by imperialism? fucking dogshit .

[Skooma Addict]

Sweden GDP - per capita (PPP):
$39,000 (2010 est.)
country comparison to the world: 23
$37,500 (2009 est.)
$39,600 (2008 est.)
note: data are in 2010 US dollars

USA
GDP - per capita (PPP):
$47,400 (2010 est.)
country comparison to the world: 10
$46,700 (2009 est.)
$48,300 (2008 est.)
note: data are in 2010 US dollars


Sweden Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 3.6%
highest 10%: 22.2% (2000)

USA
Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 2%
highest 10%: 30% (2007 est.)

'merica #1

[RGacky3]

Norway has most of the economy belonging to the Public sector, i.e. Oil, energy, part of banking, part of telecom, a lot of the agriculture is cooperative and a lot of social services, healthcare, education and so on.

Also relatively strong labor unions, and a progressive tax, the tax is'nt actually that bad, since most of the social-democracy is funded by the revenue producing public sector.

Sweeden is much more of a Welfare Capitalist state, Denmark I don't know that much of, but they have a lot of cooperative buisinesses and a relatively strong public sector and labor.


Social democracy, fueled by imperialism.

Well more recently they have started to cut social services and stuff, so they are heading towards just neoliberal capitalism.

Its not fueled by imperialism dumbass.

[Chris]

Norway has most of the economy belonging to the Public sector, i.e. Oil, energy, part of banking, part of telecom, a lot of the agriculture is cooperative and a lot of social services, healthcare, education and so on.

Also relatively strong labor unions, and a progressive tax, the tax is'nt actually that bad, since most of the social-democracy is funded by the revenue producing public sector.

Sweeden is much more of a Welfare Capitalist state, Denmark I don't know that much of, but they have a lot of cooperative buisinesses and a relatively strong public sector and labor.



Its not fueled by imperialism dumbass.
... since when did we have cooperative farming? I come from a farming area. Road maintenance and hunting were the only things vaguely "coop-ish". The wood industry and other rural industries are also definietely not cooperative.
And our economy is fuelled by imperialism, although not exclusively (our oil resources are pretty large, after all). Statoil alone is in 11 countries, among them Azerbaijan and Libya.

We do have a pretty large cooperative retail chain, though, with 1 250 000 'owners' (25% of the population, although families often only have one or two 'owners'). Not to mention SpareBank 1 (one of our banks) are run by the largest trade union.

[eyedrop]

Not that I now overly much about this but isn't GDP a bad method of comparing different economies, GDP favors a completely privatized society as more things are traded for, while in a more socialized economy the same goods are provided but doesn't count in on the GDP.

In America's system healthcare would count triple in a GDP measurement;

-Payment to insurance companies
-Insurance company pays hospital
-Hospital pays it's staff

While in Sweden that chain would only be shorter and count less in on the GDP figure even though the same service was rendered.

Am I completely out or is there some truth to this?




... since when did we have cooperative farming? I come from a farming area. Road maintenance and hunting were the only things vaguely "coop-ish". The wood industry and other rural industries are also definietely not cooperative.
And our economy is fuelled by imperialism, although not exclusively (our oil resources are pretty large, after all). Statoil alone is in 11 countries, among them Azerbaijan and Libya.

We do have a pretty large cooperative retail chain, though, with 1 250 000 'owners' (25% of the population, although families often only have one or two 'owners'). Not to mention SpareBank 1 (one of our banks) are run by the largest trade union.He has some point in the collective farming in that Tine and Gilde were originally coops, so while the farming itself was private, the farms cooperated/cooperates(?) in the distribution of their goods. I'm not sure how much is left of the cooperative structure in Gilde and Tine though, but originally they where owned in unison by the farms.


As for the Imperialist question: Yes we have companies engaging in exporting capital to other countries, and dominating their economies, but is it an integral part of the economy? I know that Norway at-least exports more goods than it imports, so it can't be that necessary.

I would like too see how our foreign capital invested here/Norwegian capital invested abroad would stack up though.

The whole of Scandinavia is small countries dominated by the EU though.

[RGacky3]

... since when did we have cooperative farming? I come from a farming area. Road maintenance and hunting were the only things vaguely "coop-ish". The wood industry and other rural industries are also definietely not cooperative.


Tine (the biggest agricultural company in Norway) is a type farmer co-operative, i.e. its owned by the farmers.

Its not cooperative farming in production, just in the sense the main food company processing and distributing the food is cooperatively held.

Tine (and I believe Gilde, but I'm not 100% sure) are still cooperatives.


As for the Imperialist question: Yes we have companies engaging in exporting capital to other countries, and dominating their economies, but is it an integral part of the economy? I know that Norway at-least exports more goods than it imports, so it can't be that necessary.


I don't think you can call export by itself "imperialism" unless your using your economic and political power to destroy the local economy or take it over.


I would like too see how our foreign capital invested here/Norwegian capital invested abroad would stack up though.


That is the biggest left criticism of the Oil Fund.

Overall though, I'd say the Norwegian social-democratic (when I say social-democratic I mean proper social-democratic, with most of the economy publically controlled) system is the best model in the world so far.

[Olentzero]

The basis of the Swedish economy lies in the Saltsjöbaden agreement of the 1930s in which the unions negotiated a bigger slice of the pie in exchange for bargaining away a large chunk of the right to strike at the local level, among other things.

Sweden's neutrality in the Second World War was not the neutrality of the pacifist but the neutrality of the whore. For instance, after Germany's war efforts started tanking in 1943, Sweden started yielding more to Allied demands, but required payments to compensate for the loss of trade with Germany. Didn't matter who Sweden put out for in the war as long as she got paid.

The fact that Sweden didn't have to rebuild after the war helped its economy through the 50s and 60s while Germany and Japan were rebooting, though it did see labor unrest at times including a hotly contested miners' strike in 1969-70.

These days, however, the global economic crisis has had its effect on Sweden as well, and the conservative Alliance bloc (composed of the right-wing Moderates and Christian Democrats, and the center-right Folkpartiet and Centerpartiet) have been slashing social spending like mad, to the point where now even people who have justifiably been on lifetime disability are losing their benefits and are being told they need to consider finding work. School closings and health clinic closings are also on the order of the day, as are privatizing a lot of what used to be well-run public services like mass transportation and municipal swimming pools.

So the general answer is social-democratic welfare state, but lately it's been far more neoliberal.

[Sadena Meti]

So the general answer is social-democratic welfare state, but lately it's been far more neoliberal.
What is the health service like in Sweden? About 15 years ago I heard from some Swedish folk that were visiting us that there were waiting periods. Though I think these were for non-emergency operations (athletics related).

[Obs]

Its not fueled by imperialism dumbass.

Much of Sweden's wealth (as well as that of most other EU countries) comes from exporting capital and importing surplus value - that is, from imperialism.

[Olentzero]

What is the health service like in Sweden?

Well, I can give you a personal anecdote on that one.

I put my back out at the gym in October 2009, and had to call an ambulance. I got a ride to the hospital, shot up with some very good muscle relaxants, and was allowed to rest for an hour or so until I could move again and make my way home.

Total cost when the bill came? 50 dollars US. So in one aspect, health care around here is a working person's dream and a insurance company's nightmare.

I can't speak to the waiting times issue, but I do know that hospitals are being privatized and health clinics shut down - was just involved in an (ultimately unsuccessful) campaign to prevent the shutdown of a suburban health clinic outside Stockholm. If waiting times were even moderately inconvenient before, they're going to get a hell of a lot worse if this trend continues.

[eyedrop]

T

I don't think you can call export by itself "imperialism" unless your using your economic and political power to destroy the local economy or take it over.


I just included it because I've seen Maoist use it so many times to claim that China can't have imperialistic interest in Africa.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Sweden is Social Democratic correct ?

[psgchisolm]

Sweden is Social Democratic correct ?
Yes.

[Olentzero]

Sweden is Social Democratic correct ?Nominally. The Social Democrats haven't been in the majority for at least eight years now. The Moderate-led Alliance (center-right) bloc took the last election with a bare majority, with the added unpleasant bonus of the far-right Sweden Democrats (an anti-immigrant party with demonstrated ties to Nazi and fascist movements) getting elected to Parliament for the first time with around 6% of the vote. The traditionally left parliamentary parties (Social Democrats, Left Party) lost votes compared with the 2006 elections.

Not to toot my own horn, but here's an article (http://socialistworker.org/2010/09/27/far-right-breakthrough-in-sweden) I wrote on the subject.

[RGacky3]

Much of Sweden's wealth (as well as that of most other EU countries) comes from exporting capital and importing surplus value - that is, from imperialism.

So every economy that imports more than it exports is imperialist???


Sweden is Social Democratic correct ?

Again, nominally, but its more of a welfare Capitalist state.

[Demogorgon]

Not that I now overly much about this but isn't GDP a bad method of comparing different economies, GDP favors a completely privatized society as more things are traded for, while in a more socialized economy the same goods are provided but doesn't count in on the GDP.

In America's system healthcare would count triple in a GDP measurement;

-Payment to insurance companies
-Insurance company pays hospital
-Hospital pays it's staff

While in Sweden that chain would only be shorter and count less in on the GDP figure even though the same service was rendered.

Am I completely out or is there some truth to this?

You are a little bit out on the details but largely you are correct. GDP is a rubbish model. It is meant to measure economic output but as you have noted, that is of little value. It means things like America's higher crime rate pushes up GDP because of all the costs associated with that.

You are not quite correct in saying that it favours a totally privatised economy though because state owned enterprises still trade in monetary terms. This hardly compensates for the plethora of other problems though.

Also of note is that raw GDP doesn't mean anything at all. Norway's nominal GDP per capita for instance is $88,590, yet you will immediately notice that that does not exactly reflect the reality of wealth in Norway. The reason being that Norway is an unusually expensive place. Once you factor in prices (purchasing parity power) it comes down to $52,594. Still wealthy, but not quite as high. The opposite effect is of course in effect in many places. In Cuba for instance the GDP based on the nominal value of the currency in dollars is very low, but once you factor in the low prices, they are much better off.

Even PPP though is a pretty worthless figure because it removes only one problem. There are other measures like the Human Development Index which are a bit better (and the new version of it is much better again now that it factors in inequality), but it is still incomplete as well. It still uses GDP as part of the calculation and in measuring other things it is incomplete. For instance in measuring standards of health it uses life expectance, which is fine, but surely infant mortality is just as important?

[eyedrop]

As a counter to the guy who posted the GDP values to show how supreme the american economic system is, besides how GDP statistics blows up the American economy, I found some stats in the recent OECD rapport that shows that 7% of Swedes find it difficult to live on their income, while 21% of Americans find it difficult to live on their income.

Click the income difficulties link (http://www.oecd.org/document/24/0,3343,en_2649_34637_2671576_1_1_1_1,00.html)

While such "feelings" based stats has some problems they should still give an indicator.