Here’s some “progressive” propaganda from Jon Stewart:
Stockholm Syndrome Part 1:
Part 2:
A friend just showed me this, telling me how great Sweden is.
And the people of Sweden are in the process of becoming more free market oriented.
Maybe socialism is better than corporatism.
Rant:
I’d watch it, but I’m in Canada.
And when I click it, it redirects me to the Canadian version of Comdey Central, which is Comedy Network. And then it redirects me to the Daily show. And then it shows me any random clip and not the one that was intended for me to watch.
Begging the question: are socialists bigger foes or corporatists?
Giant Joe, just google Daily Show Stockholm syndrome, it’s probably on youtube or something.
First of all, Sweden’s not socialist.
But here are some things that help out Sweden that help out the economic status of Sweden that have nothing to do with their economic system:
Population:
Sweden-9.1 million
United States-310.2 million
Median age:
Sweden-41.7 years
U.S.-36.8 years
Population growth rate:
Sweden-0.16%
U.S.-0.97%
Percent of population aged 0-14 years:
Sweden-15.7%
U.S.-20.2%
Birth rate:
Sweden-10.14 per 1,000 population
U.S.-13.83 per 1,000 population
Rate of urbanization
Sweden-0.5%
U.S.-1.3%
Total fertility rate:
Sweden-1.67/woman
U.S.-2.06/woman
Labor Force:
Sweden-54.1% of Population
U.S.-49.7% of Population
If you don’t understand why any of these matter, just ask or think about it. It’s pretty simple. Also, a lot of people like to ignore history. It’s no secret that life has been tough in the U.S. for black people and they are much worse off and much poorer. Our government has made a lot of mistakes on how to handle this and the result has been abysmal. And plus they have much less costly wars.
Sweden continuously fallen in every area since the communist takeover. They had the opportunity to lead the way in the world when the rest of the world was warring over every grain of sand. Instead, they just headed down the shitter and contented with mediocrity.
To use statist answer: if you don’t like it here move to Sweden 
resist272727, can you explain how a lower population growth rate, and lower birth rates when compared to the US are beneficial to Sweden?
Everything on the subject was already covered in an excellent and very long topic called “The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism”.
Allow me to say a few things. Tax rates in Sweden right now (meaning after free market oriented reforms started around 1993 when the country was literally going broke) aren’t much higher than in France or Italy. In fact for a mechanical or chemical industry I dare to say Sweden is probably a better place than Italy or France because bureaucracy is much more streamlined, unions aren’t as intrusive and there are serious tax breaks for firms investing in R&D and innovation. The problem is the damages of the past just cannot be undone.
People like Ingvar Kamprad have left the country for good and are not coming back. Capitals which fled the country in the '80s and '90s aren’t going to return anytime soon. These people have rightly become wary of the Swedish government and nothing in the world is going to convince them to come back, especially after experiencing that Switzerland (the country most capitals and people moved to) is much less rapacious.
The automotive industry, once thriving, is now completely foreign owned. Husqvarna Motorcycles is owned by BMW Motorrad and the factory is now located in Italy, Husaberg is owned by KTM, Volvo (cars) is Chinese-owned, Scania is a subsidiary of Volkswagen, Saab should be owned by Spyker (I use the term “should be” because when Spyker is involved caution is necessary) and Volvo (commercial) is owned by Renault. Foreign owners make good use of the Swedish system to invest in innovation…
I don’t to speak for him, but he may be saying that socialism works better in places where there are less people in theory. This might be because people are less likely to freeload if communities are smaller, and the current capital (before the socialist turn) won’t run out as quickly as it would in densely-populated countries.
Here’s a link to a Mises thread about The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism that krazy kaju started about two years ago.
Funny I was just debating with someone on RonPaulForums who claimed that Stewart isn’t a progressive. I can’t believe that some libertarians think that Stewart is anything other than a leftist democratic socialist.
Why do you think he always blames the media? If the media “did their job,” we could finally get “the right people in charge” and create a democratic socialist utopia in America.
Is it worth arguing on the RPF? How are the people?
“Is it worth arguing on the RPF? How are the people?”
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/im-being-censored-on-rpf/8808
And from this thread:
“Just look at all his jung ho supporters holding up their constitutions like it’s more than just a piece of toilet paper and their worship of the founding fathers like their are immortal gods or some crap like that.”
I was banned from Ron Paul Forums for exactly that reason [Continuing to point out that Ron is a voluntarist, using his own words against his own “supporters” is a very quick way of opening their eyes, or getting yours poked out. [Recently unbanned due to the illogical / emotional moderator has been stepped down, not worth going back though. Maybe I’ll feel the urge if I see Ron in the debates again…) And yet their complete & utter ignorance of what he actually represents, doesn’t diminish his quality in getting others to look into Austrian Economics and Libertarianism.
He essentially directs them to this very institution, or at least others that all really hark back to this place in some capacity. He gets people on the right path, and then they do the rest. (Learning etc.)
Shrugs It’s up to you I guess. I scan the forums from time to time… after the election, it was as if all the problems in the world had been solved. Some folks down there definitely need a reality check and I’m guessing they’ll get it soon enough.
Sweden is a great country!
**
A higher degree of captial per worker (higher wages). But higher population growth rates stimulate investment and increase total output.
Higher population growth means you’re always going to have a larger population to support, and a lower % of people in the labor force so less per capita productivity. It also mostly affects the poor (I think because they’re less “sexually responsible”) and they have to settle for immediately satisfying jobs and are more likely to be on a continuous stream of welfare. Immigration is also a factor. Immigrants help the economy in many ways, but they also soak up a lot of social services because they tend to be poorer as well. The economy as a whole (as well as those outside the U.S. who benefit from our innovation) is helped but on a per capita basis, it’s a burden. To an extreme degree, this problem is being demonstrated well in Africa where population is growing about 2.5% per year.
Tell that to Africa.
They should give him the same tax rate that ABBA once had to face in Sweden, then get back to us. Sweden is as much a stereotype for socialist success as the US is portrayed as being a pure capitalist system. Sweden has some stifling laws, but then so does the US. If “progressives” think that Sweden became a success because of socialism, then they have to explain why the very same models have failed so dismally all over the world, the current one being Venezuela. The fact is that Sweden has its fair share of enterprising people and successful entrepreneurs, I doubt Sweden would be too keen to open its doors to all those “progressive” Americans coming to their country.