The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

Economics Economics Questions
, , , ,
301

too much “…personally I believe.”

Also, assuming the old west is the only example of quasi-anarchy (which it isn’t) and that all towns had under 200 people is not a logical proof (I thought you were well versed in logic?) that the quasi-anarchy cannot support towns with over 200 people.

Furthermore the posts portarys a large deal of ignorance with regards to history. Centralized states with the degree of control they have to id is a new invention. They did not have such power at such times.

This statement is unproved and like almost all (if not the entirety) of the post is opinion.

302

@Flic,

So we agree that partial restriction is not prohibition. We agree that all restriction poses costs. For me it means that if the gains from restriction are larger than the cost, restriction can be used. Gains is measured both in increased freedom and income.

To get back to the question of unskilled and uneducated immigration (the issue of definition is not discussed here). I propose the opposite of further restriction. I propose the opposite of more restriction i.e. more liberalization and less restriction than today. I propose free immigration only restriction of the unskilled and uneducated. The unskilled and uneducated are already today prohibited from entering the US and Sweden.

This will lead to several beneficial consequences. The whole immigration industrial complex will be vastly reduced. There will be very little need for a large bureaucracy. The US will have a much better educated and globally competitive workforce. Illegal immigrants will not be worse off since immigration laws have not changed only being enforced. .

This means freedom has increased, costs have been reduced and government bureaucracy and force has been drastically diminished.

Do you have a problem with that? (I’m talking about the situation before and after, what is. Not what ought to be!)

303

Sorted for you

304

No it is. Lets be carful not to get into a semantical debate.

You cannot objectively define unskilled or uneducated. Any definition of that sort is entirely arbitrary. Also latin immigrants were no more unskilled or uneducated then immigrants in the past, despite what report says. You report indirectly makes a claim that somehow Mexico is filled with retards. They have universities, they have schools.

And how will your committee’s decide who gets in? This sounds like a recipe for corruption. Not too mention the fascistic nature of such an idea.

If unskilled laborers are entering our country its because there IS a demand for that labor. Restricting them from entering doesnt fix the problem of that demand needing to be filled.

All you have done is altered the bureaucracy. You didn’t shrink it. You change one process for another. Now were going to have comittees and lines of immigrants taking tests at the border?

You assume that we are incapable of competing globally because of our education. You say that 3rd world countries are bring us down. Ironically IT IS 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES THAT ARE OUT COMPETING US.

**

**

What how? How has anything become more free or lowered costs? You cannot prove that your system would lower costs. Your system we derived entirely arbitrarily.

I have a problem with wishful thinking being argued as reality or fact.

Why is it that everyone person with strong political beliefs willingly decides to stay ignorant of economics. They come out of the word works as if they were omniscient or something and that they had the prefect solution for all. They do no research, no homework, and argue with anyone who has. They must look at themselves as infallible.

305

It is a complete waste of time to discuss a thing, such as praxeology, that you have not even studied.

306

@Caley Kibbin,

To discuss socialism, communism and Keynesianism as well as praxeology you need not be a scholar of the subject. In such case most of the posters on these pages should stop discussing socialism and Keynesianism immediately.

Maybe you can answer the question below from the Blog since you are such a great scholar of praxeology?

The Austrian Economists### Final Exam Question for an Imagined Graduate Course in Austrian Economics

Steven Horwitz

Multiple choice question, with follow-up:

In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises describes “praxeology” as:

A. a theory of human action
B. a science of human action
C. a branch of knowledge
D. A and B
E. B and C
F. A and C
G. A, B, and C

If you answered A, B, or C defend that interpretation of what Mises meant by “praxeology.”

If you answered D, E, F, or G, write an essay that explores whether those descriptions are consistent or in tension with each other and then use that analysis to shed light on one point of contention between Austrians and the mainstream and one point of contention among the various debates within Austrian economics.

Posted by Steve Horwitz on December 16, 2009 at 03:55 PM | Permalin

307

Human Action is an axiom. Socialism, Communism and Keynesianism are not parallel ideologies to praxeology. Praxeology is not an ideology. Praxeology however, encompasses the application of Socialism, Communism, Keynesianism, Capitalism, ect…

And you have posted a red herring. Please come back and try again thanks!

308

@Flic,

Are you for real? “Human Action” an axiom? I’ve never heard such lot of crock.

Mises explains his view on economic theory in the form of Human Action. Mises theory is not hard science. The only near science on human action is the science of behavior, behaviorism. Behaviorism explains how humans learn and how humans behave in all different situations. Economic action is only one of those actions but underlying it all are human behavior as explained by behaviorism.

A like Austrian Economics for the reason it was a rudimentary form of behaviorism. If Austrian Economics manages to become the science of Human Action by synthesizing Mises “Human Action” with behaviorism i.e. keep the parts that align with behavior science and kick out that that has been disproven by behavior science it will rule the day.

Behaviorism is not about mental decease, healing the mentally ill. It is about describing how any species learn and behave in different situations. Behaviorism can be used as a method to discern which behaviors give the best results and to align behavior to get the results.

Behaviorism is a tool to achieve the results you want. However underlying it is Human Action, human behavior with it restrictions. Marxism, Keynesianism and Neoclassic theory all try to change human action in ways that is not “natural” for humans to behave. Austrian Economics is so far the closest economic theory to how humans behave albeit rudimentary. The science of human behavior is also in its very early stages but much more advanced than Mises Human Action..

However the debate on Mises.org reminds me of the sectarian debate my Maoist friends had during my high school years. Who really was most orthodox and followed Mao’s “true” meaning. Those that did not follow dogma were dubbed heretics and viciously attacked and shunned. I went to one of the better high school in my area but unfortunately it was also the most socialist of all high schools in our country. Socialist, no they were hard-line Leninists or Maoists. I disliked Marxism in part beause of my Baltic heritage. I had in real life seen how “real” socialism fast becomes totalitarian and came to detest it with a vengeance in high school and vowed never to join anything that was sectarian. Mises.org is fast in my opinion becoming very sectarian indeed. Maybe it has to do with Ayn Rand and her following, her and her followers’ extreme sectarianism? Mises and Rand were brilliant but I’m having second thoughts about their latter day followers

309

Ah yes…human action is axiomatic. You are giving a nice example of it right now.

Are you talking about thymology? Behaviorism is response to stimuli and Mises argued against it in the first part of Human Action.

Add-on: Hooray for quotable Mises!

‘Behaviorism proposes to study human behavior according to the methods developed by animal and infant psychology. It seeks to investigate reflexes and instincts, automatisms and unconscious reactions. But it has told us nothing about the reflexes that have built cathedrals, railroads, and fortresses, the instincts that have produced philosophies, poems, and legal systems, the automatisms that have resulted in the growth and decline of empires, the unconscious reactions that are splitting atoms.’

310

To expand on what LM has said, human action is an axiom because you cannot disprove it. If you attempt to disprove the axiom of human action, you must act, therefore proving that human action is axiomatic.

311

Absolutely. Thank you for the expansion.

312

What if am not trying to disprove it, I just happen not to act?

313

Duh…

314

What if gravity doesn’t apply to me?

315

Choosing not to act is an action in itself.

I would expect that after such a long time of posting on these forums, you would have at least attempted to read Human Action or MES.

316

I guess I have no real need to respond to Homo’s statements. Thanks dudes.

317

Ok guys, that was one huge super tangent, [:D] and I understand why we debated it and how it was connected to the topic at hand but lets try to return to… “The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism” .

Cheers.

318

I would very much like to get back to the discussion about “The Myth of Swedish Socialism”.

I am extremely confused by the discussion that has been going on. 1 % restriction equals 100 % prohibition. 1 % of force equals 100 % force. So then the logical conclusion would be that 1 % central planning equals socialism.

I think that before we go any further a common understanding of what socialism means is in ti splace or at least that everybody that talks about it states hsi or hers views on the subject.

Personally I do no today know of any country or region that is socialist. The closest that have it on a voluntary basis and by elections is the Kerala region in India, run by pure communists. Kerala has the most educated population and one of the highest living standards in India. (When debating communism I always get Kerala thrown in my face as a success of socialism/communism.) China and Russia are to me as close to classic fascist states as you can get. They apply pure fascist corporatist economies.

The closest to an anarcho-capitalist state as far as it goes to business and economy is in my opinion Singapore.

The most free country when it comes to personal expression and freedom is Denmark. Their economy is freer than the US and Sweden but they have a humungous welfare state that requires humongous taxes 54 % of GDP.

So to get back to Sweden and in some ways Denmark and the Netherlands as they encompass what is popularly called the Scandinavian model. Norway and Finland is not normally included since they differ to a large degree. Norway because of its huge religiosity and dependence on natural resources and Finland because of its old dependence on Soviet-Russia.

So do you think Sweden is socialist and if so why?

My personal definition of socialism I have taken from former Swedish liberal party leader and winner of the Nobel prize in Economics Bertil Ohlin. Between the end of the second world war and until 1968 and from 1993 until today Sweden is a classic mixed economy. Between 1968 and 1993 Sweden had what Bertil Ohlin called “functional” socialism.

So can we agree upon the terminology ?

  1. Classic socialism, Marx

  2. Functional socialism as defined by Bertil Ohlin

  3. Mixed economy aka. Keynesian

From Bertil Ohlin’s Memoirs “Socialistisk skordetid kom bort”(”The Socialists crop was never harvested”) 1940-1951 Bonniers 1975

Bertil Ohlin was not only a party leader but also a professor of Economics as well as Nobel Laureate. He won the prize for the Heckscher-Ohlin theorem. He was the founder of The Stockholm School of Economics a forerunner to Keynes:

From the memoir:

In particular, responsible liberalism saw it as a danger to the liberty of its citizens the development of the growth of an increasingly centralized political power. The SocialDemocrats [Swedish Big Government statists,] were always adherents of such practices that increased the political influence.

Only when a very strong case could be presented could we in Folkpartiet [Swedish Responsible liberal party] agree to such measures. We preferred makings laws that put a framework in place and with full freedom within this framework. The SocialDemocrats always wanted to increase what they called “the Societies influence” and minimized the individual’s right to self-determination both in private as well as in business life. Instead of the old “nationalization policy, pure socialism” we now saw on the horizon the beginnings of a new “central directive and regulation socialism” [functional socialism or non authoritarian fascism] emerging which, however – it must be stressed – was strongly opposed by us and the other parties in opposition and only developed very slowly after1948.

319

like so many things here; does not compute

320

So, Ohlin, a member of parliament, which controls the Bank of Sweden, was awarded a prize chosen by the Bank of Sweden.