I'm not particularly familiar with Sweden's economy, but this article about Sweden's libertarian-leaning finance minister caught my eye. There are plenty of variables not addressed in the article, but interesting anicdotal evidence of one country that didn't pursue a Keynesian stimulus approach over the last few years and seems to have done quite well. Thoughts, comments? Full Story: Swedens secret recipe Exerpt:
Dodgy comment! The relationship between welfare and entrepreneurship is complex. We just have to refer to self-employment (with a significant distinction between 'desired' self-employment and 'actual' self-employment) and the nature of risk management (e.g. a family man/woman is less likely to take risks if the safety net is deemed to be insufficient protection for their family)
Which is why Anders Borg is arguably the most interesting of EU financial Ministers and you are just an amateur waffler who has never once offered a positive solution to problem solving in any Topic that you have participated in . The difference between an ethical and risk sensitive Investment Banker and the Office Clerk .
You haven't gone for content. I know the empirical analysis into the subject and, of no great shock, there is no simple relationship. That risk will impact on the decision (and we can get a self-employment rates arguably below the optimum) is, however, basic economics. You need to try and compose argument with some economic comment, rather than going for unimaginative attempt at put-down (you just don't have the creative writing prowess to make the put-downs entertaining)
You have stated the US and UK don't have proper safety nets, thus have high poverty. It is simple enough that you can make that conclusion. The countries in Europe have a range of safety nets, are any good enough to stimulate their entrepreneurs?
They actually differ somewhat. Britain, for example, has greater pre-welfare inequalities but a more effective welfare state. The point made wasn't difficult, so no need to try and play games: The relationship between welfare and entrepreneurship is complex. Can we refer to empirical examples where tax policy has hindered entrepreneurship? Certainly! However, we can also refer to empirical evidence that shows welfare policy is also important (providing a further impetus to firm creation). Given the country specific tax and welfare policy at play, making an international comparison is exceedingly difficult. Not surprisingly, such comparisons are focused on more easily tested hypothesis: such as high poverty countries also tend to have low social mobility rates
I asked you a question, which you haven't answered. Which of us is playing games? No one has studied the relationship between safety nets and entrepreneurship? Wouldn't it seem logical that entrepreneurship would be a significant method of increasing social mobility?
You asked a question that cannot be answered. Its a ridiculous question to ask me as my whole point was that the relationship is complex. International analysis isn't going to be revealing. There are too many country specific variables at play. We couldn't, for example, just refer to tax rates as we'd have to factor in the design of those policies and how they interact with other economic factors (e.g. social wages differ considerably and typically aren't available in the longitudinal form required) Yep, another reason for post-Hayekian market socialism
You say this is too complex, yet are sure post-Hayekian market socialism is the answer. Show me specifically, why this is superior to Capitalism. No unsupported statements, but the differences in motivation that inspires better results.
Try to make sense! I've referred to how post-Hayekian market socialism is necessarily linked to firm creation. That is completely different to suggesting that we can compare countries with very different tax and benefits to come out with an 'ideal' welfare system consistent with entrepreneurial spirit I've already referred to the empirical reality: a significant distinction between desired and actual self-employment rates. Choice is hampered, further encouraging the class immobilities that the likes of the US suffers from. Market socialism necessarily increases choice.
Again, statements with no rationale. Not convincing at all. Do you think you would be more compelling if you yelled it really loud? Or called me an idiot, yet again? You really make a living selling your expertise?
You read badly. In a couple of sentences I destroyed your question as stupid, referred directly to a solution consistent with the Austrian school and summed up empirical evidence into self employment social mobility. Probably too much for you to go through in one go. Try again in a couple of hours!
Cutting property taxes would not have done much to help Sweden's economy. That finance minister needs to read about the economics of Land Value Taxation (the main tenant of geolibertarianism). Reducing taxation on the unimproved value of the land itself does not do anything to promote the economic activity, because land is not a product of human labor. The burden of taxation falls entirely on the market price of the land itself. Denmark experimented with a land value tax, and there was no observable negetive influence on the economy as a result, in fact their economy continued to rapidly grow throughout this period. But of course, property taxes are usually on the full improved value of the land (including the building itself) and this does reduce economic activity. My point is that property taxes should be eleminated, and replaced with land value taxation.
Georgism isn't going to help you come out with any coherent macroeconomic conclusion. It doesn't have any understanding of labour or the entrepreneur. What's more interesting is how Georgists ramble on about land on any topic and think they're adding something. It shows the extent of one dimensionality in the ponce and prance offered to them by the very small number feeding the cult
I read badly, I think you need to re-read the thread. I can't find where you have said anything beyond it is too complicated. You haven't answered my question, let alone "destroyed it".
