FDR Caps Income At $25,000

But it is. We have over one million unemployed, hiding out in makework schemes and reeducation. The government takes a net 70 % of Joe Average's salary and uses it to pay for multiculture, foreign aid and support to "cultural" activities. You can go to jail if you preach against homosexuality, and the media brands you as a Nazi if you voice the slightest opposition to unlimited immigration. Under the last government, people were forcibly retired if they were on sick leave for more than a month or two. And everything's regulated; we have no freedom. Getting permission to own a gun is next to impossible. The government has a monopoly on all sale of off-the-shelf alcohol (except beer), all gambling, and an oligopoly on electricity, among other things.

And then THINGS ARE STILL MUCH BETTER THAN THEY WERE TWENTY YEARS AGO!

Sweden might be a dream for liberals, but it's a horror for anyone who values his freedom.

I will admit that I do find it interesting in Australia where I am how right-wing and left-wing people tend to idolise different nations. For instance right-wing Australians tend to want us to become like the USA, whereas left-wing Australians want us to become like Sweden. (By the way in Sweden, who do your left-wingers look to for a model?). As a left-winger myself I tend to look to Sweden and the other Nordic nations as a model (and one of the politicians I admire the most is Olof Palme, so I'm a bit of stereotypical social democrat I suppose!).

The reason I admire your nation is that I think the model of social democracy you have is better than that tried in most other nations, espeically in English-speaking nations, in that left-wing politics was never as virulently anti-business as in places like Australia and the UK. For instance, from what I can gather, strong unions in Sweden don't necessarily mean workplace conflict, whereas here in Australia the era of strong unions meant constant strikes.

Also when you say that there is little freedom in Sweden, I suppose it depends on what sort of freedom you are talking about. Are you talking about the freedom to have good quality healthcare? Or to attend university without getting into massive debt? Or to earn a living wage?

Of course if you are talking about the freedoms that tend to be exercise by the rich, such as being able to operate business untrammeled, then Sweden would rank lower than the USA. However as a Danish woman from an article I was reading about their welfare state said when comparing their nations with the USA (and the same would apply for Sweden I assume), 'Nothing that good will happen here, but nothing that bad will happen either'.
 
I will admit that I do find it interesting in Australia where I am how right-wing and left-wing people tend to idolise different nations. For instance right-wing Australians tend to want us to become like the USA, whereas left-wing Australians want us to become like Sweden. (By the way in Sweden, who do your left-wingers look to for a model?). As a left-winger myself I tend to look to Sweden and the other Nordic nations as a model (and one of the politicians I admire the most is Olof Palme, so I'm a bit of stereotypical social democrat I suppose!).

Depends on what you mean with left-winger. There are a few pseudo- and cryptocommunists (the only ones who're "left-wing" by Swedish standards; our entire political spectrum is way left of centre, "centre" here being the Social Democrats) who miss the Soviet Union, but they're not too influential (occasionally get a say by being the tip on the scale, though). Otherwise, Swedish left-wingers (in the international sense) tend to idealise the past, not other nations. In particular, the '60s, when the economy was booming enough to support ultra-ultra welfare spending (for a while, at least, it built up a nasty debt over time).

The reason I admire your nation is that I think the model of social democracy you have is better than that tried in most other nations, espeically in English-speaking nations, in that left-wing politics was never as virulently anti-business as in places like Australia and the UK. For instance, from what I can gather, strong unions in Sweden don't necessarily mean workplace conflict, whereas here in Australia the era of strong unions meant constant strikes.

It's more that Swedish business is too cowed to fight, so they don't need to strike to get their way. Here, if you don't grant the workers Union standards, they'll just put you out of business, so no one's even trying. It happened to a small restaurant a while ago; they had two or three employees, IIRC. The Union physically blockaded them till the owner had to give in and sell it.

Of course, another part in making things run smoothly is that the largest unions are run by the Social Democratic Party, which is in government in any given year, so they don't mess too much with the state-run corporations.

Also when you say that there is little freedom in Sweden, I suppose it depends on what sort of freedom you are talking about. Are you talking about the freedom to have good quality healthcare? Or to attend university without getting into massive debt? Or to earn a living wage?

In my mind, those are not rights or freedoms, but something that you earn. Welfare should be there primarily as a short-time support measure; only the genuinely incapable warrant long-term aid. The focus should be on help for self-help, and a lot could probably be run by private charities instead. But I digress.

As for debts, those can still grow quite big if you study fulltime; the regulations don't allow you to work (more than a very little) extra while you study, or they cut your allowance.

Of course if you are talking about the freedoms that tend to be exercise by the rich, such as being able to operate business untrammeled, then Sweden would rank lower than the USA.

How about basic things like just buying a bottle of wine when you feel like it, instead of queueing at the monopoly like it was on wartime rationing? Or owning a gun? Or not having most of your income redistributed to others?

However as a Danish woman from an article I was reading about their welfare state said when comparing their nations with the USA (and the same would apply for Sweden I assume), 'Nothing that good will happen here, but nothing that bad will happen either'.

Sums it up in a nutshell. Sweden is the country of mediocrities, where people expect nothing else and you're penalised for being above average (we even have a term for that - the Jante Law). You won't get rich, but you'll have your food served every day. Panem et circenses.
 
There is absolutely NO CHANCE such a proposal would have been enacted and found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court.
 
Depends on what you mean with left-winger. There are a few pseudo- and cryptocommunists (the only ones who're "left-wing" by Swedish standards; our entire political spectrum is way left of centre, "centre" here being the Social Democrats) who miss the Soviet Union, but they're not too influential (occasionally get a say by being the tip on the scale, though). Otherwise, Swedish left-wingers (in the international sense) tend to idealise the past, not other nations. In particular, the '60s, when the economy was booming enough to support ultra-ultra welfare spending (for a while, at least, it built up a nasty debt over time).



It's more that Swedish business is too cowed to fight, so they don't need to strike to get their way. Here, if you don't grant the workers Union standards, they'll just put you out of business, so no one's even trying. It happened to a small restaurant a while ago; they had two or three employees, IIRC. The Union physically blockaded them till the owner had to give in and sell it.

Of course, another part in making things run smoothly is that the largest unions are run by the Social Democratic Party, which is in government in any given year, so they don't mess too much with the state-run corporations.



In my mind, those are not rights or freedoms, but something that you earn. Welfare should be there primarily as a short-time support measure; only the genuinely incapable warrant long-term aid. The focus should be on help for self-help, and a lot could probably be run by private charities instead. But I digress.

As for debts, those can still grow quite big if you study fulltime; the regulations don't allow you to work (more than a very little) extra while you study, or they cut your allowance.



How about basic things like just buying a bottle of wine when you feel like it, instead of queueing at the monopoly like it was on wartime rationing? Or owning a gun? Or not having most of your income redistributed to others?



Sums it up in a nutshell. Sweden is the country of mediocrities, where people expect nothing else and you're penalised for being above average (we even have a term for that - the Jante Law). You won't get rich, but you'll have your food served every day. Panem et circenses.

Actually I was just reading about the Jante Law not long ago, I find it interesting as we have something very similar in Australia, the Tall Poppy Syndrome. Australia and Sweden are probably at the opposite ends of most tables comparing Western nations but one thing we do have in common is what I would assume is called social egalitarianism (as opposed to economic egalitarianism, where Australia is far more unequal than Sweden). For instance there is very little use of titles for people in Australia and you are not encouraged to talk to much about your achievements.

I think this is both bad and good. It is bad in that we should acknowledge more the high achievers in society. But it is also good in that we don't have the strict and rigid social hierarchies that still exist in places like France and Germany.
 
I've actually thought that the bracket idea in corporations (eg: top dogs earning 500% more than the lowest etc.) is a good basis for business tax, with brakes for companies that pay more, offer higher bonuses for Joe Bloggs and higher tax for those that don't, as a flag-waver for partial employee ownership in business (a proud Labour/Co-Op Party drone) its always interested me.

Still its got little to do with this POD I'm just rambling :rolleyes:
Sounds good if I've understood it right.

But it is. We have over one million unemployed, hiding out in makework schemes and reeducation. The government takes a net 70 % of Joe Average's salary and uses it to pay for multiculture, foreign aid and support to "cultural" activities. You can go to jail if you preach against homosexuality, and the media brands you as a Nazi if you voice the slightest opposition to unlimited immigration. Under the last government, people were forcibly retired if they were on sick leave for more than a month or two. And everything's regulated; we have no freedom. Getting permission to own a gun is next to impossible. The government has a monopoly on all sale of off-the-shelf alcohol (except beer), all gambling, and an oligopoly on electricity, among other things.

And then THINGS ARE STILL MUCH BETTER THAN THEY WERE TWENTY YEARS AGO!
Ummm... OK. That sounds VERY different to what I've heard before...
Sweden might be a dream for liberals, but it's a horror for anyone who values his freedom.
Well, that's nonsensical, don't tell me you use the weird "liberal = socialist = Stalinist" thing too...
 
Top