<font color=brown>This is a crack up...........the UT law professor should know better than to manipulate facts so that he can make a questionable point......must be another rabid conservative. He compares American blacks to Swedes where Swedes definitely come out looking short........income wise. Of course, he fails to mention that while the Swedes' income might be less than Amer. blacks, many of the basics like health insurance are paid by the gov't so that Swedes have more disposable income to be spent on consumer goods than many middle class Americans.
In the articles you posted, several references are made suggesting that Sweden is a socialistic state. Funny thing, according to the CIA, 90% of Sweden's industrial output is in private hands. In fact, Sweden is a free market economy much like the US except there are more socialistic elements to their economy than ours. Sweden is hardly ready to tank but to listen to conservative pundits for the past twenty years, Sweden is one step away from bankruptcy. I get so tired of the lies and propaganda promulgated by the right in this country.
Once again, the UT professor makes a statement that is hard to swallow.....he states that there have been no new net jobs in private industry since 1950, and yet, in 2002, Sweden had an unemployment rate of 4% according to the CIA. Is the gov't creating all the jobs to pick up the slack? I find that hard to believe. BTW in 2002 our unemployment rate was 5.8%. In 2001, Sweden had a budget surplus while we had a negative.
Sweden's literacy rate is 99%; ours is 97%. The lowest 10% income group had consumption that was 3.7% of the total whereas the highest 10% was at 20%; in the US, the lowest was 1.8% of the total while the upper 10% was at 30%. Sweden's consumption is much more evenly divided......that's not surprising. That's the intent of their econ. model........it insures a better living standard for the entire population in general and not just for a few........an egalitarian concept with which we struggle. Like I have said to you before, we do not have the perfect econ. model and there are things we could learn from others if we were more progressive......but alas, we aren't, and therefore, we don't.
With some metrics, the US did better; with others, Sweden did better. Having been to Sweden, I can safely say the overall quality of life is better. But don't take my word for it, here's what the CIA has to say:<font color=black>
"Economy - overview:
Aided by peace and neutrality for the whole 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. 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 only 2% of GDP and 2% of the jobs. The government's commitment to fiscal discipline resulted in a substantial budgetary surplus in 2001, which was cut by more than half in 2002, due to the global economic slowdown, revenue declines, and spending increases. The Swedish central bank (the Riksbank) is focusing on price stability with its inflation target of 2%. Growth remained sluggish in 2003. On September 14, 2003, Swedish voters turned down entry into the euro system, concerned about the impact on democracy and sovereignty. "
cia.gov |
