A Lesson From Sweden

http://www.neolibertarian.net/articles/sanandaji_20060414.aspx

tl;dr

"In all three countries, voters are dissatisfied with the ruling political parties, but as many are dependent on government handouts, few are willing to accept reforms that scale down the size of government benefits."

This is sooo true.
Here in Germany everyone knows that our economy sucks ass and that the national debt is too high but the people would rather eat mud before they allow someone the change this.

Its very hard to reverse to do the politians liking the extra control and lazy retards liking to sit on their ass. Very powerful forces indeed.

Yes, like a country with great economy at one time never had a downfall. Though the 80s generation won't see the benefits the 60s is getting.

THERE WAS AN ELECTION YOU IDIOTS, WE HAVE A NEW GOVERNMENT.

>>6
Yes and? It's not like they even done anything yet.

most places in western europe had a huge economic growth in the period from 1870 to 1970, sweden had/has large quantities of wood, iron, and coal, all which were very much desired in the industrialized era. I'm not going to argue sweden has no problems with unemployment or overly rigid labour laws, but there are more possible causes for swedens prior success that "omg, it was so liberal".

They didn't have to fight nor pay for WW2.

>>9
Sweden, having been completely neutral in WW1, did not draw the ire of the revengeful Nazis in WW2, or the severe punishment of the Allied forces after the end of WW1.
I'd say their position was far superior to Austria-Hungary's, Germany's, France's, England's, Russia's or America's.

or America's.
While I agree with the rest, I don't know what you're thinking about here. If there was one winner in the two world wars, it was the US.

>>11
Sorry if I wasn't clear. My point was the decision not to fight at all in the great war was a good one. It was merely a slaughter, with no nation deserving war on their soil.

It follows that I believe it was acceptable for Sweden to stay out of WWII because they really didn't make a mess of things.
The Allied forces did (under the League of Nations), at the Treaty of Versailles, which forced Germany to disband it's military and pay for the entire cost of the war (the French were primarily responsible for this).

As a loyal American, if your country was defeated and humiliated in such a way, would you stand for it? Well?

A 'civil' government was required for peace talks, this was demanded by the USA.
Much like modern Iraq, Germany at the time had no democratic  tradition. They just didn't see the value of it and didn't want the system.
Consequently, the lack of a military to end the communist uprising in the Weimar Republic, allowed the Nazis to take advantage of the situation by seizing power and declaring a national emergency, naming Hitler dictator for life.
We all know the rest.

Every country had people who sacrificed a lot to end the tyranny of the Nazis and Japanese.

Actually many Swedish volunteers fought in the SS. Don't say we didn't contribute!

>>6
And what are they doing? Scrapping the house taxes, which will only increase the interest on house loans. So instead of giving the money to the government to do something good with the money will fill the bank owner’s pockets... nice.

>>13
Yes, but wouldn't it have been better if Nazism didn't even exist?
Still, hindsight is 20/20.

Hitler would have killed less people than Stalin or Mao did if he would have won plus he would have gotten rid of the Jews. Stalin would have also been able to take over all of Europe instead of just Eastern Europe. How would it had been better if Nazism didn't exist?

hitler's my bitch

>>15

yeah, that's pretty much the point if electing a right-wing government, duh.

>>19
No, the point of a right wing governemnt is to correlate the monetary economy with reality so that people make decisions that actually do good for the economy instead of just perceived good that primitive socio-economic systems such as socialism seem to love so much.

>>20

*ahem**ahem*

BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

>>21
wut

>>19
Money does so much better in a rich guys poecket than in the hands of the government... not.

>>19
Scrapping the house tax is the point of a right-wing government? Lol wtf. Besides no one wanted the house tax.

>>23
who does it belong to? who earns money and who just takes it?

>>25
Well, the second one is the jew.

>>26

yeah, the feds are jews
don't give 'em money

They take everybody's money, and never give it back.

>>28
lol is that why they're dems?

ZOMJ!!1 n3olib3r4lizm.net FTW!11 LOLZLZL

>>17
We wouldn't have to deal with dumbfucks like you.

Also, quite simply the Nazis DIDN'T WIN.
If there were no Nazis, there would be no massive outbreak of war.
NO ONE would have died on that front at all.

There would also be no Israeli state, as Zionists would not have been able to exploit the holocaust for political gain.
American foreign policy would then not be dictated by the Israeli lobby, America would not have been deemed "The Great Satan".
It stands to reason (but speculation gets flimsier as we go so much farther into the future) that there would be NO 9/11.
W's approval rating would have fallen to the point it is now, having not been maxed out due to the "America Lost It's Innocence" bullshit, well before the 2004 election, and you'd have President Arnold Schwartzenegro or something.

Who the fuck knows what other consequences there would have been though.

>>15
Something good... like... bombing random countries half of americans have never heard of before? Or...like... throwing drug users in prison? Or...like...pouring gobs money on the U.N., who then unloads it into shitty anti-gun organizations? Or... like... fucking up third world countries and empowering dictators with foreign aid? Or...like...enforcing retarded bureaucratic regulations that hamper the economy? Or...like... subsidizing ethanol even though it shows dubious if any promise?

lmao