From: etxjdry@caddie.ericsson.se 
Subject: Re: Business (was Re: Immigrants and emplo
Reply-To: etxjdry@caddie.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Telecom
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:00:44 GMT

In article 10341@eua.ericsson.se, euafri@eua.ericsson.se (Fredrik.Ostman) writes:
>etxjdry@caddie.ericsson.se (John Dryselius TG/HB) writes:
>>, euafri@eua.ericsson.se (Fredrik.Ostman) writes:
>>>There is aslo ample evidence that partly planned, partly state controlled,
>>>"mixed" economies don't work! This evidence is to be found in Norden.
>
>>Just want to know: Where can I find a Western country that is not having a partly state controlled, "mixed" economy?
>>I always thought that it is just a question of level of state control of the economy. It is correct to state that the level of state control we have had in Sweden during the Social Democrats ruling been to high but it is also true that for instant USA and GB with their much lower degree of state controlled economy are not doing better than Sweden economically. So I guess that all current economic theories are worthless.
>
>Of course they are doing better than Sweden. You can't look just at the
>current level, you must also consider from where it has developed. USA is
>definitely a richer country (as a whole) than Sweden -- twenty years ago
>it wasn't. During the eighties, middle-class salaries in Britain rose by
>25% -- in Sweden by 0.2%. Still, these countries do have a lot of socialism,
>and USA does have problems keeping pace with Japan. It seems the more
>command-control/socialist economy, the more ineffectiveness.
>
50 years ago USA was richer than Sweden, when the Socialist Democrats took over. Of course we can't give them all the credit for the economical growth in Sweden between 1945 and ~1965 (to be frank Sweden used the fact that the rest of Europe had been ruined during the war) but one fact remains: during the Social Democrats year we had a economic growth.
They did one great mistake: they tried to create a too high level of state controlled economy, building enormous system solutions (in health care for example). 

Today we have to back to a more balanced economy, but I will stand by my first poster: a pure liberal/capitalism with no state control is no answer.

USA today have had riots due to that large groups of people find their situation hopeless, the same things have happened in GB this spring. And besides there are strong indications that the present American middle class is economically weaker than the previous generation - for the first time ever in USA.

What they can blame this for is (according to my opinion) the "reagonomics", i.e. in Sweden we failed economically when trying our large system solutions on everything, in USA they failed when trying to reduce the state influence on the economic. So I think there must be a balance between "command-control/socialism" and capitalism - one doesn't disclude the other - I believe it is here you're mistaken.

>Also another thing -- even with the non-monetary problems partial socialism
>claims to solve, like unemployment, social conflicts, racial conflicts, 
>the low interest/ability/ratio in "weak groups" to study at the university,
>criminality, and even diseases, IT HAS FAILED.
>--
>  ______                     _~
> (_/_ _  _  _/) _  . /)     / ) , _/)     _
>__/ _/(_(/_(/__/(_/_/Z_    (_/_/)_/__/))_(I_/)_


True, but also the pure liberal/capitalist solutions have F A I L E D.

John