From: Espen.H.Koht@dartmouth.edu (Espen H. Koht)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Re: Swedish Prime minister says Sweden gaining democratic 
 freedom
Date: 15 Apr 92 05:02:55 GMT
 <1992Apr3.122924.10645@husc3.harvard.edu> <10845@chalmers.se> 
 <1992Apr11.200657.8281@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <1992Apr13.073725.19031@eua.ericsson.se>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Apr13.073725.19031@eua.ericsson.se>
euafri@eua.ericsson.se (Fredrik.Ostman) writes:

> >            Well, when you have to pay $15,000 to attend lectures, the
> >difference is significant.
> 
> But if you have to pay $30,000 in taxes whether you attend lectures or not, it
> isn't so hard to choose.

   Show me a student that earns so much money that he/she has to pay
$30,000 in taxes, even in Sweden.  I would have no problem paying taxes
later in my life to 'cover' what I got out of a free educational
system, if what I'm left with leaves me comfortable.  Or maybe the
argument now is going to be that the standard of living in Europe is
unbearable?
 
> >I really have a problem with this myth that tax money somehow
> >disappears into a gaping hole somewhere.
> 
> This is *no myth*! Planned economy is *inherently* *inefficient*.
  This statement is meaningless unless you narrow the scoope,  I could
point out that a liberal market economy is also *inherently*
*inefficient*, but it cbecomes meaningless unless you define your
terms.

> This has been proved everywhere and every time it has beed tried, most
> notably in the Soviet Union.
  We are not talking a black and white world of planned vs. 'free'
markets here.  The moment you understand that all economies are planned
to a certain extent, you will realize that the question is not if, but
how and to what degree the economy is 'planned'.
 
> In Sweden, we know that both primary and
> secondary mnicipalities (kommuner och landsting) are gaping black holes,
(Whole celestial bodies are known to have disappeared in the are around
Stockholm :-) )  Seriously, money does not *disappear* from the
economy.  Anyway if you want to 

> that can be financed only by continuously *raised* taxes. Productivity
> has falled by 3% per year since the 1960's. There is no way to change
> this within the current system.
 
   Most serious economist acknowledge that the word 'productivity' is
the most twisted and ocrrupted word in today's politics.  Measurments
of this magic variable has at any given time here in the states proved
that: the US productivity is declining, rising but not as fast as
before, or unchanged.  This particulary true of any type of
productivity measurement in the service sector.  'Productivity' decline
is a pet instruments of politicians used to scare the public.  I think
you'll find that although taxes have indeed gone up, the disposable
income has gone up faster, so I fail to see your point.

> >To get some perspective on
> >things look around yourself, admire your living-standard.  I dare
> >Scandinavians to compare their living standard to that of any other
> >country and come back and tell me you are getting ripped-off by the tax
> >system.  
> 
> I AM BEEING RIPPED-OFF BY THE TAX SYSTEM.
> I fail to see the logic in that you should use an inefficient system
> just because you're rich. I would rather say rich people who *waste*
> their money are immoral.

   Depends on how you determine waste of course.  If you think spending
money on anybody other than yourself is waste, I can understand your
attitude.

> As for comparing, when I went to school as
> a six-year-old, Sweden had the highest standard-of-living in the world.
> We don't any longer, and the falling tendency is only getting stronger.

Ah! You true colours show?  You're an economic relativist!  All you
care about is how your country does as compared to others?  Do you
believe the world economy is a zero-sum game?  This statement certainly
make you sound like a an economic nationalist.