How the Welfare State Corrupted Sweden
To be Swedish once meant to be beholden to no one. But the welfare state has created a dependent people utterly incapable of finding value in life; instead, they find themselves incapable of typical human feelings such as pride, honor, and empathy. These feelings, along with the means to create meaning to life, have been taken over by the welfare state. Like spoiled children, they call for "help" through the state. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (50)
Vedran Vuk
Brilliant! It does all come down to someone's ethics and morality toward work. It has become politically incorrect to call someone on welfare lazy and irresponsible but in reality that's what most are.
Published: May 31, 2006 8:25 AM
david
Thank you - this is very nicely presented argument.
I couldn't help but recall the coverage given to the Sweden case by PJ O'Rourke in his book 'eat the rich', and how it complements your article.
that book described, in satirical journalistic style, O'Rourke's attempt to understand economics from an initial position of total ignorance, and, while not quite taking the Austrian view, he commendably came to the firm conclusion that the free market is the only viable option, after having given himself a crash-course in theory, and then visiting a string of countries to see what they loooked like on the ground.
He presented Sweden ( in comparison to to, say, Cuba and Tanzania) as the only example he could find of a 'socialist' case that had sort-of worked thus far, in that it had not collapsed utterly at the time of his writing, giving it some sort of 'least-worst' rating of the socialist ideology. However, he also observed that it simply could not last much longer because eventually the piper has to be paid, as it were, and that is simply not possible given economic reality.
After reading your article, I was left wondering why Sweden's socialist state has lasted as long as it has! And the only answer I could come up with was that the residue of the 'old' moral fibre you describe took several generations to evaporate, sustaining the unsustainable for longer than it would have in another country. But further decline and eventual failure is of course inevitable.
Published: May 31, 2006 9:00 AM
Ulrich Hobelmann
Vedran Vuk: I find your statement far too simplistic, and in fact wonder if you know *any* unemployed people.
True, if you are lazy, and if you are happy with the very low income you can get on welfare, then the welfare state allows you to be perfectly lazy.
Reality - at least in Germany - seems different. The modern high-tax high-regulation state has made creating a small business very hard and often not sustainable, while forcing employers to provide just about anything for their employees, with the result that we have high unemployment.
Public education adds its part. Many businesses have trouble finding good and able workers, while at the same time there are lots and lots of unemployeds who would like to work, but can't find an employer willing to pay their (sometimes union-decided) wage, their taxes, and all their other mandatory benefits.
It's this whole situation that made welfare maybe necessary in the current situation. But that doesn't mean that people on welfare are all lazy jerks - most are only victims of our work and education system.
Published: May 31, 2006 9:41 AM
Dwight Johnson
My grandfather, Gustaf Johanson, from whom I get my last name, came from Stockholm, Sweden, to the US sometime around 1900. I grieve for the people there, and appreciate the warning given by this article about the clear and present danger of the welfare state. I also appreciate the author's sympathetic view of the cause of its genesis and perpetuation, clearly a case of good intentions gone awry, as well as the empathetic analysis of the dire results. For all that, the way back to sanity (when, not if, their society collapses) will no doubt be very painful.
The most chilling part for me was his description of how the "grandchildren" are looking to have the "old people" pensioned so that the jobs they hold can be freed up for the younger generation. The next step, certainly, will be to permanently "remove" those old folks who have become nothing but burdens.
Most amazing is the clear relationship drawn between the economic, philosophical, and moral realms, and their interdependence. Brilliant article!
Published: May 31, 2006 9:48 AM
Vedran Vuk
Ulrich,
I believe this article perfectly illustrates the mentality that the welfare state creates. The author illustrates very well how the mentality of hard work has been changed by the welfare state. I make this statement from the article and from personal experience. I know plenty of people in New Orleans trying to stay unemployed as long as possible under FEMA even though high paying jobs are available everywhere in New Orleans to anyone. Further your last statement about victims illustrates part of the welfare mentality. They are no longer responsible at all for their actions. Sure job markets can get tough but you gotta get tougher. As the article said, the author's grandparents worked even harder when they didn't have enough. They were self responsible and did not view themselves as victims.
Published: May 31, 2006 10:13 AM
Paul D
To be fair, Vedran, regulations and minimum wage laws simply don't let many people sell their labour at the market rate. It's a tough situation to be in.
Published: May 31, 2006 11:22 AM
M E Hoffer
Jung lives!~
below is my post to the "Game Theory" thread: "Well put. caeteris paribus, ad infinitum,=stasis (long the stock & trade of, the dominant, Polaroid School of Economics) leads to the observation that most "economists" would be better utilized as Morticians. That the policy recommendations served up by use of such hackneyed tools has caused much mayhem, one can only wonder whether the AEA's pension fund is long (NYSE:HB)."
+
Americans, the few that are left, should take exception, for once, to their "exceptionalism" and understand that the root of the story, above, has tapped well within it, as well.
Soon enough, we'll see whether Anthem's "We Love You." will be used as a fulcrum, or is, indeed, prophecy.
Published: May 31, 2006 11:36 AM
Vedran Vuk
Paul D,
Yes those regulations do make things more difficult. But even under those circumstances there are plenty of illegals making a great effort to bypass these regulations. Further, take a closer look at Ulrich's comment:
"It's this whole situation that made welfare maybe necessary in the current situation. But that doesn't mean that people on welfare are all lazy jerks - most are only victims of our work and education system."
Ulrich actually suggests fixing intervention with more intervention through welfare. If the regulations are the problem, take away the regulations don't give welfare seems like the obviuos solution. If people are not lazy, then you shouldn't be afraid to take away both welfare and the regulations. But as the author has said, the welfare state has changed the mentality of people to where they will vote for such systems preferably.
Published: May 31, 2006 11:45 AM
Curt Howland
Verdan, I think the "welfare maybe necessary" statement is even more pernicious than that. Ulrich may very well mean he doesn't think intervention is a way to solve intervention.
The obvious action to take when a system isn't working, at least in the real world, is to abolish it. Ulrich is, I think, seeing "abolishing welfare" as the obvious answer, but like so many others who do not wish to cause other people harm, he doesn't see how it could be abolished without someone getting hurt.
I've seen this argument used many, many times against the idea of abolition. "Now that the program exists, people are depending on it, we can't just abolish it without making some provision for those people." This is not an argument for abolition at all, it is exactly what you suggested it was: Trying to solve the problem of intervention with yet more intervention.
It really is a problem of good intentions. The intention is to help those who are truly in need, but by doing so _through_coercion_ there is now a system set up that tries to perpetuate itself.
That is why private charities outperform public ones to such a great degree. If they don't, people will stop donating.
The tax man doesn't accept that as an excuse for not paying him what he thinks is his due.
Published: May 31, 2006 12:53 PM
Reactionary
david,
"After reading your article, I was left wondering why Sweden's socialist state has lasted as long as it has!"
I'd venture to say it's because Sweden, like the rest of Western Europe, practices what might be called a "kinder, gentler" form of national socialism. For many years, the Swedes' strong sense of national pride kept net tax consumption in check. In theory anyway, the welfare state can maintain its existence so long as everybody feels compelled to carry their share of the load.
In practice, as you know, net tax consumption increases, birth rates decline, and the welfare state must resort to deficit spending and immigration to try and make up the difference.
Published: May 31, 2006 1:16 PM
M E Hoffer
"Americans, the few that are left, should take exception, for once, to their "exceptionalism" and understand that the root of the story, above, has tapped well within it, as well."....
"In practice, as you know, net tax consumption increases, birth rates decline, and the welfare state must resort to deficit spending and immigration to try and make up the difference."
qed
Reactionary, Gracias!~
Published: May 31, 2006 1:30 PM
Ulrich Hobelmann
Just to clear that up, I'm not really in favor of increasing welfare. I'm all for carefully liberalising society, for slowing reducing taxes to a flat tax and maybe from there on abolish it altogether.
(There's no point in discussing something like that, because most people are so much in favor of taxation that it's utopic anyway.)
Overall I think anarchy would do a much better job even at welfare than the current society. But there has to be a careful, announced period of transition, so people can make plans ahead of time.
I only wanted to correct Vedran Vuk, that not all welfarians are bad. Probably lots are, but lots aren't, so we shouldn't generalize.
Published: May 31, 2006 3:14 PM
Pike
O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
O beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in't!
The article made me to remember one science fiction book about where all eldery people were exterminated when they no longer have a productive contribution to the society.
When a nation chose a life substained by a slavery, the nation will only live as long there are slaves. The history declared, all nations who depend on slavery will eventually die or fade away.
Sweden will face a crisis when the Swedes no longer are able to finance their fantasy. What happen next? They either could become barbarians by using force to get the comforts the want or realise its futility by rebuild themselves.
The ballon cannot stay inflate forever.
Published: May 31, 2006 3:36 PM
mark
Say what you want about ethics and morality of the Swedish welfare state but there's a hell of a lot that can be said for all the Swedes that migrate to the Alps for the duration of the winter!
Let's not forget. A lot of good can be said of unethical behavior, especially if your having a hell of good time.
Published: May 31, 2006 5:04 PM
happyjuggler0
Well, if things don't work out they can always move to Ireland, which for a decade now has figured out how to run an economy.
Very nice article Per. I expect to have many opportunities to include to link it in other blogs/forums whenever someone proclaims of virtues of the Swedish model.
Published: May 31, 2006 6:17 PM
Sione Vatu
In the Islands we had near 80% unemployment with around two thirds of the population being 25 years of age or younger. The smart ones got moving and went overseas to get a job. I recommend the same action for "permanently" unemployed people in Europe. Move on. That's what your ancestors did.
But if you consider life so worthless that you can't contribute or produce THEN maybe you should consider topping yourself. Forget about welfare, that's just delaying the inevitable.
Sione
Published: May 31, 2006 6:36 PM
Jayant Bhandari
An absolutely wonderful article. free-market is not so much about money but about morality.
Also, I agree with what Vedran Vuk says. Those on welfare are indeed lazy (except for those who have a legitimate disability). After all, you can work for less than minimum salary, and do basic work. As an immigrant, first in the UK and then in Canada, I have never found shortage of work. You just have to undersell yourself a bit sometimes. If the minimum salary is $8, I am sure that are many mom-and-pop stores that will employ you for $5. And, I can say, from personal experience, that this is GOOD money. Only those spoilt by a welfare system will complain about it.
Published: May 31, 2006 6:50 PM
Curt Howland
Ulrich, "there has to be a careful, announced period of transition"
I disagree, and I believe that the experience of New Zeland is a good one.
In 1984, they had a "libertarian" revolution. On a dare, the prime minister called an election and found that the mood of the people at that moment wasn't what he thought it was. A group of "radical" reformers came in, and slashed/slashed/slashed government spending and regulation.
Of course it didn't all last, but their economy turned around instantly. I expect there's an article or two around here on the subject.
Asked later about the experience, the reformers had only one regret: They didn't cut far more and faster.
The people are suffering from an excess of government. Like a cancer, the sooner it is removed the faster they will be able to recover. Finding ways to deal with the situation is what people do best.
And for those few who truly need help? Well, isn't that what private charity does best anyway?
Published: May 31, 2006 8:16 PM
Dewaine
And for those few who truly need help? Well, isn't that what private charity does best anyway? - Curt Howland
.. and imagine the private charity that would become available with zero taxation! Charitable funds would be mulitpied, and provided more efficiently.
- Dewaine
Published: May 31, 2006 8:27 PM
Daniel M. Ryan
"Sweden will face a crisis when the Swedes no longer are able to finance their fantasy. What happen next? They...could become barbarians by using force to get the comforts [they] want..."
Pike hit upon the reason why welfare reform is proceeding so glacially. Many people who would otherwise be supporters of welfare scaledown or abolition don't seriously consider it because they're scared of that kind of a consequence - or the indirect effects of a retaliation if such a consequence should erupt and the taxpayer class holds sway physically.
Published: May 31, 2006 11:58 PM
Jonathan
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/LSECWS/IFSPages/MarketNewsPopup.aspx?id=1218064&source=RNS
The above is a link to a monthly newsletter from a respected UK fund manager.
Skip to the fifth paragraph of his text where he reviews a book on '101 years of global investment returns'. You may be surprised to see how WELL Sweden did.
It does not mean your views are incorrect of course but it seems that even with an overbearing state economies can prosper. It does raise the interesting but impossible question of how well would Sweden have done without the state?
Published: June 1, 2006 2:40 AM
Per Bylund
Reply to Jonathan:
Yes, there are probably quite a few numbers one can find (if willing) that will show Sweden is doing comparatively well (compared to what--the immensely regulated "West"?). But numbers don't really prove anything.
If you ask for official numbers of, say, unemployment you will get something like 4%. That's not too bad. But, if you start looking a bit closer you will realize that real unemployment is somewhere between 15 and 20%. Why? Because government is "investing" billions and billions in cover-up alternatives. People are forced in early retirement, they are forced to get a university degree (even if they are 55+ years old!), and they are hidden away in different "therapeutic" programs.
But the real issue with unemployment is not really that there are so many without work. The real issue is that they cannot find work at all--there are no jobs! How can that be in a seemingly well-functioning market? It isn't possible unless the market is overly controled by the State.
Also, consider the structure of unemployment. Most people unemployed are young and well educated. What does that tell you? Official unemployment for young people WITH a university degree is around 25%--according to the labor unions. What do you think the REAL unemployment rate for these people (including myself) is?
Also, unemployment is not decreasing. The trend is that less and less people are supporting the welfare system. Sure, 80% of the able and not-too-young/old seem to be working. What about ten years from now?
And people are heavily using the system of government financed sick leave, take-care-of-my-child leave, the legally set [at least] five weeks of paid vacation. Not to mention all the "support" programs available.
Just like in any Western country, the government pension programs will be a bomb when the baby-boomers of post WWII retire. Who will finance the system then? Perhaps the 25+% young and well-educated no one can afford to give a job today?
Yes, one can find figures showing how well everything is in Sweden. That's what the government is doing all the time--they have been covering up for the system failure for the last 30 years or so. But that doesn't make it a good system.
Published: June 1, 2006 5:07 AM
Paul Marks
Sweden avoided both world wars (indeed it has not fought a war for almost two hundred years).
The aviodance of war was how Sweden was able to finance a Welfare State without (at first) crushing taxation.
Indeed even as late as 1970 British taxes were higher than those in Sweden.
Back in the 1930's (when people first started to talk about the wonders of "third way" or "middle way" Sweden)taxes in Sweden (as percentage of the economy) were only half what they were in Britain.
Even today Sweden is far from all bad. Company taxes are lower than in most countries (including the United States) and actually paper work ("red tape") tends to be less in Sweden than in many countries.
However, yes, the Welfare State has undermined morality.
An incident comes to mind.
A government minister was stabbed to death in a crowded shopping area.
Although I am a libertarian I do not regard the violent death of a government minister as a good thing - and the death is not my main point in any case.
The minister was a women (supposedly a popular one - although that is not relevant) and she was not just stabbed she was chased and attacked again and again (her attacker was mad man).
No one in the shop tried to help her. And yet she passed large numbers of people as she tried to get away (screaming for help).
When asked why they had not helped this women people tended to say things like "that is a public responisbility".
When the public think that public responisbility means the state a society is in deep trouble.
Published: June 1, 2006 5:33 AM
Jack Maturin
I think that there is something else keeping Sweden going, as it slowly falls down the slippery slope towards financial disaster, and that is the relatively small population (less than that of London), and the close cultural homogeneity. I've been to Sweden many times, and I always get the impression that most people feel themselves part of one 'big' family. Genetically speaking, this is probably very close to the mark.
It is generally easier for most people to contribute towards welfare, if they feel it's going directly towards their own family, even the hugely extended one making up the Swedish collective. Obviously, this effect is not so great as in somewhere like Iceland, but I keep thinking I'm meeting the same people over and over again in Sweden, when in fact I'm meeting complete strangers who just look a lot like each other. (BTW, having a lot of Norwegian blood in me, myself, I sometimes get confused for being Swedish in the Stockholm shopping centre, but they're usually good enough to switch into English quite quickly, once they realize I'm not part of the collective.) Of course, even with a close cultural homogeneity, the welfare state way of living will get them in the end. I think this shows itself most clearly in the very slow population growth rates, with a rapidly ageing demographic, as even evidenced by the Swedish government themselves. The government is trying to boost their taxation base by offering Swedish passports to just about anyone who'll have one, but all this will do is undermine the very homogeneity which has got them this far, in their attempt at socialism in one country. It may be good to import skills, but the last two Swedish people I met couldn't even speak Swedish. Coming from Austria and Croatia, respectively, the English spoken in Sweden is so good it was hardly worth bothering to learn Swedish for either of them, even though choosing to live there. This will also undermine the Swedish socialist experiment, as those with talent and ambition who can't stand the 65% taxation blanket are easily able to leave and command a decent living in the Anglosphere (I think the current Swedish population of London is around 40,000+, which is larger than most Swedish cities.) So all in all, the Swedish socialists started with some great advantages. Their country had managed to keep itself out of two world wars - making some money along the way with lucrative arms sales, developed a very strong culture of personal independence, and had a small culturally homogenous population. But a few decades after the experiment began they now they hang onto the coat-tails of the EU, their evening streets are full of very drunk (though terribly polite) youths, and the population has become physically, mentally, and morally stagnant. And this is the most successful socialist country in the world, one to which most socialists in Europe aspire! Just what would it have been like for them if their welfare state had gone wrong, like ours has in culturally-diverse war-scarred Britain?Published: June 1, 2006 8:09 AM
Jonathan
Per, the best profits in speculation come from taking a position that is totally contrary to market expectations, assuming you are correct of course!
If you truly think numbers don't matter and that financial markets have effectively been duped (for 100+ years?) you have the seeds of a great fortune to be made.
Best of luck.
Published: June 1, 2006 8:57 AM
Per Bylund
Jonathan, I'm not saying the State's duped the financial markets. But I do believe financial markets are not acting at all in the same way they would if the market was free. The market acts on what is known, and in an immensely prohibited, regulated, subsidized, licensed, controled, and quotaed market it certainly acts on what it knows about such things.
Companies able to attract subsidies and avoid regulations are valued higher than companies unable to do so. The "sport" and purpose of business is not to produce cheap high-quality goods--it is to play the State game well.
What I was trying to say was, there are many, many different kinds of public numbers of the "official" situation in a country. But part of the purpose of politics has become to find ways of making such figures look good rather than actually changing anything (the System is no. 1)--just like I showed re: unemployment figures.
Published: June 1, 2006 9:06 AM
Reactionary
Excellent comments, Jack. The formula for a "successful" welfare state is low population density, fairly abundant natural resources, and an ethnically and culturally homogenous population with a strong work ethic. But over time, the welfare state squanders and denigrates the very conditions that made it possible. The Scandinavian social democracies have had a nice ride but it is going to end with capital flight and moral decadence.
Published: June 1, 2006 9:15 AM
Kirk Olson
Brilliant!
Published: June 1, 2006 9:30 AM
Fred Mann
Jonathan,
The link you posted shows stock market performance for the past 101 years!! Sweden was a much freer, hard-working place until 1970 or so when the welfare revolution occurred. They WERE an economic force to be reckoned with for most of the time period covered in that survey. It's no surprise that they look pretty good, considering the period of data collection.
Published: June 1, 2006 1:16 PM
Fred Mann
Here's another little piece of information that I got via e-mail from Stephan Karlsson, a Swedish economist and occasional contributor to Mises.org:
"This perception of Sweden as one richest countries in the world is simply
incorrect nowadays. Sweden once had a very high growth rate, during the
100-year period of 1870 to 1970 Sweden were surpassed in economic growth
only by Japan and looking only at the period of 1870 to 1950 Sweden were
number one. In this context it should be noted that Sweden were until the
1950s a very free market oriented country with a lower public spending to
GDP ratio than America. But because public spending and taxes increased at a
rate of more than 1%:point per year between 1950 (When government spending
was roughly 20% of GDP) and 1976 (When government spending had increased to
more than 50% of GDP) Sweden were in a mere quarter century transformed from
a relatively market-oriented country to being the country with the most
bloated welfare state in the world.
And in 1970 Sweden was the 4th richest country in the world beaten only by
Switzerland, the United States and Luxembourg. But since then Sweden has had
as a result of the high taxes and big welfare state very low growth and has
fallen in the international ranking of GDP per capita to the 20th place. And
compared to the United States, who is now second richest in the world after
Luxembourg, Sweden is very poor. The income per capita level is no higher in
Sweden than in the poorest American state, Mississippi (Although because of
its more egalitarian income distribution Sweden has less visible poverty
than Mississippi)."
Published: June 1, 2006 1:24 PM
Fred Mann
... also known as SteFan Karlsson. Sorry Stefan!!
Published: June 1, 2006 1:30 PM
Pike
I do wonder why the Swedish Monarch, His Majesty King Carl XVI Gustaf, can tolerate the slow death of his kingdom. Is he blind or is he being forced to accept the inevitable death of his beloved kingdom?
Let us sit back for 40-50 years then we shall see how Sweden can continue the "noble socialist experiment." I am very curious about what choices the Swedes will make when the crisis befalls on their hands.
Long live the King.
Published: June 1, 2006 4:12 PM
angry_observer
Hello,
I'm a 1979 born German and I must say your article was an eye-opener for me to clarify the connection between the modern welfare state and the morale degeneration I noticed over the last few years. I must admit I am a so called computer freak and I am often asked by friends to help them with some problems regarding their computers. I never asked for money for my help. A few years ago it was normal to get some small present for this help, but today you often not even get a "Thank you.". The people take the help as normal. And as younger the people are as more distinctive this attitude is.
This is just a small example, but for me personally it was the first evidence of a change in the mindset. But there are examples over and over. They complain about bad teacher not able to teach them math or history or whatever, but they are not about to just take a book and learn at home for themselves. Instead they look some crappy shit in the television all the day and finally their parents go to school and complain about the bad teacher. Or take the current discussion about ALG II in Germany. Obviously in the mindset of the people exists the belief of a birth right of having not only home and food but even a car, money for the gas and at least twice a year a travel to some countries abroad and this all without doing anything for the society.
It is more than obvious that this system will crash in the not so distant future. You don't have to study economics to know this. Today in Germany more than 50% are on the receiver side of this giant redistribution system. For political parties it is impossible to cut the system radically, because they never would be elected by these transfer receivers. Now add uncovered pension and healthcare systems, the demography of the western countries, the worldwide fiat money system, peak oil... The result of this equation is an unavoidable crash and the longer this will be retracted the deeper will be the fall.
The key to "survive" this crash is the same as the key to live a life in pride: knowledge, independence, personal responsibility.
Published: June 2, 2006 3:39 AM
Per Bylund
To angry_observer,
You are exactly right. The process is accelerating, and even though Sweden is one of the countries “leading� the way (second to, perhaps, France?) Scandinavia and Western Europe is not far behind. And then Canada and the US.
These “small things� you talk about - like not saying “thank you� - are really good examples of the “change in mindset, as are your examples from German schools. People instinctively find it oppressive� and “unfair� to have to act and work by themselves. Everything should be brought to them - that is their “human right.�
What we are actually seeing here is a version of what Ayn Rand tried to describe in her novel Atlas Shrugged. But this is real life, and there are no morally impeccable Producers who are obsessed with producing while only being enslaved by the morality of the common good.
The population is divided between the many with a need-based morality and the very few with the “old school� morality. The latter are and will be increasingly oppressed and they should go on strike as far possible. What I suggest is to move as much as possible of one’s economy into the so-called counter-economy. That is a perfect strategy for the future, since it 1) undermines the State, and 2) lets you keep most of the value you produce (no taxes).
Apart from that, I don’t really know what to do to put an end to this degeneration and force it back. Perhaps it has already gone too far, so that people will have to be morally and philosophically “cleansed� through a period of chaos and pure insanity.
Published: June 2, 2006 7:00 AM
Yves Grassioulet
Is the welfare state responsible for the current work-related health catastrophy witnessed all around the world? Did you know that the International Labour Organization records more than 2 millions dead people every year due to their work activities? Plus all the others that one way or another suffer at work (physically and/or mentally), due to the insane economical situation that asks for more with less in hands. When knowing the crude reality of work conditions and related constraints, that can also lead to depersonalization, no wonder seeing more and more people aside the Grand Liberal Track, let it be within a welfare state or any other liberal state. Liberalism doesn't cure the very inconsistancy of Finance and Economics, nor does the welfare state. As long as the economical jungle will not be contained within strict rules (which doesn't necessarily mean high-tax & high-regulation, but more applying a good management model based on human/social sciences and a fair wealth redistribution system - see Proudhon), there'll always be outcasts (and not 'spoiled children' as you cynically describe it).
Published: June 2, 2006 7:05 AM
Per Bylund
To Yves Grassioulet,
I'm saying the welfare state is responsible for many of the depressions and mental illnesses people nowadays seem to suffer from. They can all be triggered by a sense of helplessness and hopelessness. In an overwhelmingly paternalistic state people don't face hardships - they demand others help them.
Living this way causes a mental vacuum, there is no causality. Also, with the monstrously regulated markets (social as well as economic "markets") there is no possibility to actully do something about your situation. There are no jobs, for one thing, even though there is a state-enacted right to a job.
How do you think people can handle problems in a marriage (just an example) if they have never had to take responsibility for their actions? The answer is, they cannot. Most marriages (more than half!) in Sweden end up in divorce within only a few years.
The insane economic situation you are talking about is also partly a product of the welfare state. But that's another issue.
Published: June 2, 2006 7:28 AM
angry_observer
To Per Bylund,
Thanks for your answer. After reading the counter economy prospectus, I found myself within some of the listed examples,
particularly the passage about goldbugs. I personally think, buying gold anonymously is a good possibility to protect at
least a part of your wealth in the coming financial meltdown thanks to the uncovered fiat money system, which is the foundation
of the modern welfare state.
Your mentioned book "Atlas Shrugged" sounds interesting; I think I will read it. I read a lot of books and must say it is
frightening how many accordances especially to the big dystopies like "1984", "Brave new world" or "Fahrenheit 451" today exists.
My favourite is Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451", because in this book the change to totalitarism comes from the people itself.
I have also no idea how to solve the situation, but my feelings tend to a huge crash scenario. The economic aspects of this
crash are very nice described in the article Island Economics.
Published: June 2, 2006 8:01 AM
Yves Grassioulet
"The insane economic situation you are talking about is also *partly* a product of the welfare state". So if we want to get your point, the more people living in a welfare state, the more insane they'll become?!?! This would mean that Swedish people (because they live within a high welfare state) are more depressed and mentally ill than let say American people (because they live within a low welfare state)? Is there any research showing such hypothesis? Do you have any proof?
What a simplistic view on mental health... The mental vacuum you're talking about rather lies where work - and society itself - doesn't make sense anymore. Our worldwide human society has no real orientation, apart from running after cash & 'disguised' democracy. Is this the way to give people the common foundations to become better balanced persons? Nah, and when you have a closer look on the current work reality (productivity and profit at any cost, let it be human), it doesn't really consider and respect LIFE as a whole and its own natural pace...
Published: June 2, 2006 9:07 AM
Yancey Ward
Here is a listing of suicide rates by country. What is interesting to me is that the lowest rates are more usually found in third world countries. The highest rates are to be found in the former states of the Soviet Union. Can one conclude that socialism leads to mental disorder? Maybe, but a deeper analysis is called for.
Published: June 2, 2006 9:53 AM
Per Bylund
To Yves Grassioulet.
No, I'm not saying people living in a welfare state are destined to go insane. And I'm not saying Swedes are necessarily more depressed than others - or that Swedes' depressions would be a result of a welfare state.
Also, I'm not an advocate of a "simplistic" view on mental health, as you put it. But I do think people tend to get depressed from not being able to control the situation, not being able to create one's own success and care for one's family, not being able to get a job even if one's willing to work, not having the flexibility in life that is "natural." All these things (and more) definitely affect people's mental health.
You say the mental vacuum lies in where the individual's work and society doesn't make sense. Sure, that's partly true - and that is also what I claim. Many Swedes literally have no choice but to work in the public sector with low salaries and no chance whatsoever to influence their situation.
I'm not sure what you mean by society not making sense and why that would really matter on a personal level. I would rather say it is a personal catastrophe if one's own LIFE doesn't make sense - if one cannot rule one's own life and push things in the right direction. Being totally left out and dependent on other people's decisions does, I believe, mean people risk breakdowns and depressions. (But that situation can, of course, be created by "society.")
A welfare state effectively smashes individual sovereignty, individual choice and responsibility; it takes from the individual his/her independence, freedom, work, and the ability to make a change - to feel one is wanted had has value.
I believe this is very important to people, consciously or subconsciously. If you feel everything is hopeless, that your life is meaningless, that you cannot take care of yourself nor your family, that you and your life are totally left out to whatever the authorities decide - that's when you lose your self-esteem and lose your sense of personal value. And then you get depressed.
I don't think people essentially live on the macro level you point out ("society" etc.). I think they first and foremost live on a micro level (and then on a "neighborhood" level, and so on) and that what they see, feel, understand, experience etc. is based on their personal subjective experience and their values. The welfare state effectively takes their values away from them and makes everything (except, perhaps, the mad hunt for material state benefits to fill the personal/mental vacuum) impossible, worthless, and hopeless.
You tell me, why wouldn't people get depressed from such a hopeless situation? I believe people are supposed to be free and take pride in their achievements.
I do feel it myself many times; whatever I do I cannot seem to get out of this mess - there is no escape, and no way to make a change. I cannot decide for myself - that power has been stolen from me. Things that happen in my life are mostly an effect of how I'm tossed around by and between the authorities, and the latest whim of politicians. What can I do about that? People say: vote. But that is not going to change anything.
What it boils down to is that a welfare state is like a long gone malignant cancer, it grows - and has grown - on freedom just like a tumour grows on whatever flesh is healthy. A welfare state the size of Sweden is suffocating - socially, economically, culturally, psychologically, personally, and morally. I'd see it abolished anytime.
Published: June 2, 2006 10:08 AM
Jack Maturin
Things that happen in my life are mostly an effect of how I'm tossed around by and between the authorities, and the latest whim of politicians. What can I do about that? People say: vote. But that is not going to change anything.
I think this could be one of the reasons why people, particularly here in the UK, get so heavily into sport, literally becoming fanatics, as a release from the otherwise suffocating pressures of external societal control induced by the modern western state.
Because it is only in sport, and possibly popular music too, in western society, where 'market forces' are tolerated (i.e. it is OK for soccer and pop stars to earn millions of dollars a year, without being labelled as running dogs of the capitalist lickspittles, and where 'competition' is seen as a good thing, with sports leagues and pop charts.)
This, of course, forces me to make the falsifiable prediction that Sweden is rife with particularly dedicated sports fans too, to the point of such fanaticism completely taking over their lives even more than in other similar countries (such as Britain)? Would this be the case?
For want of a better phrase, I'll call this the 'Maturin Welfare Release Syndrome'! :-)
I'd be interested to hear your views on this, if you have time, particularlyu seeing as we are entering a delicate time vis a vis, Sven Goran Eriksson taking England to the World Cup.
Published: June 2, 2006 12:00 PM
Per Bylund
To Jack Maturin.
I believe the "Maturin Welfare Release Syndrome" is just about right; at least, Sweden seems to fit the model extremely well. I cannot really tell whether Swedish sports supporters are more "fanatic" than in other countries (I'm thinking of English and Italian football (soccer) fans). But I do know a few things about Swedish athletes and music artists.
It is true, as you say, that it is ok to make money from being a good athlete or a "star" (music or movie doesn't matter). And it is ok to become rich from winning the lottery. But people tend to think something is wrong if you make a lot of money from work or doing business (and, indeed, it IS a bit strange considering the level of taxes ;-) ).
Anyway, I would take the Maturin Welfare Release Syndrome one step further, saying exteremely able people tend to put a whole lot more time and effort into sports becoming better than in other countries where there is less of a welfare state. And I can prove it does look that way.
Sweden is a small country of almost exactly nine million people. But it is the world's second largest music exporter (only beaten by the US and the UK). Now why is this so? There is nothing in Swedish history or culture saying "we" should be so much "better" in producing music. Think of Abba, Europe, and so on.
Also, Sweden is pretty good in sports. Such a small country, and still usually among the best ten or fifteen countries in the Olympics. There are many countries that should be much better at getting Olympic medals - why don't they?
I'm not saying there is causality here, but it does seem your "syndrome" might be able to explain something here.
Published: June 2, 2006 12:35 PM
Kim
Any welfare state destroys personal responsibility. A large percentage of potential patients cannot imagine paying me anything for dental services out of pocket. If welfare or employer-sponsored insurance does not pay 100% of the cost, patients are indignant, and expect me to write off the difference.
In a child's mind, parents should pay for all necessities, so he can use his allowance on fun things. Welfare states allow children to never grow up. Adults now believe the State should pay for all of life's necessities, so the salary can be used for fun things like vacation and entertainment.
Socialism breeds a population of perpetual children.
Published: June 3, 2006 12:42 PM
bitter_twisted
1999 My Family and I Came to Germany. I got a Job in Customer Support of a Computer Network Company, as I had been doing in South Africa. From my first customer call, a dramatically different style became obvious. Normaly I would identify myself at the reception, then my contact would be called, I would introduce myself and he would escourt me into the secure area. This procedure is the same in both countries, the difference was, I was used to having the customers representative walk next to me and we would either make small talk, or discuss the problem I had come to attend to.In Germany he would rush of ahead of me, often I got the impression that I was in a race, wether I could keep up with my host or not.
When this youth with the "Im OK Jack" attitude in life informs me about my selfishness for questioning the "solidarity", that is deemed sacred here, I can get seriously confused.
Published: June 5, 2006 6:49 AM
Mike Smith
Someone wrote:
"After reading your article, I was left wondering why Sweden's socialist state has lasted as long as it has!"
The answer is simple:
Sweden supplied Germany with 60% of its iron ore during the war. While the rest of Europe was demolished, Sweden not only went unscathed, but became the second richest nation in the world.
Since then, Sweden has gradually fallen to #20 and is still sinking. Sweden is living on borrowed time.
Published: June 5, 2006 2:21 PM
Bryce Fellbaum
Let's not fall into the trap of thinking that government welfare actually benefits the poor in any long term way. Government makes pulling up by one's own bootstraps hard. Some of the things that my more poor forefathers did would be zoned out, regulated out of possibilty. Let's not forget that wealthy persons and organizations are able to use the welfare state to maintain and even improve their position unfairly.
I live in a portion of the USA that has much Scandinavian heritage. Most of the present day Democratic party style liberals do not want anyone denied opportunity, that is why thye think we need protectionistic forces. They personally are very hard working, charitable with their own resources, moral about their own families, and very upset that the government does not spend within it's means.
Also as I recall in PJ O'Rourke's book he speculated that the Swedish system at first redistributed profits but tended to leave the producing itself alone. This delayed the decline.
Bryce
Published: June 20, 2006 3:49 PM
Paul
It is an interesting argument that you make. I have never been to Sweden, so I can only compare your thesis to what problems we have with the American social welfare state. Perhaps it's not a fair comparison, because unlike Sweden, the US has a mixed population. But perhaps the effects on the psyche of people is similar.
The US welfare state has helped generate a "police state" , has it not? This may be due to the violence of the "underclass" that exists due to their "ghettoization"?
In either case, the flaws of economic systems can't be fixed without some social consensus: but we don't seem to have that in the US on social welfare issues, or in any other matter.
I would be interested to note what you make of the rise of defense spending since Clinton left office... is this harmful or helpful to the socioeconomic system? Sweden's advantage over the US in this matter is the lack of a 469 Billion dollar defense package that the Senate passed today.
Yours,
Paul Silverman
Binghamton University, NY
Published: September 8, 2006 1:56 PM
ryan stephenson
I think one important point that was missed out in this article is that Sweden used to be the home of some pretty important film-makers, artists, writers and scientists. Those days are gone. Only the UK really has a big output of creative thinkers in Europe. There is little room or encouragement for high-achievers (unless they are sportsmen/women) in socialist Europe. The question is "Is that the way humankind should be, or is human progress very dependent on our greatest thinkers?". Socialism leads to societies that stagnate intellectually in my opinion. Socialist societies resemble a strange mixture of "Brave New World"/"1984"/"Logan's Run".
Published: March 5, 2007 11:59 AM
Jeremy
Thank you Per,
I am a swede myself and you pinpoint exactly what's wrong with Sweden today! If I was to collect my thoughts into an article it would become something like this. (Not as good though)
I try to make a living running my own company. It is not easy, the income is not guaranteed and I get little support from my relatives who think I should get a "real job" instead, i.e. work for someone else and follow society's paved road. But I know it is worth it, to be able to look myself in the mirror in the morning knowing that I actually shape my own life, independent of the welfare system. Priceless!
Tank you again!
/Jeremy
Published: February 5, 2008 2:59 PM
Per Bylund
Update to the article: I have been contacted by a few people expressing disbelief in the fact that a lot of people take anti-depressants to get rid of depressions, "unhappiness," and the absence of willingness to take on life and work. In an article today in one of the Swedish biggest daily newspapers, it is claimed that 500,000 Swedes currently take anti-depressants (=have received receipts from their physicians for anti-depressants). 500,000 people out of a population of 9,000,000 - that's 5.6% of the population, and most of them are most likely young!
It is also claimed in this article (only available in Swedish) that 25% of the population will take anti-depressants at some point in their lives. I do not know how this corresponds to other countries, but the percentage is no doubt way too large.
The article, written by Finnish professor Merete Mazzarella, who's written books on cultural aspects of well-being: http://www.svd.se/kulturnoje/understrecket/artikel_1263429.svd
Published: May 19, 2008 8:56 AM