undefined | Better HN

0 pointsliamcardenas10y ago0 comments

I recommend this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Unexceptionalism_...

From wikipedia: "Allister Heath, deputy editor of the The Daily Telegraph, wrote that the book shows how the “remarkable work ethic” of Scandinavians has been eroded by large welfare states over time." (Of course, don't take wikipedia's word for it-- read the book yourself)

My take-away: Heavy socialism has absolutely stifled economic growth in Scandinavia. During the peak of welfare in Sweden, for example, net private sector job growth was ZERO.

If you want to stimulate economic activity, instead of giving everyone $10,000 per year, why don't we just cut taxes and removed red tape.

(I know that Scandinavia didn't technically have a basic income, but I still think that this material is completely relevant and very telling).

Edit: I said "During the peak of welfare in Sweden, for example, net public sector job growth was ZERO". I meant private sector. Major mistake, my apologies!

0 comments

13 comments · 5 top-level

Bud10y ago· 4 in thread

Does a 0% public sector job growth necessarily indicate a failure, in and of itself? To me, that's not probative at all. What if Sweden had simply reached a level where everyone who was employable and wanted to have a job, had one?

"Removing red tape" has been tried quite a bit, as a sole means of stimulating growth. Not only has it failed over and over again, but the negative consequences dwarf even the fantasies of growth by proponents. "Cutting taxes" has also been tried, and has failed, over and over again.

dmix10y ago

Removing red tape has indeed been tried in America... but almost exclusively for the benefit of already large near monopolistic corporations. It has rarely happened to the benefit of small/medium businesses. Especially if you're talking about deregulation that happened in the financial industry in the 2000s.

The companies that most struggle with red tape aren't mega-corps but the smaller companies who can't afford teams of lawyers to fight through them, or the lobbyists to implement them in their favour.

There has been very little significant deregulation in the USA in the past two decades outside of Wall St/big corps.

Context matters, except when discussing politics it seems...

albertop10y ago

Seems like "It has rarely happened to the benefit of small/medium businesses." and "The companies that most struggle with red tape aren't mega-corps but the smaller companies" are contradictory. Not sure if I understand if you are for or against removing red tape.

1 more reply

Bud10y ago

You make a good point, and I hear you. I'd be interested in any specifics you have to offer that would target smaller businesses.

1 more reply

liamcardenasOP10y ago

I edited the main post. I meant that there was no private sector job growth.

When has lowering taxes and removing red tape not worked?

scarmig10y ago· 3 in thread

"Doesn't technically have a basic income" is doing a whole lot of work, here.

The key component of it is that it doesn't phase out with higher income, which would otherwise cause a strong disincentive to work. How strong compared to no phase-out is a good question, but that's exactly what research like this is good for.

IanCal10y ago

> The key component of it is that it doesn't phase out with higher income

I have never seen a version proposed where everyone receives more money after tax. I thought the key component was that there is no complex means testing (simply phased out through income tax).

scarmig10y ago

The prototypical model would be a lump sum X, unconditionally granted to every adult citizen/resident on a regular basis, regardless of income.

Tax rates are kind of a perpendicular issue. If you view benefit phase-outs as a kind of implicit tax rate, this would make the tax code flatter (and more progressive, if you're counting benefit phase outs as a kind of implicit tax).

liamcardenasOP10y ago

Very good point. However, I do not believe that the welfare cliff argument applies to job creation and entrepreneurship.

rmc10y ago· 1 in thread

For the record, the Telegraph is a right wing newspaper.

liamcardenasOP10y ago

This is true (although basic income is not exclusively a left-wing idea). But I was not trying to use his quote as evidence-- I was using it to explain the thesis of the book.

tim33310y ago

Does it matter if job growth is zero if the population is constant? If it remains positive for too long you'd have more jobs than population.

Cherry picking the data slightly the IMF has the GDPs per capita as

1964 Sweden 2758 USA 3423

2014 Sweden 58538 USA 54370

so they have not done that bad

fsloth10y ago

You do realize that book is ideologically motivated? There is a wave of neo-thatcherite-reagan-pinochet wannabes who want to replicate the agressive liberal policies of US and UK from 70-80:s in Scandinavia.

I'm not saying they are necessarily wrong, but that their goal is not to be 'right' in the scientific sense but to rather to drive policies which steepen the income inequality (which - as it is- is still quite low).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

13 comments · 5 top-level

Bud10y ago· 4 in thread

dmix10y ago

The companies that most struggle with red tape aren't mega-corps but the smaller companies who can't afford teams of lawyers to fight through them, or the lobbyists to implement them in their favour.

There has been very little significant deregulation in the USA in the past two decades outside of Wall St/big corps.

Context matters, except when discussing politics it seems...

albertop10y ago

1 more reply

Bud10y ago

You make a good point, and I hear you. I'd be interested in any specifics you have to offer that would target smaller businesses.

1 more reply

liamcardenasOP10y ago

I edited the main post. I meant that there was no private sector job growth.

When has lowering taxes and removing red tape not worked?

scarmig10y ago· 3 in thread

"Doesn't technically have a basic income" is doing a whole lot of work, here.

IanCal10y ago

> The key component of it is that it doesn't phase out with higher income

I have never seen a version proposed where everyone receives more money after tax. I thought the key component was that there is no complex means testing (simply phased out through income tax).

scarmig10y ago

The prototypical model would be a lump sum X, unconditionally granted to every adult citizen/resident on a regular basis, regardless of income.

liamcardenasOP10y ago

Very good point. However, I do not believe that the welfare cliff argument applies to job creation and entrepreneurship.

rmc10y ago· 1 in thread

For the record, the Telegraph is a right wing newspaper.

liamcardenasOP10y ago

This is true (although basic income is not exclusively a left-wing idea). But I was not trying to use his quote as evidence-- I was using it to explain the thesis of the book.

tim33310y ago

Does it matter if job growth is zero if the population is constant? If it remains positive for too long you'd have more jobs than population.

Cherry picking the data slightly the IMF has the GDPs per capita as

1964 Sweden 2758 USA 3423

2014 Sweden 58538 USA 54370

so they have not done that bad

fsloth10y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse