Hacker News Reader

Comment by rasur | Hacker News Reader

Leading the article with Britain under Thatcher as - presumably - a good example (of Government reform).. Not their brightest move to anyone British that grew up in the 80's and not in the "elite" classes. I was not compelled to read further, which is a pity, since the Economist can have some quite incisive articles sometimes.

But then again, I guess I'm not their target audience. I'll try and read it again, once I've stopped gnashing my teeth :/

View on HN

As a Swede that's seen the change of the country growing up I couldn't stand this propagandic piece of nonsense. This article is clearly a right-wing view on what makes a country prosper.

Crime is up mainly because economic differences are bigger now than ever before in my lifetime. My children are going to grow up in a country fixated on doing budget cuts in the government spending. Sick people are no-longer supported by the government and cancer patients are being forced to look for work. Sweden haven't had this many homeless people for decades. This is not a society with moral standards anymore.

Clearly skewed article.

You are right that crimes are up*, and theft seems to be one category that has increased[2]. Don't know whether it's because of economic differences though.

That sick people aren't supported by the government and that cancer patients are being forced to look for work is a bit of an exaggeration.

Also, I'd say the main point of the article isn't that Sweden is heaven. Rather, it's trying to highlight some things that has worked well in Sweden (and other Nordic countries), but the article also points out quite a few bad things.

Sweden has many challenges ahead, and some things are worse nowadays compared to 20-30 years ago. Increased crime is certainly one of them. But, there are also things that have improved considerably, our debt is lower now than it used to be, we can still afford a public -- which I'm dearly happy for.

I'd say the article is fairly balanced, but I'd prefer a more critical view on the privatisation of the public sector. Some things have turned out well, but many haven't. There is a Swedish expression for naive, 'blue eyed' -- that word sums up many of our recent privatisations.

[1] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Anm%C3%A4... [2]: http://www.brottsrummet.se/sv/brott-och-statistik

"Don't know whether it's because of economic differences though."

Correlation may not imply causation, but it's a pretty good hint at the directions in which you might want to look before you eliminate them as causes. Disparity does seem to associate closely with a lot of social issues, including property crime—closely enough that it's probably unwise to ignore it.

"our debt is lower now than it used to be"

Public debt that is. Private debt is higher than ever [0].

[0] http://www.ekonomifakta.se/sv/Fakta/Ekonomi/Hushallens-ekono...

The pathological hate for even a simple mention of Thatcher prevalent in Britain is really quite amusing. When Thatcher took over in Britain, a big, sclerotic, hugely inefficient state was fait accompli. She slaughtered some holy cows and introduced significant reforms (which is all she's take to task for in the article). Was the alternative to these harsh reforms a land of milk and honey? The country was on the brink of bankruptcy (given ~30 years of deeply incompetent governance), something had to give.

The fait accompli in the Nordics is that of a state that never stops growing in size. In Denmark, the political debate, even on the most nutty right-wing fringe, is limited to discussing limiting the rate of growth. The previous liberal prime minister actively boasted the high rate of growth in the public sector. This is a reflection on the voting population: A large majority of voters have a direct financial dependency on the state through employment or by being a benefits recipient.

the political debate, even on the most nutty right-wing fringe, is limited to discussing limiting the rate of growth. The previous liberal prime minister actively boasted the high rate of growth in the public sector. This is a reflection on the voting population: A large majority of voters have a direct financial dependency on the state through employment or by being a benefits recipient.

I had to check twice that you are referring to Denmark and not Greece. I guess the crucial difference is the amount of corruption and tax evasion.

Not sure the there is a parallel in more than coincidence, but when Ed I Koch took over mayorship of New York City in the late 70s, the city was in financial ruin, on the verge of bankruptcy and the (north american) liberal (progressive) Koch also took deep cuts to quite a few sacred cows.

These kinds of actions were one of the alternatives given the macroeconomic conditions --The UK had the whole post-Empire implosion psyche to deal with as well.

Magie wasn't voted into power over and over by 'the elite classes'. The fact is we had no credible alternative at the time. Michael Foot's Labour Party? Really?

We still have fundamentally the same economy she built, and it's served us well. Thank goodness New labour had the good sense and survival instincts to essentially leave it well alone. Apart from bankrupting us of course, but hey, plus ça change.

We still have fundamentally the same economy she built, and it's served us well.

Has it? The manufacturing sector in the UK has been pretty thoroughly gutted.

If the alternative to letting that sector fail was endless propping up in the pre-Thatcher sense, then yes, it's served Britain well. It's regrettable, but the alternative isn't too bright either.

Credible alternatives? Well, IIRC there was a Liberal party.. It's debatable that they would be considered credible, but an alternative they might have been, but then the voting system in place.. I leave it to the reader to decide if there is (or was) any actual chance of change..

Of course, you are right that the easily manipulated helped vote Magie (sic) in again, and I'm sure rousing support for a war never really helped the chances of the Conservatives in winning a second election (the Falklands "war" for those who do not remember the past). Nationalistic pride being what it is, of course.

The economy she built up and which is still in place.. I'm not sure who the "us" to whom you refer actually is, and I'm not convinced about the degree of "wellness" that it has provided, but perhaps I'm just being overly cynical?

Having read substantially past there, I would say "Don't bother." It is very much what Krugman would call "Very Serious Person"-speak.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com