Ironic, nu-i asa?

De fiecare data cand cineva incearca sa argumenteze o crestere de taxe pentru a sustine un “stat social” Suedia este data ca exemplu. In cultura populara Suedia este vazuta ca tara unde taxele sunt mari si toti o duc bine.

Este normal atunci ca nimeni sa nu aminteasca ca Suedia a luata o decizie contrara tuturor tarilor din UE pentru a iesi di criza economica: a taiat taxele. Aveti aici un articol din 2010 care vorbeste despre succescul acestor masuri.

Acum la 2 ani dupa ce au fost luate aceste masuri rezultatele sunt mult mai clare si acum suntem siguri ca “experimentul” Suedez a fost un succes. In acelasi jurnal a aparut de curand un alt articol care face un bilant al acestor masuri.

Din articol,

“‘Everybody was told “stimulus, stimulus, stimulus”,’ he says — referring to the EU, IMF and the alphabet soup of agencies urging a global, debt-fuelled spending splurge. Borg, an economist, couldn’t work out how this would help. ‘It was surprising that Europe, given what we experienced in the 1970s and 80s with structural unemployment, believed that short-term Keynesianism could solve the problem.’ Non-economists, he says, ‘might have a tendency to fall for those kinds of messages’.

He continued to cut taxes and cut welfare-spending to pay for it; he even cut property taxes for the rich to lure entrepreneurs back to Sweden. The last bit was the most unpopular, but for Borg, economic recovery starts with entrepreneurs. If cutting taxes for the rich encouraged risk-taking, then it had to be done. ‘In most cases, the company would not have been created without the owner,’ he says. ‘There would be no Ikea without [Ingvar] Kamprad. We would not have Tetra-Pak without [Ruben] Rausing. They are probably the foremost entrepreneurs we have had in the last few decades, and both moved out of Sweden.’”

Nu pot sa mai spun decat: Deci se poate!!!.

Am mai scris acest subiect aici aici aici aici

17 thoughts on “Ironic, nu-i asa?

      1. @Stefan
        Avem si cateva exemple de oameni care au introdus reforme in interesul sectorului privat. Pe langa Suedia mai este si Polinia in 2000. Dar are dreptate, pozitia este politica si numai un tehnocrat poate sa spuna Da cand toti ii spun sa zica nu.

      2. exact, asa pe blog (sau in opozitie :)) toti stiu ce trebuie facut. Doar cativa au taria sa “practice what they preach”.

        Eu zic ca am si ei stiu asta, tocmai de aceea nu o sa ma propuna.🙂

  1. Boc visa sa fie reales. Cu reducerea de taxe ar fi avut sanse mai mari sa fie re-ales. Din 2009 s-ar fi simtit efectele.

  2. Fiecare ne compara cu cine il ajuta in argumentatie. Un stat cu taxe mari care nu reuseste sa faca nimic si populatia o duce prost inseamna ca nu e eficient, sunt scurgeri pe undeva, se pierd bani, nu produce nimic. Din cauza asta nu taie nimeni din taxe. Doar se fac scutiri sau se dau ajutoare punctual la investitorii mari…aia care sunt. Noi abia avem bani sa ne platim bugetarii si pensiile darmite sa reduci taxele in speranta ca in viitor (1-2-3 ani?) sa vina investitori sau sa se relanseze economia.

  3. So you believe that the fact that the Sweedish National Bank cut interest rates from 4.75 to 0.25 and devalued the sweedish krona had nothing to do with the recovery? It was all about the low taxes, right?

    1. @ddr
      No, as a regular reader you must know buy know how I feel about the restrictive monetary policy of 2008, 2009, 2010. As I always said fiscal shocks need to be accommodated by monetary policy. However, the main difference between Sweden (and to some extent US) and the rest of EU is fiscal policy. Monetary policy has been relaxed in all countries (except Romania🙂 ) but fiscal policy was applied differently. Today we see that those countries that chose to cut taxes fare better than those that chose otherwise.

      1. I do agree that cutting taxes is the right thing to do during financial turmoils, but unfortunately taxes are applied mainly to outputs (money, materials etc). If the input is declining, so will the output. Just cutting taxes in a depressed economy solves nothing. Accomodating shocks via both fiscal and monetary ussualy does the trick. Most of the advanced countries given as examples for lowering taxes as a way of boosting the economy have had series of monetary accomodation during the same periods (another example which comes to my mind is Canada in the 90’s).

  4. @ddr
    Taxes were cut in Sweden, and in my proposal, for labor also. Again, I said that for the fiscal stimulus to have any effect you need monetary policy to accommodate the shock.

  5. daianu spune ca va incerca sa demonstreze ca relaxarea fiscala e o mare prostie. Tot timpul a fost pentru mine imposibil sa inteleg cum pentru unii oameni, timpul trece absolut degeaba, ei nu inteleg nimic decit ce au avut in capul lor patrat de la inceput. Eu nu pot sa vad alt motiv pentru care e mai bine sa fie 99,(9) % din populatie saraca decit ca sa poata unii sa se laude ca au dat la saraci, ca i-au salvat pe saraci. Oricum, imi cer scuze ca l-am acuzat pe daianu ca s-a dat cu stinga, inteleg acum ca omul are niste vederi comuniste de-a dreptul, timpiti sunt aia care l-au bagat in guvernele de centru-dreapta.

  6. Nu este nimic ironic, este pur si simplu dezinformarea populatiei treaba asta cu Suedia si impozitele mari. Ea a fost “servita” si preluata mai departe. Eu am avut norocul sa am niste profesori care mi-au deschis ochii si mi-au aratat inca de prin 2006-2007 ca Suedia nu este deloc o tara cu impozite ridicate. De curand am vazut si un interviu cu fostul ministru al muncii, care vorbea despre socialism si reforma in educatia suedeza: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_Oeo0dGzUg
    Iti recomand site-uri/pagini precum Atlas Network, Heritage Foundation, Foundation for Economic Education sau Ludwig von Mises Institute.
    Oare chiar nimeni nu se intreaba de ce, pe masura ce deciziile de “austeritate” se inmultesc, lumea se afunda tot mai mult in criza? Si Romania urmeaza acelasi drum…

    1. @vladi
      Multumesc pentru sugestii. L-am urmarit pe “om” de pri 2008 si mi se pare genial si ca economist dar si ca politician. Nu este intamplator ca este foarte bine vazut in UK in interioul UE/ .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s