Social Democrat Key Issues: On The Environment

Regarding environmental investment and challenges, the (S) in their original decree are as inconspicuous as ever:

“ To meet the environmental challenges of tomorrow, modernisation of infrastructure, housing and energy system is necessary. We therefore want to make efforts in environmental vehicles, research in energy and green infrastructure. We suggest that the ROT tax deduction is expanded to include, for example, renovations of the ‘Million program’ housing areas and environmental/climate renovations. This creates jobs today and strengthens the economy for the future. “

How does the government make changes to the energy systems in a country? They do have something of an opportunity to take a political lead regarding clear-cut strategies for moving the Swedish society in the green direction (I’m thinking in lines of investment support for property developers, heavy subsidies on environmentally sound energy systems as several countries have offered to the public for solar water heaters (amongst other smart solutions), detailing coming and committed infrastructure projects in line with this strategy (I heard something about high-speed trains which I think I must get back to in a separate post) etc etc)

And regarding renovations to the ‘Million program’ housing; hasn’t that been something of a far-fetched dream ever since those communities were built? I thought the sheer cost of doing any major upgrade to those old concrete slabs had kept politicians quiet for the last decade. Nice to hear someone not ignoring the apparent screaming need for such renovations, but the question about the attached cost remains.

Maybe the (S) path to a greener Sweden will be shown as the election campaign moves forward, it could certainly become an interesting part of the race.

Even More on Social Democrat Key Issue #1: Jobs and Economy

Regarding R&D and Some Answers to Previously Raised Questions

“ Research and education are important for a country like Sweden, where knowledge, innovation and creativity form the core drive for growth and competitiveness.  Nothing is as important to enabling personal growth and reaching our goals as education. It is also the best protection against unemployment. We suggest 100,000 new jobs and students.

We want to invest in the welfare jobs and raise the number of employees in schools and the healthcare system. We want to create jobs by increasing investments in infrastructure and by building more housing, foremost rental properties. “

Once again (S) wants to up the public spend to kill unemployment. An average salary of SEK20,000-30,000 per month would yield a maximum total spend of SEK20 -30 billion to ‘create’ these jobs.

Regarding education I don’t really understand what is meant by ‘increasing the number of students accepted to universities and other education’. I am not so sure they will even get more students to go to uni – do students actually in general get rejected from higher education due to lack of state funding? My perception is rather that many seats are empty in numerous programs.

If the idea is instead to accept more people into their preferred university program, I don’t think we will see a net gain for the Swedish economy. What we will see, however, is further inflation of the value of going to uni it all, which in the end might lead to the opposite of the intended effect due to the total lack of value perceived in investing time and money in studying. This is already a problem in Sweden but is usually hidden by the moral leftist view that all income gaps are evil. I will spend a coming post about those gaps and what the differences between a society with and one without them are.

I think building new housing is a good idea. There is a lack of housing in several places in Sweden, larger cities foremost, and the only way to rectify the sick rental market is by building more housing. The problem is how to make this happen. I wonder if the new rental apartments will be let at market rents or at the capped state rent – I have no wish to vote on a party that plan on using taxpayer money to subsidise the rent of those few lucky enough to get an apartment, but as it stands with current development projects the newly built apartments of late have been subject to a less stringent regulation on rents. Maybe there is a path acceptable to the red-green coalition where also the property developers see some value in building more housing, I fear that path is too narrow and winding to enable a broad expansion of apartments available to the average Swede, immigrant, guest-worker or teenager looking for his/her first flat in any of the larger cities, but I would love to stand corrected.

More on Social Democrat Key Issue #1: Jobs and Economy

The Social Democrat message continues:

” We want to take responsibility for the economy, create more jobs and strengthen growth. It involves investments in the transition to the green economy, education, infrastructure and a competitive business climate. ”

Well, politics cannot create jobs except in the public sector or by investing in infrastructure and other state funded projects that create jobs indirectly. The problem with public sector jobs is that they are paid for by the economy rather than contributing to it.  So in effect, politicians cannot create what the debate really should be about; the net-benefit-jobs. What politicians can do, is to create the circumstances necessary for jobs to be created by the economy. There is no way around this basic rule if you wish to grow in a global capitalistic system.

The above is what is important to keep in mind when discussing expanding the public sector; the old sarcastic saying ’The problem with socialism is that sooner or later someone else’s money runs out’ is unfortunately valid for an expanding public sector. Just as much as an ever-growing world economy depends on resources being infinite (even though Earth is finite), an ever-growing public sector depends on tax income being infinite (through economic growth), causing a downward spiral locking itself into a catch 22 where efforts to stimulate the economy only deplete it further. Make no mistake, welfare jobs are possible only by tax income from the private sector (and by export surplus) or publicly owned export industry profits being big enough to support them.

So the question remains; how exactly does the Social Democratic party suggest those jobs can be created and if they are going to take the well beaten socialistic path of expanding the public sector, how will they fund it?

The above statement is followed by

“ We want to push for more and growing companies by giving entrepreneurs better [social] security, access to venture capital and lower taxes for companies that hire people. “

My initial question is How? One way would be to expand the state contribution of venture capital through mechanisms like Fouriertransform that was set up in 2008 to support the Swedish vehicle industry. Executed in a responsible and profitable way such a solution sounds fairly sound. But the question is yet again how to approach the issue of financing. The original bucket of money allocated by the government in 2008 was SEK 3 billion. To date Fouriertransform has made five investments totalling SEK 251,745,000 and are evaluating 60 more applications. This type of aimed capital support has the potential of being a well-balanced approach to supporting the development of Swedish up-starts, I look forward to monitoring the outcomes.

I applaud the suggestion that companies that employ should get a reduction in tax, but I do not think such an approach will work better than a general and ideological view that it should be less costly to run a business and employ staff in Sweden. The cost of employing in an international comparison is horrendously high, and any suggestion about reducing employment costs while disregarding this core fact will be insufficient.

Social Democrat Key Issue #1: Jobs and Economy

I promised yesterday to get back to the Social Democratic Party’s key issues message to the electorate, so here we go with the first set of statements under the header ‘Jobs and Economy’:

” [Creating]More jobs is the most important issue for the Swedish economy, growth and development. We want to break the current developments, where surplus is turned into deficit, where tax cuts are funded by state loans and [economic] growth slows; all while income gaps and unemployment rates remain. “

I think most of the Swedish population, politicians in particular, agree about the benefits of more people working. For one, it is a corner-stone of capitalism and whether Lars Ohly want’s it or not, that’s a reality for Sweden and its inhabitants.

This poorly camouflaged attempt at a shot at the Alliance – by stating that current developments are contradictory to a healthy economic governance and creation of jobs – doesn’t come across as credible. On the other hand, who could have timed the GFC better, for the opposition’s munition gathering for these sweeping statements about the performance of the current administration?

The opposition seems to build a good measure of their rhetoric on the Alliance’s failure to govern. But just how bad are the numbers really?

Let’s have a look at the unemployment rate and the economy. The following chart shows the Central Bureau of Statistics (Statistiska Centralbyrån) data for the unemployment rate from 2001 to 2010, and the GDP for the same period:

GDP Growth Sweden 2001-2010

It is of some interest to note that unemployment rose by 2% during the peak of an economic cycle midway through a second consecutive four-year term led by the Social Democrats, i.e. as GDP increased, so did the unemployment rate. It’s possible that mitigating effects of the GDP increase is shown in the decreased unemployment rate from 2006 (when as a coincidence the Alliance came to power), after all, some lag would be expected. The unemployment rate kept declining from the 2006 election won by the Moderate-lead Alliance until the GFC hit in mid-late 2008.

So, yes, unemployment is at a ten-year high. As a comment to Ibrahim Baylan’s (S) comment about the outcome of Alliance politics in his open letter To All Who Dwell On The Future,  SCB names one of the (if not the) most important contributions to the relatively slow recovery of Swedish GDP growth – and thereby indirectly industry employment – as the Swedish export product mix, giving Sweden a natural lag to other economies as demand after a crisis such as the GFC first rise for consumption products and later for the resource based industries and economies, such as the Swedish one.

Should we thus conclude that the opposition is better suited than the Alliance to stimulate real job growth the coming years, as the effects of the GFC wears off? I, to name one, think not.

The Social Democratic Party Presents Key Issues

The Social Democratic party has released its view on the three most important issues facing Sweden at the moment; and compiled them into the initial message to the 2010 electorate. The message includes the classic triad of ’Core Issues’ (and the ‘facts’ to support them), indications on intended ’Solutions’ to the issues and ‘Sweeping Statements About the Rival Block’s Inability’ to do anything about these problems during their current four-year mandate.

So, without further ado, find in the coming few posts the statements clause by clause (unofficially translated by yours truly, so please refer to the original statement for correct wording in Swedish) of the three episodes of the triad, and some thoughts that came to mind as I was reading them.

First up, an introductory warm-up statement:

” The job issue is our number one priority. More jobs brings a strong economy and the possibility to develop schools and the healthcare system while simultaneously improving people’s power to control their own lives. “

I find it hard to believe anyone take this type of statement seriously when it comes from the Left field. Or rather, is there a shadow of a doubt as to how the job-creation will come about? I, for one, expect the classic expansion of the public sector, thereby upping the state spend as the general solution. If anything, the statement seems copied straight from a liberal policy and implementing it through Socialistic policies sounds like increased taxes to fund higher public spend to me.

About Hägglund’s Approach To Healthcare Efficiency

One of the most long-lived, frustrating and seemingly impossible political issues during the last 30 odd years, has been the queues people face when seeking healthcare in the Swedish healthcare system.

There have been numerous attempts at changing the situation, make hospitals more effective and get more people treated. But improvement has been utterly absent. Until now?

SvD yesterday published a little reflection headed En krona från Hägglund är värd 46 gånger mer (in Swedish), where the last 30 years of resource allocation to care centres performing less effectively than its peers as the general Socialistic approach, is compared to the last four years of rewarding centres that achieve.

The hard fact and numbers from the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs (Socialdepartementet) are truly striking:

• Social Democratic Government (2000-2006) spending on programs designed to reduce the queues, from year 2000 only, total to SEK46 billion. The effect? More or less none. 
• Enter Göran Hägglund, a swift change of approach from nurturing the underachieving health providers by allocating more money - to rewarding them for improving; and queues are down. He spent SEK1 billion to achieve it. In four years.

His approach is focused on incentives to perform. Given such incentives, 90% (18/20) of the County Councils (Landsting) managed to treat 90% of care-seekers within regulated timeframes. This is an improvement of 70-80%.

It is amazing what the right incentives can do. I remember a story told to me by a nurse who had worked for a hospital where new leadership had made every staff member work overtime for a few weeks to work off the backlog (the queue). Since the hospital queue wasn’t systemically growing over time, the result was that their queue disappeared and they kept treating patients without the queues so prevalent throughout the Swedish healthcare system.

Effectiveness is what I keep hearing the healthcare system needs, not more cash. I think we might just have seen how change can come about, way to go Göran.

Political Polarisation 2006 vs 2010

It is election year in Sweden this year of 2010. Last time, back in 2006 was the first time the Swedish electorate saw a clear polarisation of the seven largest political parties into the three-party leftist coalition (S,V,MP) and the more liberal four-party ‘Alliance For Sweden’ (recently renamed ‘The Alliance’ for the 2010 election) (M,Fp,C,Kd). There wasn’t that much debate around this shift of Swedish politics into a more or less two-party democracy (spiced up by a handful of small parties such as Piratpartiet (PP) and Sverigedemokraterna (SD)), but then again Swedish politics seldom stir up that much controversy and rarely has it caused any wide-spread emotions amongst the general population.

Sweden is too safe, and the welfare state is too comfortable, for the electorate to be seriously impacted by the ‘wrong’ crew running the show. And who can blame them? No political alternative that is likely to win enough seats will cause any dramatic change to how Sweden is run, even if the commentators of political articles in the major news media tend to think a win for the other side will mean instant doom and destruction of the Swedish way of life. I will get back to that phenomenon later.

The only real problem I see with the polarisation of the political alternatives presented to the electorate is that they are so similar. To the Swedish voter they come across as opposites but if you glance across their political manifestos and especially if compare them on an international level, they are pretty much the same. Maybe this is a reflection of the Swedish core values, or the ‘Folksjal’ but in the longer perspective a little bell is ringing in my ear warning of too much coherence in the political system. It has, after all, been known to cause substantial damage to peoples and nations to our east and south throughout history.

Thoughts On The Sydney Dating Culture

I resently was asked by a friend who runs the blog urbandetective.blogspot.com to guest-post some reflections on the Sydney dating scene from a guy’s perspective. Happy to oblige I sat down to ponder my views a few years into the Sydney scene. This is what came out of it:

Just what is it in us (me) that is driving us to fuel this never-ending game of love and it’s associates; sex, dating, f-buddies and the like?

I guess an obvious answer can be found in Darwinian literature, but we sure endure a lot of pain hunting for the benefits Love supposedly brings, bravely taking on all the fuss and gossip and tears and anguish and heartbreaks and rejection that usually follow in the tracks of the able dater/dateress. All for what? The possibility of finding ‘The One’? Or at the very least some casual appreciation of our personality or looks, some external stimuli for our narcissist selves?

For quite some time now (counted in years) I have found myself watching the socialite orgy I dwell in and have been thrilled, disgusted, horny and bored, usually all at the same time. I have also loved, rejected and intrigued people around me, and been equally so by them. In hindsight, and with happiness as my primary goal in life, I can but acknowledge that the bulk of my sadness, pain and worries have stemmed from this quest for Love, cooked up by myself and a girl I have fallen for, with all of the above mentioned agonies as ingredients. It’s like I’m becoming a master-chef of agony, but maybe I just need to find better recipes, or maybe different ingredients.

To tell the truth, I can’t bring myself to care much about the game out there, even though I usually fail at not getting pulled in by it. I don’t like one-night stands (don’t mind a 12-night-stand though), I am more likely to laugh at a girl who’s playing hard to get than to get intrigued (occasional fail here too), and I love buying someone a drink – but my reason for doing so has never been to get into her pants (that goes for all you guys who I’ve bought drinks too). I have this idea that directing my mindset the other way might save me from an eternal imprisonment in the short-term dating game, and seriously; have anyone ever thought they would find true love at a nightclub in the Cross? Not really, no.

I have an issue with dating cultures like the one in our beloved city, which is: when I love, I love fully. This is somewhat a fundamental opposite to parallel dating, ‘keeping doors open’, holding back a little to see if anyone else might have a better offer than the current aficionado, or playing games to keep the other party chasing. It feels like this sort of behaviour is a fundamental part of the Sydney dating scene. What is this thing about constantly keeping a lookout for something else? Maybe we have become so good at finding (or creating?) those Fatal Flaws in people that we manage to keep ourselves on a never-ending quest for that perfect match, like a holy grail we put on a pedestal and make damn sure we can’t reach.

My questions to you, dear fellow readers of this blog, are these: Do Sydney ladies have males chasing them without having the ability or the will to ever be truly caught (with subsequent potential surrender)? (see Elephant Theory) And correspondingly, have Sydney gentlemen forgotten that the chase isn’t supposed to be the goal, the prize is? (Someone should write a piece on ‘chase-junkies’ both the male and female variant).

I must admit that I love being chased myself—my ego thrives on it—but is it only my experience (as a life-long serial monogamist), that Love (the real deal) always comes with a total lack of any chasing, gaming or maintaining of other options? It just stares you in the face and is there, no work needed, no chase necessary, the grass seems utterly green where you’re standing and it straight up disarms you, doesn’t it? How do you game someone you’re in love with? And by being in love I mean that place where you can’t get enough of someone and catch yourself walking down the street with a massive smile on your face for no other reason than the scent of her hair being stuck in your memory from the moment you kissed her goodbye this morning. When you’re there, there really is no reason to run, is there? Problem is, we all seem to be running so fast we fail to stop long enough and see those moments that would take us there. And when you do find such a moment in the constant blur of the social scene, I’m afraid the object of your desire is likely to be long gone from it, chasing the next one.

For now, I’ll have to rely on coincidence to put me in my next moment of disarming love, it’s worked well for me so far and I am sure it will again, but someone should suggest a better solution. Meanwhile, it’s Friday; the game is on; see you in the blur, maybe we’ll meet in one of those moments, or for a shag.

The scary flu

There sure is a scare pandemic going on in parallel to the spread of the Swine flu itself. Governments make crisis plans, vaccine is being ordered for entire populations and schools are closed in order to fight back this quite scary strain of flu. This is all well from a public health point of view but I can’t help thinking, how ever cynical it might sound, that a few hundred deaths here and a few hundred deaths there, isn’t really that scary when you compare it to some of the other agents responsible for human demise.

As an example take the U.S. statistics from The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) who reports the current toll and spread of the H1N1 and other strains of the flu (amongst other things). Check this out for proper reference:

http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/ for the Swine flu, and

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm for the more common variants.

To sum those two reports up: Swine flu 593 – Regular flu 13000.

The Swine flu is scary and faster and likely to mutate into something worse than today but I still can’t help wondering if the global scare might be a bit on the wild side.