The Swedish Model Versus the American Model

Apparently even Americans seem to prefer the Swedish income distribution over the US income maldistribution.
Apparently even Americans seem to prefer the Swedish income distribution over the US income maldistribution.

I grabbed this pic off of a forum, so it was hard to figure out what they were getting at. Apparently only 10% of Americans prefer the US model. Americans were apparently asked which model they preferred without labeling the models. The outrageous maldistribution of the US model was apparently only favored by 10% of Moronicans.
Fully 90% of Moronicans stated that they preferred either the Swedish model or the equal model. Of course, once you slap labels on the models, no doubt the survey changes, because equality is Communism and Swedish Communist-socialist. Votes for the US would automatically go up because Moronicans support everything about the US, even the most awful and disgusting parts of it, because, you know:
USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! We’re number 1! We’re number 1! We’re number 1! We’re number 1!
And all of that crap.
It’s amazing to look at that US model and how outrageously unfair it is. Incredible that Moronicans seem to actually prefer it that way. Think if our GDP was the same yet it was split up more fairly. Think how much less the rich would have and how much more the rest of us would have. What’s not to like?
This also shows the lie about “capitalism.” According to Moronican fools, the only way you can possibly have this thing called “capitalism” is if the pie ends up divided up like you see in the US model. In other words, if it’s not ridiculously unfair, it’s not capitalism. Wow, sounds like a good reason to junk capitalism right there.
But the Swedish economy is 93% in private hands. If you walk down the streets of Stockholm, you will see small businesses everywhere, stacked to the rafters with every product you could possibly imagine at reasonable prices. And business is bustling right along. Sounds downright capitalist to me.
The thing is, there is generally no pure socialism and no pure capitalism. Pure socialism may have existed at one point, but it’s gone from everywhere now, even Cuba and North Korea. And pure capitalism doesn’t exist anywhere either. Every state on Earth is some combination of capitalism and socialism, some sort of a mixed economy. The vast majority of Moronicans are too stupid to figure this out, and they think that “socialism” and “capitalism” are some sort of polar opposites that cannot co-exist, and that if you have one, you don’t have the other.
I would add that the US mass media, including the “liberal media,” is all owned by very rich people, in the top .1% of the US population. They all know full well what that US pie is shaped like, and they like it just fine that way. Either that or they want to make things even worse and give even more to their fat asses.
Part of the project of the US mass media and increasingly both political parties is to maintain that US pie in its grotesque division, and not to make it the tiniest bit fair. A tremendous amount of media effort goes into brainwashing Americans into thinking that that US pie tastes just as good as an apple one, baked by Mom herself, fresh out of the oven. Not that they would ever let you see that pie chart yourself. That would be showing their hand, no?

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

0 thoughts on “The Swedish Model Versus the American Model”

  1. Great graphic. This country is hopeless. We will never have a fair distribution of wealth. Obama has done absolutely nothing. He was the last great hope of getting more redistributive policies and he’s been nothing but an empty suit on the matter. It’s every man for himself at this point.

    1. lol Since when was obongo the last greate hope besides the marketing gimmick?
      I would say Ron paul, kucinich, perot, nader and the other guy from alaska were the only viable candidates, and legit hopes; all were taken out by the system. it was dissapointing how paul turned out, with him becoming a kool aid drinker in the end.

    2. Both the American & Swedish Models are unsustainable. Civilization was started off in Asia around 5000 years go. Westerners copied this and modified it. Asians & others are now copying it back. Its impossible for 6 billion people (projected to rise to 12 billion in 30 years) to have a Western type lifestyle without the entire planet & ecosystem being destroyed. Its a vicious cycle that was stared off in Asia long ago and is going to drag down the whole world soon.

    3. Obama is living in some fantasy world. In this fictional universe of his, he inherited the greatest economic crisis since the great depression and has had to deal with a hostile and filibuster-happy Republican Congress who is willing to let the economy go completely to hell in hopes to see Obama fail. And in this fictional narrative, Obama has had little/no support from whiny liberals who do little to help but are quick to bitch and whine and fulfill the stereotype of whiny liberals.

  2. Re. Social safety nets and wealth inequality;
    The rightwing mediasphere has done a bang-up job of training the conservative base to support policies that benefit a tiny elite.

  3. Dear Robert
    The Swedish pie looks a bit suspicious to me. In any case, we should distinguish between wealth and income. Wealth is your net worth at a given point in time, income is your revenue in a given period. Wealth is a stock and income is a flow. The poorest 10% often have have negative wealth because their debts exceed their assets. It doesn’t mean that they also have negative income. As a rule, wealth is much more unequally distributed than income. The reason is that a lot of income is obtained from labor, not from wealth.
    Let’s illustrate this. Peter has an income of 20,000 from his job and a net worth of only 1,000. Paul has 500,000 in business wealth, on which he receives a return of 4%. He also has personal wealth of 300,000. His total wealth is therefore 800,000. In addition to the return on his business, which is 20,000, Paul has a salary of 80,000, making for a total income of 100,000. This means that Paul’s wealth is 800 times greater than Peter’s, while his income is only 5 times greater.
    The distribution of income is more important than the distribution of. After all, business wealth is only a means of generating income. Personal wealth saves income. If you own a car, you don’t have to pay for transportation. If you own a house, you don’t have to pay for rent.
    Regards. James

  4. Has anyone ever explored the idea that the Swedish system works so well in Sweden because the Swedes are such a calm, smart, open minded sensible people? I think there is something to the collective character particular to the Swedes,( especially, their collective sense of fairness), affecting the correct implementation of the system…. I mean statistics do show they have one of the worlds lowest crime rates, don’t they?

    1. Yes, they probably do have one of the world’s lowest crime rates. But again, maybe this is BECAUSE they have an economic model that leads to an equitable society.

      1. You have a good point, but I believe that it works both ways, Boo. I don’t see any reason to dismiss off hand the fact that a population with a historical record of low crime rates, and general peacefulness, could have a causation effect on a successful social system. Is it that hard to believe that the Swede’s have wholly agreed to committing to an equitable system AND that just about each and every one of them are doing their own part for the sake of some social justice, because social justice is so commonly important to them?

    1. Look man, I am going to have to ban you. You can’t promote rightwing economics on here. This is a socialist blog and you need to be down with some form of socialism – social liberalism, social democracy or even further Left than that. If you are not, then you need to be quiet about your economic views. Which you can’t seem to do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.