• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sweden: Counter-Example to Conservative Propaganda

Winston said:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...x-plan-delivers-an-economic-miracle-in-sweden




Due to smart policy, Sweden is turning into an economic powerhouse. They also run a budget surplus. That should get Rand Paul's attention. Wait a minute, Conservatives told me that tax cuts produce growth? Could it be that they were wrong about economics?

800x-1.png


Over the past 20 years, Sweden averaged a higher GDP growth rate than the United States. But, the U.S. has been bogged down by bad policy decisions and stubborn refusals to legislate on behalf of the middle class and working classes. Imagine if the United States would have never passed the Bush Tax Cuts. How much healthier would our economy be right now?



Last year Sweden topped 4% growth. So, if Sweden is getting 3-4% growth with high taxes and a huge welfare state, that is proof positive, that high taxes and a huge welfare state doesn't strangle economic growth or activity.. this is a delusion conservatives make painfully clear they believe. That delusion is patently false. High taxes and a robust welfare state, if they do not directly cause BOOMING economic times, they certainly don't impede growth. Trump would nut himself to produce 4% GDP growth in the United States. It looks like the template is high taxes, a robust welfare state, and wealth redistribution. After the GOP sees the results in Sweden, I'm sure we can expect the GOP and Trump to get on board with a Nordic model.



Kindly dispose of the "homogenous population" talking point in the garbage, on your way out. Sweden took in record numbers of refugees. Where's your ideology conservatives? Sliced up and full of holes like Swiss Cheese.
Click to expand...

So now post links to the economic status of all the other nations with similar tax rates and social programs and lets see if Sweden is an anomaly or if this applies to all nations. If your assertion is true, then you should be able to show that every country that has the same kind of tax structure and social programs will have similar results. The fact that this article singles out Sweden without mentioning any other nations tells me that there probably isn't going to be whole of countries with similar results. If my theory is true, then the reasons for Sweden's prosperity are going to be found elsewhere.
 
Cary on the good fight Winston.

Winston said:
high taxes and wealth distribution .
Click to expand...
I do have a minor critique.

higher taxes, not "high" taxes.
greater wealth distribution (or more equal/fair, but greater suffices IMO and avoids those trigger words)

"high taxes" is subjective. Higher, is not. Furthermore, we cold double our taxes, and still be LOWER than Sweden...but you'd call that "high"? No need. And I don't think any of us feel we need to double them. Hell, even a modest increase and tackling cap gains over a certain amount, may even be enough! "High" is also an unnecessary negative.

Similar but less important with wealth distribution...its' already distributed by a combination of government, unions, and individuals, we're really just talking about shifting that some, not introducing some new liberal "wealth distribution" scheme (since it's already occurring).
 
faithful_servant said:
So now post links to the economic status of all the other nations with similar tax rates and social programs and lets see if Sweden is an anomaly or if this applies to all nations. If your assertion is true, then you should be able to show that every country that has the same kind of tax structure and social programs will have similar results. The fact that this article singles out Sweden without mentioning any other nations tells me that there probably isn't going to be whole of countries with similar results. If my theory is true, then the reasons for Sweden's prosperity are going to be found elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Here's a chart from the OECD:

https://data.oecd.org/gdp/gross-domestic-product-gdp.htm#indicator-chart

15 countries above the OECD average have universal healthcare.

the U.S. is getting beat by 4, Luxembourg, Ireland, Switzerland, and Norway. And that's just beat by total GDP per capita. That hardly reflects the general well being of the countries citizens. It just shows how much of an economic powerhouse they are. But, all 4 of the countries beating the U.S. have universal healthcare. Norway has had socialized medicine since 1914, and it has socialized education, and all people get paid maternity/paternity leave and government paid vacation days. And I believe they are looking into implementing a universal minimum income. All people get a check by virtue of existence.

Going down the list all the countries doing above average provide a range of socialized programs to their citizens.

edit: 15...

Luxembourg, Ireland, Switzerland, Norway, Netherlands, Iceland, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Austrailia, Belgium, Canada, Finland, U.K.
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
Cary on the good fight Winston.


I do have a minor critique.

higher taxes, not "high" taxes.
greater wealth distribution (or more equal/fair, but greater suffices IMO and avoids those trigger words)

"high taxes" is subjective. Higher, is not. Furthermore, we cold double our taxes, and still be LOWER than Sweden...but you'd call that "high"? No need. And I don't think any of us feel we need to double them. Hell, even a modest increase and tackling cap gains over a certain amount, may even be enough! "High" is also an unnecessary negative.

Similar but less important with wealth distribution...its' already distributed by a combination of government, unions, and individuals, we're really just talking about shifting that some, not introducing some new liberal "wealth distribution" scheme (since it's already occurring).
Click to expand...

Thanks Mach, it's easy when conservative economics is based on fear mongering and cherry picking data.
 
Winston said:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...x-plan-delivers-an-economic-miracle-in-sweden




Due to smart policy, Sweden is turning into an economic powerhouse. They also run a budget surplus. That should get Rand Paul's attention. Wait a minute, Conservatives told me that tax cuts produce growth? Could it be that they were wrong about economics?

800x-1.png


Over the past 20 years, Sweden averaged a higher GDP growth rate than the United States. But, the U.S. has been bogged down by bad policy decisions and stubborn refusals to legislate on behalf of the middle class and working classes. Imagine if the United States would have never passed the Bush Tax Cuts. How much healthier would our economy be right now?



Last year Sweden topped 4% growth. So, if Sweden is getting 3-4% growth with high taxes and a huge welfare state, that is proof positive, that high taxes and a huge welfare state doesn't strangle economic growth or activity.. this is a delusion conservatives make painfully clear they believe. That delusion is patently false. High taxes and a robust welfare state, if they do not directly cause BOOMING economic times, they certainly don't impede growth. Trump would nut himself to produce 4% GDP growth in the United States. It looks like the template is high taxes, a robust welfare state, and wealth redistribution. After the GOP sees the results in Sweden, I'm sure we can expect the GOP and Trump to get on board with a Nordic model.



Kindly dispose of the "homogenous population" talking point in the garbage, on your way out. Sweden took in record numbers of refugees. Where's your ideology conservatives? Sliced up and full of holes like Swiss Cheese.
Click to expand...

Also, this economy is the result of the previous 8 years of tax cuts by more conservative leadership. Now they are reaping the benefits of those tax cuts and claiming that they are the ones responsible (kind of like how WJC claimed responsibility for the economy that Reagan handed him). Basically, you had long term economy building policies in place that had a cost over the relative short term and endd up creating a string economy, then you had a gov't come along and start taxing the crap out of that economy. I believe that when the impact of sucking all this capital out of the economy comes to full fruition, we will see a substantial economic downturn for Sweden.
 
faithful_servant said:
Also, this economy is the result of the previous 8 years of tax cuts by more conservative leadership. Now they are reaping the benefits of those tax cuts and claiming that they are the ones responsible (kind of like how WJC claimed responsibility for the economy that Reagan handed him). Basically, you had long term economy building policies in place that had a cost over the relative short term and endd up creating a string economy, then you had a gov't come along and start taxing the crap out of that economy. I believe that when the impact of sucking all this capital out of the economy comes to full fruition, we will see a substantial economic downturn for Sweden.
Click to expand...

So, you're basically just saying the top economic advisors to Sweden are wrong and American conservatives are right, gotcha.
 
Winston said:
Here's a chart from the OECD:

https://data.oecd.org/gdp/gross-domestic-product-gdp.htm#indicator-chart

15 countries above the OECD average have universal healthcare.

the U.S. is getting beat by 4, Luxembourg, Ireland, Switzerland, and Norway. And that's just beat by total GDP per capita. That hardly reflects the general well being of the countries citizens. It just shows how much of an economic powerhouse they are. But, all 4 of the countries beating the U.S. have universal healthcare. Norway has had socialized medicine since 1914, and it has socialized education, and all people get paid maternity/paternity leave and government paid vacation days. And I believe they are looking into implementing a universal minimum income. All people get a check by virtue of existence.

Going down the list all the countries doing above average provide a range of socialized programs to their citizens.

edit: 15...

Luxembourg, Ireland, Switzerland, Norway, Netherlands, Iceland, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Austrailia, Belgium, Canada, Finland, U.K.
Click to expand...

Correlation does not equal causation.

If your assertion is true, then show us the cause and effect. Show us HOW UHC is creating a high OECD. Not theories or ideas, but cold, hard facts, please.
 
Winston said:
So, you're basically just saying the top economic advisors to Sweden are wrong and American conservatives are right, gotcha.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that if you spend 10 years piling up a bunch of money and then start spending that pile, of course things are going to look good - until the pile runs out.
 
faithful_servant said:
I believe that when the impact of sucking all this capital out of the economy comes to full fruition, we will see a substantial economic downturn for Sweden.
Click to expand...
I don't want to debate the entire thing, but just that one concept I'm curious about.

Do you believe that when a government like Sweden taxes at let's say, average 50%, that this money is being removed from the economy?
I ask because the general economic discussions I've seen on these types of things argue that:
The money is not removed from the economy at all. It's removed from everyone, and likely far more in quantity from the ultra-rich/successful corporations. It is then essentially immediately re-invested back into the economy in a much more diverse way, in ideally more "productive" ways than it would have been invested by those it was removed from.

So everyone pays higher taxes, but they aren't necessarily "paying more" in the middle class, because remember they don't have to pay for health care independently, nor do they have to pay for college, or a good chunk of retirement care, or pre-school from what I recall...and no doubt a ton of other labor related benefits that we do not enjoy in the U.S.

Is that money removed from the economy?
And are you suggesting that healthcare and education are bad places to invest in terms of helping grow a modern economy?


Right now, if we increased taxes on the rich by X dollar amount, and reduce them by X dollar amount on the 99.5%, all that money the 99.5% now has that is no longer taxed, would be spent back into the economy, in a diverse way (on basically most goods/services across the board I assume). How would it have been spent by the top 0.5%? Investing it in their portfolio of stocks/bonds, with a chunk of it going to Wall Street? Do you really think that's a better multiplier? I don't, it looks *obviously* to be a bad play IMO.
 
faithful_servant said:
Correlation does not equal causation.

If your assertion is true, then show us the cause and effect. Show us HOW UHC is creating a high OECD. Not theories or ideas, but cold, hard facts, please.
Click to expand...

You want me to find economic data from the 1910s and juxtapose growth rates with post-UHC in Norway, without controlling for variables? Come on man, either you're honest enough to search through data out there yourself, to see that higher taxes does not constrain economic activity like the Sean Hannity's of the world will tell you, or you don't care about discovering anything that doesn't tell you supply side econommics is the holy grail of economic activity.. the simple truth is both theories "work" Keynesian and Austrian economics both "work". One is just more compassionate then the other. So, the point is that you can hit 4% growth with higher taxes, which refutes conservative arguments about taxing as just fear mongering.
 
Fenton said:
The myth of Scandanavian Socialism..
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mercur.../articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link Fenton. Enlightening as to the Nordic Model. Per the article-Sweden's (Scandinavian) system is NOT democratic socialism. Seems to be a mixture of strong capitalism (free market) with generous social safety nets and universal healthcare. Also, voucher system for education.
A MIXTURE similar to the USA in many ways. However, the size of the population(around 10 million in 2016) compared to the USA (321 million in 2016) makes the costs of the social programs dramatically less. This is not comparable. IE: It is a whole lot easier to fund these programs for 10 million than 321 million.
Interesting nonetheless!
 
Winston said:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...x-plan-delivers-an-economic-miracle-in-sweden




Due to smart policy, Sweden is turning into an economic powerhouse. They also run a budget surplus. That should get Rand Paul's attention. Wait a minute, Conservatives told me that tax cuts produce growth? Could it be that they were wrong about economics?

800x-1.png


Over the past 20 years, Sweden averaged a higher GDP growth rate than the United States. But, the U.S. has been bogged down by bad policy decisions and stubborn refusals to legislate on behalf of the middle class and working classes. Imagine if the United States would have never passed the Bush Tax Cuts. How much healthier would our economy be right now?



Last year Sweden topped 4% growth. So, if Sweden is getting 3-4% growth with high taxes and a huge welfare state, that is proof positive, that high taxes and a huge welfare state doesn't strangle economic growth or activity.. this is a delusion conservatives make painfully clear they believe. That delusion is patently false. High taxes and a robust welfare state, if they do not directly cause BOOMING economic times, they certainly don't impede growth. Trump would nut himself to produce 4% GDP growth in the United States. It looks like the template is high taxes, a robust welfare state, and wealth redistribution. After the GOP sees the results in Sweden, I'm sure we can expect the GOP and Trump to get on board with a Nordic model.



Kindly dispose of the "homogenous population" talking point in the garbage, on your way out. Sweden took in record numbers of refugees. Where's your ideology conservatives? Sliced up and full of holes like Swiss Cheese.
Click to expand...

That the so-called conservatives have not yet figured out that "trickle-down" does not work is one of the most baffling things I have yet to witness. It became clear to me that the TD theory was hogwash back in the 90's, and that was during a boom. That they still hold onto that myth here in the 20-teens, after experiencing the worst of its terrible effects, first hand over the past 12 years, is freaking amazing.
 
Mach said:
I don't want to debate the entire thing, but just that one concept I'm curious about.

Do you believe that when a government like Sweden taxes at let's say, average 50%, that this money is being removed from the economy?
I ask because the general economic discussions I've seen on these types of things argue that:
The money is not removed from the economy at all. It's removed from everyone, and likely far more in quantity from the ultra-rich/successful corporations. It is then essentially immediately re-invested back into the economy in a much more diverse way, in ideally more "productive" ways than it would have been invested by those it was removed from.

So everyone pays higher taxes, but they aren't necessarily "paying more" in the middle class, because remember they don't have to pay for health care independently, nor do they have to pay for college, or a good chunk of retirement care, or pre-school from what I recall...and no doubt a ton of other labor related benefits that we do not enjoy in the U.S.

Is that money removed from the economy?
And are you suggesting that healthcare and education are bad places to invest in terms of helping grow a modern economy?


Right now, if we increased taxes on the rich by X dollar amount, and reduce them by X dollar amount on the 99.5%, all that money the 99.5% now has that is no longer taxed, would be spent back into the economy, in a diverse way (on basically most goods/services across the board I assume). How would it have been spent by the top 0.5%? Investing it in their portfolio of stocks/bonds, with a chunk of it going to Wall Street? Do you really think that's a better multiplier? I don't, it looks *obviously* to be a bad play IMO.
Click to expand...

It's taking gas out of the gas tank and putting it into the radiator. Yes, it still exists, the car still has it, it still cools the engine, but eventually that car is going to run out of gas, because there's no fuel. The previous conservative leadership spent 8 years filling that tank and now the current leadership is siphoning it off. Yes, there is still fuel in the tank and the car is running well, but that can only last so long.

As for all the strawmen you put up... I never said one word about ANYTHING you threw out there, so please go argue with yourself someplace else.
 
faithful_servant said:
Correlation does not equal causation.

If your assertion is true, then show us the cause and effect. Show us HOW UHC is creating a high OECD. Not theories or ideas, but cold, hard facts, please.
Click to expand...

When Thailand recently adapted a system of Universal Healthcare, it immediately got rid of its lowest poverty rate. It also dramatically improved its public health by almost every metric- a double bonus.

Here are some reasons why:

What Thailand can teach the world about universal healthcare | Health revolution | The Guardian
 
calamity said:
That the so-called conservatives have not yet figured out that "trickle-down" does not work is one of the most baffling things I have yet to witness. It became clear to me that the TD theory was hogwash back in the 90's. That they still hold onto that myth here in the 20-teens is freaking amazing.
Click to expand...

pride is a bitch.
 
You tell me to bring cold hard facts here:

faithful_servant said:
Correlation does not equal causation.

If your assertion is true, then show us the cause and effect. Show us HOW UHC is creating a high OECD. Not theories or ideas, but cold, hard facts, please.
Click to expand...

And then defend your position with an automobile analogy.


faithful_servant said:
It's taking gas out of the gas tank and putting it into the radiator. Yes, it still exists, the car still has it, it still cools the engine, but eventually that car is going to run out of gas, because there's no fuel. The previous conservative leadership spent 8 years filling that tank and now the current leadership is siphoning it off. Yes, there is still fuel in the tank and the car is running well, but that can only last so long.

As for all the strawmen you put up... I never said one word about ANYTHING you threw out there, so please go argue with yourself someplace else.
Click to expand...
 
faithful_servant said:
It's taking gas out of the gas tank and putting it into the radiator. Yes, it still exists, the car still has it, it still cools the engine, but eventually that car is going to run out of gas, because there's no fuel.
Click to expand...
Bad analogy (good example but not relevant).
Both are engines connected to the drive train (whatever that is). The question is whether or not one is better to be fueling than the other as related to economic growth.

As for all the strawmen you put up... I never said one word about ANYTHING you threw out there, so please go argue with yourself someplace else.
Click to expand...
I specifically am referring to what I quoted from you:
I believe that when the impact of sucking all this capital out of the economy comes to full fruition, we will see a substantial economic downturn for Sweden.
Click to expand...

Why are you claiming that capital is being sucked out of the economy, when it's clear that those taxes were invested in the economy in the forms of education, pre-K, healthcare, job benefits, etc.
How is that removing it form the economy, when it's back in the economy? You seem to be thinking on some closed system, as though taxing someone removes money from existence.
How would an ultra-rich person have invested that money, had the swedish government not taken it, would it have been a BETTER investment, or worse?

I'm genuinely interested, I'm not attacking...
 
Winston said:
You want me to find economic data from the 1910s and juxtapose growth rates with post-UHC in Norway, without controlling for variables? Come on man, either you're honest enough to search through data out there yourself, to see that higher taxes does not constrain economic activity like the Sean Hannity's of the world will tell you, or you don't care about discovering anything that doesn't tell you supply side econommics is the holy grail of economic activity.. the simple truth is both theories "work" Keynesian and Austrian economics both "work". One is just more compassionate then the other. So, the point is that you can hit 4% growth with higher taxes, which refutes conservative arguments about taxing as just fear mongering.
Click to expand...

Again, correlation does not equal causation. Your ENTIRE argument is based on theory and you've yet to show us any real numbers proving your assertion. If the high tax rates you support create economic growth, then we should see strong trend across wide spans of time and across almost all nations with high tax rates that would provide support for your argument. So far, all we've seen is some cherry-picked data. What you should be starting with is data that shows all nations with tax rates compared to growth over the last 50 years or so. Is that an unreasonable expectation?? If you're right, then those numbers should provide substantial support for your assertions. The next step, if the numbers support your assertion, would be to analyze the major economic factors that contribute to economic growth - things like resource availability, access to investment capital, etc. and see other factors contribute to the economic growth and if the top performers have comparable net economic support form those factors, then I'd say that you have a pretty solid argument. Would you agree??

The problem is that this kind of information is out there and available, yet when claims like these are made, none of it offered as proof. That may be because of laziness, but I doubt it. I think that such a study (which would be a nice freshman year economics project for most Econ majors) would show a different story than what people want it to show, so it's never shown. Because if it was done, it would provide pretty much irrefutable proof of your claim and end the argument. But it's NOT being done and I have to ask why it isn't. Such a simple and obvious way to get people buy into the plan that you seem to support and yet it goes unused.
 
faithful_servant said:
Again, correlation does not equal causation. Your ENTIRE argument is based on theory and you've yet to show us any real numbers proving your assertion. If the high tax rates you support create economic growth, then we should see strong trend across wide spans of time and across almost all nations with high tax rates that would provide support for your argument. So far, all we've seen is some cherry-picked data. What you should be starting with is data that shows all nations with tax rates compared to growth over the last 50 years or so. Is that an unreasonable expectation?? If you're right, then those numbers should provide substantial support for your assertions. The next step, if the numbers support your assertion, would be to analyze the major economic factors that contribute to economic growth - things like resource availability, access to investment capital, etc. and see other factors contribute to the economic growth and if the top performers have comparable net economic support form those factors, then I'd say that you have a pretty solid argument. Would you agree??

The problem is that this kind of information is out there and available, yet when claims like these are made, none of it offered as proof. That may be because of laziness, but I doubt it. I think that such a study (which would be a nice freshman year economics project for most Econ majors) would show a different story than what people want it to show, so it's never shown. Because if it was done, it would provide pretty much irrefutable proof of your claim and end the argument. But it's NOT being done and I have to ask why it isn't. Such a simple and obvious way to get people buy into the plan that you seem to support and yet it goes unused.
Click to expand...

I'm more than willing to debate Econ with you later. I'm doing my workout and then going to work but, I will come back to this post and shred the GOP narrative to bits tonight/tomorrow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
faithful_servant said:
It's taking gas out of the gas tank and putting it into the radiator. Yes, it still exists, the car still has it, it still cools the engine, but eventually that car is going to run out of gas, because there's no fuel. The previous conservative leadership spent 8 years filling that tank and now the current leadership is siphoning it off. Yes, there is still fuel in the tank and the car is running well, but that can only last so long.

As for all the strawmen you put up... I never said one word about ANYTHING you threw out there, so please go argue with yourself someplace else.
Click to expand...

If we're going with automobile analogies, it's more like the difference between running the engine with all the gas going to one cylinder, or spreading that same amount of fuel to all 8 cylinders. The same amount of fuel is being consumed, but there are a greater number of cylinders getting gas. In the former, that one cylinder runs super strong and makes lots of noise when it fires, but the engine as a whole is unbalanced and jerky, whereas with the latter, the engine runs more smoothly and evenly with less drama.
 
faithful_servant said:
Also, this economy is the result of the previous 8 years of tax cuts by more conservative leadership. Now they are reaping the benefits of those tax cuts and claiming that they are the ones responsible (kind of like how WJC claimed responsibility for the economy that Reagan handed him). Basically, you had long term economy building policies in place that had a cost over the relative short term and endd up creating a string economy, then you had a gov't come along and start taxing the crap out of that economy. I believe that when the impact of sucking all this capital out of the economy comes to full fruition, we will see a substantial economic downturn for Sweden.
Click to expand...

it will take time but as we always see raising tax eventually slows down the economy. there current surpluses are due to that tax increase but those will eventually slow down like they always do.
 
ludin said:
it will take time but as we always see raising tax eventually slows down the economy. there current surpluses are due to that tax increase but those will eventually slow down like they always do.
Click to expand...

When exactly do we "always see" that? When have income taxes been increased any significant amount to make that correlation?

It seems to me that rates went up after the Depression and stayed high until Reagan was in office, which was some of the most prosperous times in US history. Then they came down, down, down, down until the early 90s, when they went up a little bit (but again, prosperous times there too), and they have been slowly coming down since then.
 
We would have to make broader changes to our government for a Scandanavian style of government to work here. We outsource too many decisions to courts, give too little autonomy to our institutions, and our politicians don't agree on basic ideas of the role of government so passing major reforms through the legislative and executive branch and not having the judicial branch come in and crap all over it takes a miracle. In other words, all our checks don't add up to much balance.
 
Winston said:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...x-plan-delivers-an-economic-miracle-in-sweden




Due to smart policy, Sweden is turning into an economic powerhouse. They also run a budget surplus. That should get Rand Paul's attention. Wait a minute, Conservatives told me that tax cuts produce growth? Could it be that they were wrong about economics?

800x-1.png

.
Click to expand...
So the US is doing better than allllllllllll the big welfare states in the OECD plus the big welfare states UK and Germany.
But 1-that is O-N-E- big welfare state is doing better than the US and your argument is that this shows big welfare is the way to go?

LAFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
Cheez was that Gruber guy ever right about liberasl not being too bright.

HAHAHAHAHAH
 
KLATTU said:
So the US is doing better than allllllllllll the big welfare states in the OECD plus the big welfare states UK and Germany.
But 1-that is O-N-E- big welfare state is doing better than the US and your argument is that this shows big welfare is the way to go?

LAFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
Cheez was that Gruber guy ever right about liberasl not being too bright.

HAHAHAHAHAH
Click to expand...

That's one way to look at it.

Here's another...

Can you imagine how much better the U.S. would be doing, if it embraced the left wing economic agenda, that has propelled Sweden to lead the OECD in average GDP growth per 20 years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom