« Payday loans: statism vs libertarianism | Main | Benefit spending: a quick history »

November 30, 2012


gastro george

The problem with Tim, and most conservative pundits who talk about Sweden, is that they cherry-pick and abuse their data.

For example, their obsession with the voucher system and free schools in Sweden. These are relatively new policies, which remain controversial in Sweden, and have led to at best mixed results. Certainly inequality has increased after the introduction of free schools. The fact that a country has a particular policy at a moment in time does not mark that policy as typical of the political culture of that country.


"But bigger changes, which lead to the rich living in gated "communities" and the poor in ghettos would reduce distrust."

Do you mean they would increase distrust?


Worth noting that this is not an evidence free situation.

The history is clear that the benefits come first and the trust second.

This is the case in Sweden and the UK at least.


But the increase in distrust which matters is not between the very rich and the poor is it?
It's that between the working and non-working poor, and that which has resulted from large scale immigration.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad