4 ms·
"But they haven’t stopped Swedish entrepreneurs from building giant firms like H&M, Ikea, and Tetra Pak." Look at when the mentioned companies were founded: I
by Matti 13y ago
"But they haven’t stopped Swedish entrepreneurs from building giant firms like H&M, Ikea, and Tetra Pak."
Look at when the mentioned companies were founded:
IKEA - 1943
H&M - 1947
Tetra Pak - 1951
Then look at the historical tax-to-GDP ratio chart here:
http://www.ekonomifakta.se/sv/Fakta/Skatter/Skattetryck/ http://www.ekonomifakta.se/sv/Fakta/Skatter/Skattetryck/
The companies were founded in low-tax, pre-welfare Sweden.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- Shivetya 13y agoTwo of those companies are no longer based there. IKEA which isn't also jumps through hoops with shells and such to be presented as a non profit.
- subsystem 13y agoIKEA is still, as far as I know, based in Sweden as much as Apple is based in California.
- codfrantic 13y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA Headquarters: Leiden, Netherlands
- Samuel_Michon 13y agohttp://www.ikeafans.com/ikea/ikea-corporate/ikea-corporate-structure.html http://www.ikeafans.com/ikea/ikea-corporate/ikea-corporate-s...
- subsystem 13y agohttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strate...
- subsystem 13y agoIKEA opened their first store outside of Scandinavia in 1973, H&M in 1976 and according to wikipedia Tetra Pak had financial troubles until they became successful in the mid 1960s. Of course Sweden had a major advantage in that its infrastructure wasn't destroyed in WWII.
- mongol 13y agoThat's true. But I think while the "infrastructure" argument explains a lot why Sweden has done well "in average", it does not explain why there are more billionaires than average. I think that is more due to individual drive and entrepenureal spirit of Persson, Kamprad and Rausing.
- anologwintermut 13y agoOr, you know, it could be the fact that Sweden's industrial capacity survived WWII largely intact and so the country in general was better positioned than the rest of Europe to make money. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_in_World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_in_World_War_II
- kcorbitt 13y agoThe same thing helped out post-war America as well. Was isn't good for the economy on average, but when all of your industrialized competitors get bombs dropped all over them and/or occupied your relative advantage in manufactured goods goes way up.
- lgbr 13y agoThis theory doesn't hold up at all. Germany nearly flattened, and yet, they had the Wirtschaftswunder ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtschaftswunder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtschaftswunder ). In fact, it wasn't just that Germany was bombed, but after the war their machinery and even their top talent were ruthlessly pillaged by both the West and the Soviets. And yet, Germany emerged just as well (or better by some measures) industrially than Sweden or the US. If you want more counter-examples, look to Japan, nothern Italy, or Austria, whose industrial capacity and economy became exceedingly powerful after the war.
- seanmcdirmid 13y agoA lot has to do with the stability of your society; as long as your government and talent is relatively intact, you can rebuild quite quickly even from extreme catastrophes. Its only when you start "liquidating" the intelligentsia (Cambodia, Soviet purges) where you begin to take steps back, or maybe a prolonged multi-decade war or colonial occupation (Afghanistan, India).
- freehunter 13y agoI would wonder if the Marshall Plan didn't contribute greatly to the post-war success of Western Europe (as was the intention of the program). A cursory glance over the Effects section of the Wikipedia page shows that the effects of the plan greatly increased Western Europe's industrial and agricultural standing.
- ptr 13y agoIt's apparently been a much longer journey, starting in the 1800's as detailed by http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-laissez-faire-made-sweden-rich http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-laisse... The part about John Hierta is especially interesting; he's the obvious entrepreneur who managed to change politics.
- subsystem 13y agoAm I supposed to take an article that only references other libertarians seriously?