Choosing one's problems

A couple of interesting nuggets of info in How Sweden Tweaked the Washington Consensus by Daniel Brook. First of all, hatred of the US is nothing new. Second, unionization is not incompatible with free trade.

...the American political economy has long been reviled in Swedish public opinion for its class hierarchies and militarism. Under Richard Nixon, the United States essentially cut off diplomatic ties with Sweden over Prime Minister Palme's criticism of the Vietnam War.

...the one aspect of neoliberalism that the Swedes wholeheartedly embrace is the aspect Americans are most ambivalent about: free trade. The fondness of Swedes for condemning America's religiosity, racism, state-sponsored executions, and extreme inequality is surpassed only by their glee in pointing out how much better they are at following Washington-consensus policies on free trade than the current administration in Washington (or the Democrats vying to replace it). Many Swedes on both the left and right brought up George W. Bush's hypocrisy in preaching free trade and at the same time defending steel tariffs and farm subsidies.

It is no surprise that the libertarian right in Sweden backs free trade. What is surprising is the support on the left; the near-universal unionization rates in Sweden make the country's trade policy less protectionist, not more. In the United States, it is often labor unions that call for tariffs and subsidies to protect unionized industries. Not so in Sweden. "We don't want to sell T-shirts made in Sweden because people can't live on those wages. It's good that those industries have moved away," explained Social Democratic Parliament member Mikael Damberg, sounding very unlike an American congressmember of either party. In Sweden, where equitable distribution of corporate profits is assumed, the focus can be on growing those profits even if it means economic dislocation for some in the short-run...

Choosing between the American and Swedish systems is a matter of choosing one's problems. Is it better to have higher rewards for those at the top or free higher education available to all? Is it better to ensure that no one who works full time lives in poverty or that every immigrant who is willing to work hard at a low-skill job can find one? Should the government be more concerned that its citizens can raise healthy families or build healthy companies? There are trade-offs between equality and economic growth, and each society must strike its own balance...