An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

All I Need to Know About the Economy, I Learned from Ikea.

Okay, not really Ikea, but the land where Ikea was born: Sweden. Bruce Strokes has an interesting article on how Sweden faced a similar crisis to what the US is facing now back in the early 90s. You need to read the whole thing, but here is a peek:

In the early 1990s, Sweden experienced the worst financial crisis suffered by any industrial country since the Depression. The Swedish banking collapse wiped out fortunes, cost taxpayers a staggering amount of money, and may have permanently reduced the country’s standard of living.

Sweden’s response to its banking problems was bipartisan, transparent, massive, and, above all, fast. And the principal lesson, according to Stefan Ingves, head of the Swedish Central Bank, was: “You cannot rely on the private sector or markets alone to solve systemic banking problems.” During the crisis, Ingves ran the Swedish Bank Support Authority, which was charged with resolving many of the bad loans.

As with the U.S. savings and loan crisis in the 1980s and today’s subprime mortgage fiasco, Sweden’s banking problems were triggered by desirable but poorly managed deregulation. The loosening of financial-sector rules led to a rapid expansion of credit followed by a boom in real estate prices that eventually crashed.

Read on to see how the Swedes solved the problem and what it might teach American politicians.

Cross posted at the Square Deal

  • DLS
    Note that boom-bust mentality is in no way the same as the phenomenon of deregulation. Deregulation may be argued to affect the _amplitude_ of the swing each way (lack of inhibitions, exploitation and abuse of liberty by cheaters and crooks).
  • jwest
    Having spent a good deal of time in Sweden in the early and mid-90s (mainly around Malmo and Lund), I remember the banking and real estate problems a bit differently.

    From what my Swedish friends were saying, the government had adjusted loans in order to allow more of the immigrants flooding the social services network to purchase homes in an effort to reduce the need for more public housing projects.

    Credit loosened, subsidies were provided, home prices rose as inventory decreased, new building was hampered due to regulatory problems and everything was fine until the defaults started.

    My point is that I believe this was more an exercise in social engineering than a result of capitalistic deregulation. Just as the Russians don’t take a dump without a plan, Swedes don’t change the rules without it supposedly being for the social good.

    Much as with liberal policies in the U.S., well-intentioned schemes tend to backfire and make everyone poorer.
  • donthelibertariandemocrat
    I'm not really for a bailout, but this plan has two advantages. First, it worked. Second, I understand it. I'm really a free market person, but, if the government does act, I like to at least understand the plan. You might also look at the William Gross column in the Washington Post. I've always respected him, but don't quite get why he's so sanguine.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC