Wealth in Sweden
Submitted by Curt on October 24, 2006 - 11:09pm.
Sweden, sometimes considered a mecca of economic equality and social justice, has a stock exchange basically controlled by one family.
From the Economist: Sweden's enduring business dynasty
By the late 1990s the Wallenbergs controlled some 40% of the value of the companies listed on the Swedish stock exchange.
Imagine if the Murdochs controlled by 40% of the NYSE.
Technorati Tags: Policy IssuesBookmark/Search this post with:
Who says they are mutually exclusive?
Curt,
Care to explain how one family controlling 40% of the value of the Swedish Stock exchange is incompatible with economic equality and social justice?
I don't see how they are mutually exclusive or at odds with one another.
If the Murdochs' owned 40% of the NYSE, that would be a problem because the Murdochs aren't committed to social justice. However, you'll have to do better to show that the Wallenbergs are the Swedish equivalent of the Murdochs.
Social justice
Expat: I know this is a bit of a tangent....but how would you define "social justice"?
Social Justice is...
I would say that social justice is probably easiest defined as "the greatest good for the greatest number", but that has lots of problems in it.
I guess social justice is like pornography, I just know it when I see it.
Social justice
"I would say that social justice is probably easiest defined as "the greatest good for the greatest number", but that has lots of problems in it." - Expat
Uh, you think so? Sounds like Utilitarianism to me, which by the way isn't particularly compatible with Christianity.
I don't think that is what you mean though. I suspect that "social justice" has become a code word for leftist/socialist economic policy in the same way that "family values" have become a code word for certain social conservative policies.
Your right, it is utilitarian and it has holes
Will,
You are right, the definition I gave is utilitarian and has serious holes, like no minority rights and incompatibility with Christianity.
Shall I try again? How about social justice is doing no evil to the least of society.
You say, I suspect that "social justice" has become a code word for leftist/socialist economic policy, but I don't think that is true.
First off, what is leftist/socialist economic policy? Communism is dead. There is no viable leftist economic ideals anymore. No one is arguing for nationalization of vital industries, central planning, etc.
I'd argue that we have is basic economic liberalism (as advocated by Republican laissez-faire policies) and economic populism (anti-Free Trade, barriers to the movement of capital/production, etc). Democrats are more guilty of pandering to the populists than the socialists.
However, Bill Clinton desired social justice AND economic liberalism. He balanced the budget, passed NAFTA, oversaw the expansion of the WTO and China's entry into it.
Social justice is not a covering for leftist/socialist economic policies at all. It is an ideal for a more just society.
Not so fast, says the utilitarian
It's not that tough to construct a form of utilitarianism roughly consistent with Christian mores, and that still retains the basic contours of utilitarianism ("greatest good, most people").
If one family controls 40%
If one family controls 40% of a country's wealth, then you've got a situation in which the greatest good is going to the smallest number.
But what I really hear you saying is that it's "socially just" for liberals to be rich and wealthy, but not conservatives.
Post new comment