[misher]

What your ignoring are the bureaucratic and other government hurdles to industry and business in Canada that Sweden has abolished. Much of Sweden's success is due to de-regulation. Canada's left is pro-regulation which is why they have not promoted growth the way Sweden has. In the end things like gun control, regulation, or religion do not necessarily belong to either side, the carbon tax is a capitalist policy that should probably be on the Conservative side. In Sweden the left wing party pushed deregulation while in Canada its the right wing party that pushes it. Also just like the US, the Swedish left are very pro-business as they promote low tax rates. They are also pro-wealth having eliminated their wealth and inheritance taxes. Much of what we praise Sweden for exists on Canada's right not its left. If the Liberals had promoted business and wealth the way Sweden's left had they'd be a lot more successful and the West would be very happy. Saying because Sweden's government was successful and left means our left government will be successful is plain wrong. Our left wing government wants to go a completely different way than Sweden's.

Sweden’s reforms were a response to a financial crisis in the 1990s, when GDP growth sank, unemployment spiked, and the government, in an effort to avoid devaluation of its currency, raised interest rates to 500 percent. To jump-start economic growth, the government deregulated industries including taxis, electricity, telecommunications, railways, and domestic air travel to increase competition, according to Persson. Deregulation helped lower prices in industries such as telecommunications, which attracted more customers. Some public services such as elder care and primary education were outsourced to private firms. So-called “product market reforms” made it easier to license new companies, and helped force inefficient legacy firms out of the market, Persson said. A new Competition Act in 1993 sought to block big mergers and anti-competitive practices. “The general lesson is that if you make it more difficult for monopolies to dominate the market, then you will have new firms entering the market,” according to Pontus Braunerhjelm, a professor of economics at Sweden’s Royal Institute of Technology.

Sweden also gives some credence to the controversial idea that cutting corporate tax rates can help stimulate entrepreneurship. The reforms of 1991 lowered corporate income taxes from 52 percent to 30 percent. (Sweden’s corporate tax rate today, at 22 percent, is much lower than the U.S.’s 39 percent, though few companies actually pay a rate that high.) Before the reforms of the 1990s, Sweden favored established companies over individuals who wanted to start a business in a number of ways: Individuals in Sweden had to pay taxes on their firm’s income and their own income from the business, while established businesses had a number of ways to reduce this double taxation.

The reforms “considerably” leveled the playing field, Persson said. “Until 1991, the Swedish tax system disfavored new, small, and less capital-intensive firms while favoring large firms and institutional ownership,” Persson wrote in a paper last year. In the 2000s, Sweden also got rid of its inheritance tax and a tax on wealthy people, which further incentivized people to earn large sums of money and, often, invest it back into the economy. “There was more capital available, so angel investors started to appear,” Braunerhjelm said. Today, there are significant tax breaks for starting and owning a business; for example, entrepreneurs can now have a larger share of their income taxed as capital income, which has a lower tax rate.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...artups/541413/