Being the OP I apologize that the article doesn't fit your world view. I know how frustrating it must be to find that something you've academically decided doesn't work, actually does in the real world.
People in these forums say "the market will fix it, just leave everything be" and it turns out that the highest performers out there are actually those who DON'T do this.
If I'm not misinformed Lithuania was also a big mess not too long ago, then they employed some strict economic policy and turned everything around, doing quite well now.
If everything in the article are just "non-sequiturs" was it just blind luck that made Sweden come out on top?
Please point out the flaws in the article instead of just dismissing it as propaganda.
Can you try to argue without putting in my mouth words that I did not say? Why do you need to be dishonest? If you are right, you dont need to be dishonest. That you are manipulating and adopting a trolling attitude shows that you are insecure because probably you already know the article does not hold.
I did not say the article is fustrating or that the article "works in real life". What I said is the article is a bunch of non-sequiturs. This article is quite ridiculous. Anyone with a bit of critical thinking capacity can see it. Lets take for example the part on monetary policy. It almost does not explain how this aggressive monetary policy is good. If you take the explanation of the situation and the rethoric out, this is all that is left to explain why this aggresive monetary politcy is good:
The impact of low rates on the economy, however, are clear.
“Interest rates fell very low, and households had more money available for consumption because their mortgage payments dropped,” said Lena Hagman, chief economist of Almega, an association of major employers in Sweden’s services sector.
First of all, the first sentence is a typical form of propaganda. This is clear. Period. Nothing to discuss here. Is typical rethoric from a cult.
Then you have the typical falacy that lower rates call always create more consumption, and then the even bigger fallacy that more consumption helps the economy (how did that work for Greenspan and Bush?).
Have you consider that the reason why this abuse by the central bank did not have a worse effect and the economy did not suffer too much from it, is that there was no housing bubble in Sweden? No, lets compare a Sweden without a housing bubble with a USA with a housing bubble. Yeah, that makes sense...
How about Germany performance when the ECB wasnt as aggressive as the article suggest a central bank has to be? Oh well, Germany did not have a housing bubble and they are doing good. While Spain also under the ECB policies is doing very bad, and, surprise surprise, they had a housing bubble. So the countries that didnt have a housing bubble are doing a lot better than the countries that had a housing bubble, all with more and less agressive monetary policies. But hey, its the agressive monetary policy, no doubt!
The whole thing is propaganda, and anyone with a bit of critical thiking can see it. But I dont think you want to really discuss the issues, nor the rest of your "budies" want to rationally discuss neither. This thread was just opened for name calling, so you can proceed.