So you accept that stifling private enterprise is economically harmful to an economy? How and why did they stifle free enterprise? If 'free enterprise' has two

So you accept that stifling private enterprise is economically harmful to an economy? How and why did they stifle free enterprise? If 'free enterprise' has two potential outcomes, 1) 'lose money' (high probability) or 2) 'make lots of money (which then gets taken by the government) leaving you a little bit of money' (low probability) wouldn't that also be 'stifling' to private enterprise? And therefore harmful to an economy? Regarding Sweden, it makes more sense to compare things with their natural control groups if available. If you compare North Korea to South Korea, or East Germany to West Germany, you remove a lot of the cultural, geographic and other potentially confounding factors, so the differences in outcome between those pairs are more likely to be related to the policy differences.