11 ms·

Why does Sweden have so many billionaires?

81 points by sksksk 13y ago

Spoygg 13y ago
I read "Why does Snowden..." lol :)
ptr 13y ago
"No single Swede comes close to the epic wealth of a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffett." -- wasn't Ingvar Kamprad (of IKEA fame) more wealthy than Gates at one point? Due to some currency being strong, iirc.
- Cederfjard 13y ago
  If I recall correctly, the ownership of IKEA is quite intricate, with Swiss foundations and what have you in the mix. Mainly for tax purposes I think - there was quite a controversy here in Sweden a few years back regarding this. I believe that the wealth that Ingvar Kamprad ultimately controls is substantially larger than what a look at Forbes 500 might indicate, but perhaps that is not uncommon.
  - smackay 13y ago
    Back in 2006 The Economist had a reasonably in-depth article on IKEA's corporate structure, http://www.economist.com/node/6919139 http://www.economist.com/node/6919139
    - Cederfjard 13y ago
      Thanks! Just skimmed it for now but will definitely read it later. So I was wrong in naming Switzerland - should've mentioned the Netherlands, Luxembourg, the Netherlands Antilles and Curaçao instead.
- dagw 13y ago
  Hans Rausing of TetraPak is currently worth $11B according for Forbes. That's fairly close to Buffett's $55B.
  - alanctgardner2 13y ago
    In the same way that 20k a year and 100k a year are fairly close salaries ;)
    - saraid216 13y ago
      11 digits and 11 digits are the same order of magnitude, at least.
  - subsystem 13y ago
    Kamprad in on par with Buffet if you belive Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/2013-10-31/cya http://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/2013-10-31/cya
- sbt 13y ago
  True. He probably doesn't tax to Sweden and thus doesn't show up on the list.
fein 13y ago
You could ask the Lithuanians, I'm sure they would have some colorful input.
- pathy 13y ago
  Why is that?
  - fein 13y ago
    The housing market and quite a few banks are effectively being taken over by Swedish banks. People are buying property but the mortgages are paying into the pockets of non national banks, so money spent to have a home in Lithuania is leaving the country to pay for social services in Sweden. It's a bit of a political debate for some.
    - pathy 13y ago
      I can understand such frustrations (especially in light of the financial crisis) but they seem a bit naive. The system is more complex than just moving the money out of the country and funding Swedish social services with it. Sounds more like a populist argument along the lines of: "Oh those dirty banks are stealing our money."
    - leoc 13y ago
      Anyone who is convinced that having foreigners owning the banks is a particularly bad arrangement should first take a look at where Ireland's determination to have its banking industry domestically-owned eventually led it.
      - draugadrotten 13y ago
        >Anyone who is convinced that having foreigners owning the banks is a particularly bad arrangement should first take a look at where Ireland's determination to have its banking industry domestically-owned eventually led it. They should also check out what Icelands nationalisation of the banks led to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9311_Icelandic_financial_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9311_Icelandic_finan...
Matti 13y ago
"But they haven’t stopped Swedish entrepreneurs from building giant firms like H&M, Ikea, and Tetra Pak." Look at when the mentioned companies were founded: IKEA - 1943 H&M - 1947 Tetra Pak - 1951 Then look at the historical tax-to-GDP ratio chart here: http://www.ekonomifakta.se/sv/Fakta/Skatter/Skattetryck/ http://www.ekonomifakta.se/sv/Fakta/Skatter/Skattetryck/ The companies were founded in low-tax, pre-welfare Sweden.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Shivetya 13y ago
  Two of those companies are no longer based there. IKEA which isn't also jumps through hoops with shells and such to be presented as a non profit.
  - subsystem 13y ago
    IKEA is still, as far as I know, based in Sweden as much as Apple is based in California.
    - codfrantic 13y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA Headquarters: Leiden, Netherlands
    - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
      http://www.ikeafans.com/ikea/ikea-corporate/ikea-corporate-structure.html http://www.ikeafans.com/ikea/ikea-corporate/ikea-corporate-s...
      - subsystem 13y ago
        http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strate...
forkandwait 13y ago
One thing missed by the article is that Sweden was one of the few European highly industrialized nations that weren't ravaged by WWII (due to their neutrality, in turn due their perceived Arianism by Germany), so in 1946, they could start making and selling stuff to Europe which desperately needed, well, everything.
- m_eiman 13y ago
  due their perceived Arianism by Germany As opposed to Denmark and Norway? It's more likely that the Germans got what they wanted anyway (Sweden sold Germany a lot of steel) and didn't have resources to occupy Sweden just for the principle of it.
  - a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
    It's not like they had any particular interest in Norway, either. It was only about preventing the Brits from setting up shop, which they were in fact poised to do.
    - sebcat 13y ago
      It was also about securing Narvik, a very important harbor at the time.
    - mcv 13y ago
      Norway was pretty important. Hitler wanted lots of coastline from which to send hidden submarines to torpedo British shipping. And Norway has lots of coastline with convenient fjords to hide stuff in. Denmark was important both as the gateway to Norway, and to control the gateway to the Baltic. With those two in German hands, they didn't need Sweden anymore.
  - forkandwait 13y ago
    Probably no one is reading, but .... Sweden somewhat collaborated with Germany during WWII as well, and probably got a break therefrom, though they also helped the allies and some Scandinavian Jews. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_in_World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_in_World_War_II
Coffeeparty 13y ago
>Their reasoning was that high levels of inequality create financial incentives for innovation >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbS9jZOlQjc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbS9jZOlQjc Maybe we should tell those kids in somalia to "innovate" a steak or a hamburger... American today are living off the golden age when a man could work his way up and actually move up in life. I say actually because they had the means to do so. If you are too poor you can't afford shit, you can't afford to go to college, to move to an area with better jobs (or less cancer) let alone dropping everything and building a startup. Why you think YC started giving out $20k? so founders wouldn't starve during the 3 months they are skipping from work. It might be news for some here but most young people have no savings and their parents can't support them anymore. Back in 1950 you could live off a part-time gig waiting tables while you were in college/building something, but today? don't make me laugh.
- hnal943 13y ago
  Also part of the "Golden Age" of America was generational thinking. Many people immigrated to America not to become rich themselves but to provide better opportunity for their children. Even if you don't believe that rags-to-riches stories are possible in the extreme, it is certainly possible to be born poor and work your way up the point that your children are able to go to college, which allows them to provide your grandchildren with even more opportunity.
- pawn 13y ago
  It's a myth that this is no longer possible. Want to know how I know? Because I did it. I grew up poor. My parents told me if I was going to college, I'd have to figure out how to do it myself because they couldn't afford to help me. So I did. I worked hard in high school, scored a 30 on the ACT, got some scholarships and paid the rest myself from jobs worked during school and money saved during the summer. I earned my CS degree, got out and found a job, and now I have a (different) job where I can afford a 2000 sq. ft. house that I currently owe just over $100k on and still have plenty of money to save up. People today are generally either lazier or less imaginative. I'm not sure which.
  - 13y ago
mongol 13y ago
The article tells one story, and it is true, but it is not the story why Sweden has many billionaires. Many of facts mentioned in the article are quite recent reforms, and can in themselves not explain this. I recall that in 1997 the social democratic government introduced tax exemptions for the very rich, put in front of the threat by Stefan Persson that H&M might move abroad otherwise This old, Google-translated link to an article in Affärsvärlden (Sweden's "Financial Times") describes a more relevant piece to the puzzle. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.affarsvarlden.se%2Fhem%2Fnyheter%2Farticle2561362.ece http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&pr...
meriksson 13y ago
The conventional story about Swedish wealth is a joke. In fact, wealth was primarily accumulated under a largely free market system between 1840 and 1970 or so. After that the welfare state started expanding in earnest and it has mostly been downhill from there, e.g. Sweden going from the fourth richest country to the fourteenth. http://meriksson.net/how-sweden-became-rich http://meriksson.net/how-sweden-became-rich
- hannibal5 13y ago
  Sweden has acquired much more wealth since 60's than before. Something like 600 times more.
hannibal5 13y ago
If you look at multiple indexes that rank countries by competitiveness, low corruption and infrastructure, Sweden and other Nordic countries are usually in top 10. If you think countries as companies, they would be like business parks. You can compete with low price or good infrastructure. Sweden is Google of countries. It provides highly educated people, good infrastructure, safety and low corruption with higher price. This will inevitability drive out low margin industries that rely on cheap labour but it will be good environment for high- and middle-tech companies.
a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
At a theoretical level you would expect a free market system to produce very few billionaires. Low regulatory barriers to entry and easy capital formation mean high profit margins get rapidly eaten by competitors. If you look around the world today, in practice billionaires and big government do seem to go hand in hand. Consider the massive barriers to entry to the US financial system erected by very wealthy people. Or more egregiously look at the Russian oligarchs.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- tsotha 13y ago
  >If you look around the world today, in practice billionaires and big government do seem to go hand in hand. Of course. The bigger and more powerful the government, the more likely powerful people will seek to control it to their own ends.
adventured 13y ago
"The authors contrasted American-style cutthroat capitalism with Nordic-style cuddly capitalism" America hasn't had cut-throat Capitalism in a century. Few seem to understand the difference between 19th century Capitalism, with actual free markets, and 21st century Socialism. You'd think the entire 19th century never happened, such that authors have no reference source for actual 'cut-throat' Capitalism. We have soft European Socialism. The government system spends 40% of GDP ($6.7 trillion out of $17 trillion). We don't have a free market in nearly any sector, including the biggest such as: healthcare, education, banking, telecom, energy, utilities. When 80% of your economy lacks any actual free markets, how can one claim Capitalism as the system? In fact, our government spends so much we're bankrupt a few times over when you count entitlements + public debt, none of which can ever be paid in full. The public debt is of course laughable, we couldn't pay it down in a century of surpluses, even at 2% interest rates. We're currently in the process of actively defaulting on our debt, using QE (aka debt monetization) to devalue said debt. The Federal Government alone spends so much, it's half the size of the entire Chinese economy. We have the largest welfare system in world history, by far. We have the largest entitlement system in history, by far. We have the largest government-controlled health system in history, by far. America has more regulations on its books than any other country, by far. We add thousands upon thousands of regulations annually. We have the most regulated economy in history, there isn't even a close #2. Our taxes are worse than Canada (supposedly a semi-Socialist nation), and among the highest for industrialized nations when you count local + state + federal. We also have the largest and most convoluted tax system by far, the total IRS tax code is so large no human could ever reasonably read it. Where's the Capitalism? It doesn't exist.
- chiaro 13y ago
  It's not pure capitalism, of course. But America is undeniably more capitalistic than the majority of OECD countries and even goes so far as to consider capitalism an ideal, and capitalistic policies to be more virtuous. And the US is very much a low-tax country, in aggregate. See this graph: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/files/2011/12/taxasgdp2.png http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/files/2011/12/taxasgdp2... From source: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2011/12/08/australian-exceptionalism/ http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2011/12/08/australian-e...
SuperChihuahua 13y ago
This might be relevant: I've summarized a few lessons from when IKEA and H&M were startups: http://blog.trejdify.com/2012/08/lessons-learned-hm-startup.html http://blog.trejdify.com/2012/08/lessons-learned-hm-startup.... http://blog.trejdify.com/2012/08/lessons-learned-ikea-startup.html http://blog.trejdify.com/2012/08/lessons-learned-ikea-startu...
clonnholm 13y ago
Sweden also have surprisingly many millionaires as well (69,800 millionaires) of a population of 9,5 million. The number have increased significantly the last years. http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5568950 http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&art... As a Swede who have started businesses in Finland, South Korea and Lithuania, I do agree with the article that Sweden is the easiest country to start and run a company in. And the relative high taxes is nothing that bother me at all. I don't mind paying more if the service provided by it was justified.

81 points by sksksk 13y ago

I read "Why does Snowden..." lol :)

ptr 13y ago

"No single Swede comes close to the epic wealth of a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffett." -- wasn't Ingvar Kamprad (of IKEA fame) more wealthy than Gates at one point? Due to some currency being strong, iirc.

Cederfjard 13y ago
If I recall correctly, the ownership of IKEA is quite intricate, with Swiss foundations and what have you in the mix. Mainly for tax purposes I think - there was quite a controversy here in Sweden a few years back regarding this. I believe that the wealth that Ingvar Kamprad ultimately controls is substantially larger than what a look at Forbes 500 might indicate, but perhaps that is not uncommon.
- smackay 13y ago
  Back in 2006 The Economist had a reasonably in-depth article on IKEA's corporate structure, http://www.economist.com/node/6919139 http://www.economist.com/node/6919139
  - Cederfjard 13y ago
    Thanks! Just skimmed it for now but will definitely read it later. So I was wrong in naming Switzerland - should've mentioned the Netherlands, Luxembourg, the Netherlands Antilles and Curaçao instead.
dagw 13y ago
Hans Rausing of TetraPak is currently worth $11B according for Forbes. That's fairly close to Buffett's $55B.
- alanctgardner2 13y ago
  In the same way that 20k a year and 100k a year are fairly close salaries ;)
  - saraid216 13y ago
    11 digits and 11 digits are the same order of magnitude, at least.
- subsystem 13y ago
  Kamprad in on par with Buffet if you belive Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/2013-10-31/cya http://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/2013-10-31/cya
sbt 13y ago
True. He probably doesn't tax to Sweden and thus doesn't show up on the list.

fein 13y ago

You could ask the Lithuanians, I'm sure they would have some colorful input.

pathy 13y ago
Why is that?
- fein 13y ago
  The housing market and quite a few banks are effectively being taken over by Swedish banks. People are buying property but the mortgages are paying into the pockets of non national banks, so money spent to have a home in Lithuania is leaving the country to pay for social services in Sweden. It's a bit of a political debate for some.
  - pathy 13y ago
    I can understand such frustrations (especially in light of the financial crisis) but they seem a bit naive. The system is more complex than just moving the money out of the country and funding Swedish social services with it. Sounds more like a populist argument along the lines of: "Oh those dirty banks are stealing our money."
  - leoc 13y ago
    Anyone who is convinced that having foreigners owning the banks is a particularly bad arrangement should first take a look at where Ireland's determination to have its banking industry domestically-owned eventually led it.
    - draugadrotten 13y ago
      >Anyone who is convinced that having foreigners owning the banks is a particularly bad arrangement should first take a look at where Ireland's determination to have its banking industry domestically-owned eventually led it. They should also check out what Icelands nationalisation of the banks led to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9311_Icelandic_financial_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9311_Icelandic_finan...

Matti 13y ago

"But they haven’t stopped Swedish entrepreneurs from building giant firms like H&M, Ikea, and Tetra Pak." Look at when the mentioned companies were founded: IKEA - 1943 H&M - 1947 Tetra Pak - 1951 Then look at the historical tax-to-GDP ratio chart here: http://www.ekonomifakta.se/sv/Fakta/Skatter/Skattetryck/ http://www.ekonomifakta.se/sv/Fakta/Skatter/Skattetryck/ The companies were founded in low-tax, pre-welfare Sweden.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Shivetya 13y ago
Two of those companies are no longer based there. IKEA which isn't also jumps through hoops with shells and such to be presented as a non profit.
- subsystem 13y ago
  IKEA is still, as far as I know, based in Sweden as much as Apple is based in California.
  - codfrantic 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA Headquarters: Leiden, Netherlands
  - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
    http://www.ikeafans.com/ikea/ikea-corporate/ikea-corporate-structure.html http://www.ikeafans.com/ikea/ikea-corporate/ikea-corporate-s...
    - subsystem 13y ago
      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strate...

forkandwait 13y ago

One thing missed by the article is that Sweden was one of the few European highly industrialized nations that weren't ravaged by WWII (due to their neutrality, in turn due their perceived Arianism by Germany), so in 1946, they could start making and selling stuff to Europe which desperately needed, well, everything.

m_eiman 13y ago
due their perceived Arianism by Germany As opposed to Denmark and Norway? It's more likely that the Germans got what they wanted anyway (Sweden sold Germany a lot of steel) and didn't have resources to occupy Sweden just for the principle of it.
- a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
  It's not like they had any particular interest in Norway, either. It was only about preventing the Brits from setting up shop, which they were in fact poised to do.
  - sebcat 13y ago
    It was also about securing Narvik, a very important harbor at the time.
  - mcv 13y ago
    Norway was pretty important. Hitler wanted lots of coastline from which to send hidden submarines to torpedo British shipping. And Norway has lots of coastline with convenient fjords to hide stuff in. Denmark was important both as the gateway to Norway, and to control the gateway to the Baltic. With those two in German hands, they didn't need Sweden anymore.
- forkandwait 13y ago
  Probably no one is reading, but .... Sweden somewhat collaborated with Germany during WWII as well, and probably got a break therefrom, though they also helped the allies and some Scandinavian Jews. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_in_World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_in_World_War_II

Coffeeparty 13y ago

>Their reasoning was that high levels of inequality create financial incentives for innovation >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbS9jZOlQjc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbS9jZOlQjc Maybe we should tell those kids in somalia to "innovate" a steak or a hamburger... American today are living off the golden age when a man could work his way up and actually move up in life. I say actually because they had the means to do so. If you are too poor you can't afford shit, you can't afford to go to college, to move to an area with better jobs (or less cancer) let alone dropping everything and building a startup. Why you think YC started giving out $20k? so founders wouldn't starve during the 3 months they are skipping from work. It might be news for some here but most young people have no savings and their parents can't support them anymore. Back in 1950 you could live off a part-time gig waiting tables while you were in college/building something, but today? don't make me laugh.

hnal943 13y ago
Also part of the "Golden Age" of America was generational thinking. Many people immigrated to America not to become rich themselves but to provide better opportunity for their children. Even if you don't believe that rags-to-riches stories are possible in the extreme, it is certainly possible to be born poor and work your way up the point that your children are able to go to college, which allows them to provide your grandchildren with even more opportunity.
pawn 13y ago
It's a myth that this is no longer possible. Want to know how I know? Because I did it. I grew up poor. My parents told me if I was going to college, I'd have to figure out how to do it myself because they couldn't afford to help me. So I did. I worked hard in high school, scored a 30 on the ACT, got some scholarships and paid the rest myself from jobs worked during school and money saved during the summer. I earned my CS degree, got out and found a job, and now I have a (different) job where I can afford a 2000 sq. ft. house that I currently owe just over $100k on and still have plenty of money to save up. People today are generally either lazier or less imaginative. I'm not sure which.
- 13y ago

mongol 13y ago

The article tells one story, and it is true, but it is not the story why Sweden has many billionaires. Many of facts mentioned in the article are quite recent reforms, and can in themselves not explain this. I recall that in 1997 the social democratic government introduced tax exemptions for the very rich, put in front of the threat by Stefan Persson that H&M might move abroad otherwise This old, Google-translated link to an article in Affärsvärlden (Sweden's "Financial Times") describes a more relevant piece to the puzzle. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.affarsvarlden.se%2Fhem%2Fnyheter%2Farticle2561362.ece http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&pr...

meriksson 13y ago

The conventional story about Swedish wealth is a joke. In fact, wealth was primarily accumulated under a largely free market system between 1840 and 1970 or so. After that the welfare state started expanding in earnest and it has mostly been downhill from there, e.g. Sweden going from the fourth richest country to the fourteenth. http://meriksson.net/how-sweden-became-rich http://meriksson.net/how-sweden-became-rich

hannibal5 13y ago
Sweden has acquired much more wealth since 60's than before. Something like 600 times more.

hannibal5 13y ago

If you look at multiple indexes that rank countries by competitiveness, low corruption and infrastructure, Sweden and other Nordic countries are usually in top 10. If you think countries as companies, they would be like business parks. You can compete with low price or good infrastructure. Sweden is Google of countries. It provides highly educated people, good infrastructure, safety and low corruption with higher price. This will inevitability drive out low margin industries that rely on cheap labour but it will be good environment for high- and middle-tech companies.

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago

At a theoretical level you would expect a free market system to produce very few billionaires. Low regulatory barriers to entry and easy capital formation mean high profit margins get rapidly eaten by competitors. If you look around the world today, in practice billionaires and big government do seem to go hand in hand. Consider the massive barriers to entry to the US financial system erected by very wealthy people. Or more egregiously look at the Russian oligarchs.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
tsotha 13y ago
>If you look around the world today, in practice billionaires and big government do seem to go hand in hand. Of course. The bigger and more powerful the government, the more likely powerful people will seek to control it to their own ends.

adventured 13y ago

"The authors contrasted American-style cutthroat capitalism with Nordic-style cuddly capitalism" America hasn't had cut-throat Capitalism in a century. Few seem to understand the difference between 19th century Capitalism, with actual free markets, and 21st century Socialism. You'd think the entire 19th century never happened, such that authors have no reference source for actual 'cut-throat' Capitalism. We have soft European Socialism. The government system spends 40% of GDP ($6.7 trillion out of $17 trillion). We don't have a free market in nearly any sector, including the biggest such as: healthcare, education, banking, telecom, energy, utilities. When 80% of your economy lacks any actual free markets, how can one claim Capitalism as the system? In fact, our government spends so much we're bankrupt a few times over when you count entitlements + public debt, none of which can ever be paid in full. The public debt is of course laughable, we couldn't pay it down in a century of surpluses, even at 2% interest rates. We're currently in the process of actively defaulting on our debt, using QE (aka debt monetization) to devalue said debt. The Federal Government alone spends so much, it's half the size of the entire Chinese economy. We have the largest welfare system in world history, by far. We have the largest entitlement system in history, by far. We have the largest government-controlled health system in history, by far. America has more regulations on its books than any other country, by far. We add thousands upon thousands of regulations annually. We have the most regulated economy in history, there isn't even a close #2. Our taxes are worse than Canada (supposedly a semi-Socialist nation), and among the highest for industrialized nations when you count local + state + federal. We also have the largest and most convoluted tax system by far, the total IRS tax code is so large no human could ever reasonably read it. Where's the Capitalism? It doesn't exist.

chiaro 13y ago
It's not pure capitalism, of course. But America is undeniably more capitalistic than the majority of OECD countries and even goes so far as to consider capitalism an ideal, and capitalistic policies to be more virtuous. And the US is very much a low-tax country, in aggregate. See this graph: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/files/2011/12/taxasgdp2.png http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/files/2011/12/taxasgdp2... From source: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2011/12/08/australian-exceptionalism/ http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2011/12/08/australian-e...

SuperChihuahua 13y ago

This might be relevant: I've summarized a few lessons from when IKEA and H&M were startups: http://blog.trejdify.com/2012/08/lessons-learned-hm-startup.html http://blog.trejdify.com/2012/08/lessons-learned-hm-startup.... http://blog.trejdify.com/2012/08/lessons-learned-ikea-startup.html http://blog.trejdify.com/2012/08/lessons-learned-ikea-startu...

clonnholm 13y ago

Sweden also have surprisingly many millionaires as well (69,800 millionaires) of a population of 9,5 million. The number have increased significantly the last years. http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5568950 http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&art... As a Swede who have started businesses in Finland, South Korea and Lithuania, I do agree with the article that Sweden is the easiest country to start and run a company in. And the relative high taxes is nothing that bother me at all. I don't mind paying more if the service provided by it was justified.