That metaphor is a bit unclear. Is it intended to mean that Andersson undermines his argument unwittingly? Or does it mean that his argument mirrors a point made by those of an opposite political persuasion?

I think it's a fair argument that "bailout socialism" rewards reckless and entrenched elites; it's a common argument against any form of socialism, from both the left and the right. The new boss will be the same as the old boss, but the society loses its engine of wealth-creation when denied the discipline of markets.

and see what he has written before, what groups he is really associated with, where he is coming from... or even do some research on, uhm, Sweden.

Just sayin'

The Swedish social model has always been something of an inkblot test, revealing as much about those who comment on it as the model itself. The distortion and hyperbole in Ruben Andersson's misleading article (Comment, 30 June) is breathtaking. I have worked as a psychiatrist in both countries and so have had a close working experience of their health and social services. Neither is perfect and both are facing major challenges.

However, the Swedes still have much more to teach us than to learn from us in their approach to these challenges. Andersson's piece tells us more about his fevered imagination than about Sweden. This remains a country where basic decency and fairness (routinely referred to as solidarity) are central to civic policy and public services. It is also one where administrative efficiency is such that we here could only dream of. It's just a pity about the winters.

Professor Tom Burns

University of Oxford

"This remains a country where basic decency and fairness (routinely referred to as solidarity) are central to civic policy and public services."

Alas, I believe the prevalent view in the USA is that that shit's bad for business.

Do you have to speak Swedish to become a citizen?

I was once told that no matter what else happens, the lawyers always get paid. Always. This also appears to be the case for bankers.