One example is that in 1971, under Palme, an adjustment in the income tax rates brought about a major social change. Previously the earnings of a married couple had been taxed as a unit, at a high "progressive" rate, but since that year they have been taxed separately, at lower ones. Guess what: that motivated many more wives to take outside jobs! So a simple regulation has caused more children to be raised in child-care instead of by their own mothers. In 1970, he says, 50% of mothers were home-makers; by 1990, that had fallen to 14%.

So, "Instead of staying at home and taking care of her own children it became mandatory for a woman to work in a nursery, taking care of the children of other folks." Such is "women's liberation."

Also under Palme, State pensions were paid to retirees of any age. So if someone "seemed unable to find a job" at age 20, he could "retire before his time" and live permanently on the taxpayer's krona. By the Century's end there were over half a million such "early retirees", or 6% of the population.

Perhaps Ulf Nilson's most perceptive insight is that Sweden's welfare state is self-perpetuating. "A giant health-care system requires people needing care... without sick people, no hospitals." Workers would have to be laid off. "It is not altogether certain that nurses or psychologists feel sad when Sven comes back for treatment for the seventh time." Nilson has an endearing style of understatement. He quotes Anders Isaacson:

"The System simply generates its own demand, more of the same all the time: welfare produces clients, assurances against injuries in the workplace produces injuries... the refugee policies, refugees, the ability to retire before retirement age, people who retire early."

On one visit there I was amazed to read in the local paper a Letter to the Editor begging that taxes should NOT be reduced! - as some rival had suggested. His reason was that if they were, the social benefits would have to shrink as well. He - and most of the population - was hooked on government bennies, as much as any drug addict.

It's not just that voters do the math and see advantage for themselves. Early in the 1900s they were conditioned to see their country as a co-operative venture, a world pioneer, in which collective decisions were taken for the good of all. There's plenty of debate about what laws should be written or modified, but very few questioned whether they should be written. Before he moved Stateside to help us out here, Prof. Per Bylund provided a rare exception.

So Swedes keep voting for it. "Sweden is such a small country - there is only room for one opinion." Government, and its bureaucracy, is the only winner.