Some people say that the end cost to taxpayers was about 2 % of GDP, but the majority view is that it ended up recouping almost all the costs, or even made a profit. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
But since you provide no sources, it is a bit difficult to respond properly.
"If I go into a bank," said Bo Lundgren, who was Sweden's deputy minister of finance at the time, "I'd rather get equity so that there is some upside for the taxpayer." Sweden spent 4 percent of its gross domestic product, or 65 billion kronor, the equivalent of $11.7 billion at the time, or $18.3 billion in today's dollars, to rescue ailing banks. That is slightly less, proportionate to the national economy, than the $700 billion, or roughly 5 percent of gross domestic product, that the Bush administration estimates its own move will cost in the United States. But the final cost to Sweden ended up being less than 2 percent of its G.D.P. Some officials say they believe it was closer to zero, depending on how certain rates of return are calculated.
Sweden spent 4 percent of its gross domestic product, or 65 billion kronor, the equivalent of $11.7 billion at the time, or $18.3 billion in today's dollars, to rescue ailing banks. That is slightly less, proportionate to the national economy, than the $700 billion, or roughly 5 percent of gross domestic product, that the Bush administration estimates its own move will cost in the United States.
But the final cost to Sweden ended up being less than 2 percent of its G.D.P. Some officials say they believe it was closer to zero, depending on how certain rates of return are calculated.
I've heard the same from a number of other Swedish media sources. Though considering the quality of Swedish journalism, that's probably reduces the likelihood that I'm right. </snark> Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
It is a bit sad how there seems to be such a chasm between academia and "serious" journalism in cases like this. Especially when relevant academic papers are actually easy reads and makes more sense than the scribblings of financial journalists in over their head.
I don't believe for a second that the final cost was "closer to zero", but I have no problem believing that thats what the journalist was told by an overenthusiastic bureaucrat somewhere.
Well, that is beside the point however.
The Scandinavian approaches were pretty similar. The main difference, ie separating bad debts into a separate company, is interesting thought, for several reasons.
First of all, the Norwegian banking crisis was slightly earlier than the Swedish, so the Swedish bailout was undoubtedly influenced by the how it was done in Norway. Why did they choose the different approach?
My only idea so far is the simple one - politics. Norway was run by social-democrats during the crisis, Sweden by what passes for conservatives there. To each his own.
