A filmmaker and a crooked lawyer shattered Denmark's self-image

I'm fully aware that Sweden and Denmark are different countries (I lived in Denmark for 3 years), but this reminded me of the reel of Swedes playing every time I visit IKEA, where they talk about how corruption is absolutely unthinkable in Swedish society.

And there's also this tidbit from the article:

> Other Scandinavian nations also reeled upon watching The Black Swan. After the series premiered in Sweden, a criminologist at Lund University warned: “There’s a lot of evidence that it’s probably even worse here.”

"Sweden's sudden awakening to corruption - From small arrangements between friends to large-scale bribery and embezzlement, Swedes are discovering the extent of a phenomenon they had underestimated" - https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/05/08/s...

Since the late eighties Sweden has privatised, as the euphemism goes, heavily. In particular schools and medical and elder care have become cesspools of corruption and mob activity. It's gotten worse in construction as well.

Today some active politicians simultaneously perform as senior advisers and the like for so called public affairs, i.e. lobbying, firms. That is, in the open. The leader of one of the largest parties in parliament and kind of part of the current government had a mob leader as guest at his wedding a while back.

There's an agreement among the largest parties to blame the fallout on immigrant minorities. They still disagree about whether to also put blame on sexual and gender minorities, as well as indigenous minorities. I expect them to start agreeing more during the next election.

Yeah swedish people think like that. Living in sweden and having some experience I can tell you that there's no corruption because the police don't care to investigate it, even with proof they won't bring people to justice. Most that happens to corrupt people is that they quit job and go to work somewhere else.

I think they really aren't, not at large. At the core they need to feel superior, and that includes believing that they are genetically honest, unlike those people with darker skin and brown eyes.

Interesting. It really seems like wherever the power goes, the corruption follows. The good news with privatization is that it doesn't attract the corrupt looters to government and you can trust them as a culture to be a watchdog for corruption.

When the government as a body is in control of everything, all the corrupt looters go there, but you can't have the private industry keep them in check unless you count on the pipeline of years in industry gaining financial freedom -> public service as a regulator.

It's funny that reel is at IKEA, given IKEA's sketchily engineered tax structure, and that it's also the same company that paid off Romanian secret police under Ceaușescu.

What's sketchy about their tax structure? Just curious what you think. I think they are pretty open about it?

The original purpose of IKEA was to foster self reliance, essentially making everyone a bit handier. IKEA brings decent quality furniture to people who otherwise wouldn't afford it. I think it's a noble goal, hence why I ask.

As I understand it, and I could be wrong, IKEA is owned by a non-profit organization called INGKA, set up in such a way to generate revenue not to a few rich people but:

"INGKA Foundation’s purpose is to further, without pursuing any profits, a better everyday life for the many people in need. We achieve this purpose by funding the IKEA Foundation, which is committed to helping children and families living in poverty afford a better everyday life while protecting the planet."

https://www.ingkafoundation.org/our-charitable-purpose/

https://www.inter.ikea.com/en/this-is-inter-ikea-group/about...

https://www.inter.ikea.com/en/-/media/InterIKEA/IGI/Financia...

Regarding them paying of Romanian secret police, I'm very interested to hear about it. I know they used east german prisoners for a time as cheap labor.

Same in Canada for the most part.

And yet every other Swede in Stockholm knows someone renting out their first-hand rental apartment illegally.

Or taking one class a year as a "student" to qualify for student housing with rent control, etc.

Here's an interesting question: If most people in a society believe corruption is at level X when it's actually at X+N, is it better to expose the reality or not?

Being a member of a society that you believe has low corruption disincentivizes you from being corrupt yourself because people generally want to follow the surrounding norms. So it's probably good for people to believe that corruption is better than it is.

But exposing corruption is also necessary to root it out and actually punish the people involved.

How does one make the trade-off for when disclosure is net helpful for reducing overall corruption? Does it depend on X and N?

The Economist did a famous analysis of IKEA's tax structure:

https://www.economist.com/business/2006/05/11/flat-pack-acco...

TL;DR: The only beneficiaries of INGKA's charity are the owner and his family.

Sorry, that TL;DR is completely false.

1) the ”owner” is long dead.

2) the foundation is set up in such a way to perpetuate itself and its goal (to better mankind), forever. Not to generate wealth for Ingvar Kamprads offspring. He hardly left them penniless. His family does not control his foundations. They have a minority vote.

3) if the world’s billionaires set up their organisations in similar ways, the world would be a much better place.

You can read more here:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/everything-earn-ikea-founder-...

Ingvar Kamprad is known to have lived a simple lifestyle, despite being one of the wealthiest men while he was still alive. While travelling he stayed at cheap hotels and drove an old Volvo. Does this strike you as a man motivated by greed?

From your article: ”That control is so tight that not even Mr Kamprad's heirs can loosen it after his death. The foundation's objects require it to “obtain and manage” shares in the Ingka Holding group. Other clauses of its articles require the foundation to manage its shareholding in a way to ensure “the continuity and growth” of the IKEA group. The shares can be sold only to another foundation with the same objects and executive committee, and the foundation can be dissolved only through insolvency.”

Quoting TFA: What emerges is an outfit that ingeniously exploits the quirks of different jurisdictions to create a charity, dedicated to a somewhat banal cause, that is not only the world's richest foundation, but is at the moment also one of its least generous. The overall set-up of IKEA minimises tax and disclosure, handsomely rewards the founding Kamprad family and makes IKEA immune to a takeover.

Again, mischaracterization.

1) what is banal about helping poor families?

2) The founding family is NOT handsomely rewarded.

3) unlike most charitable organizations, INGKA is set up in such a way to not rely on wealthy donors. They only use a small dividend of their massive fortune for charitable causes. This is financially responsible and is the only way to ensure longevity. Why is this a bad thing?

4) why it would be a bad thing for IKEA to be protected from a takeover, I don’t understand. Would you prefer some billionaire purchased it so they can pocket the profits themselves, instead of supporting poor families?

IKEA is one of the better workplaces. Unlike 99% of all the other corporations out there, IKEA uses their profits to help people in need, not enriching their already wealthy shareholders.

Privatisation is a reactionary strategy that aims to reduce or remove democratic influence over important social institutions like education and healthcare.

The entire point of social constructs like shareholder corporations is to make it hard or impossible to hold physical persons accountable for their actions and risk taking. In some areas of society this might be attractive and reasonable, in many others that involve e.g. vulnerable persons or justice it is not.

I have a chance to influence who sits in the regional political councils, but I can't influence the board in the corporation that runs the local healthcare centers. Capitalist competition optimises for mediocrity, for excellence you need democratic institutions and accountable politicians.

There is probably plenty of it, many escape but they do prosecute it when found (especially when it involves taxes). Håkan Nesser (book author) and Daniel Kindberg (Soccer club president) are probably the most famous recent cases, there's also been a bunch of cases related to social security fraud.

Most of it probably isn't glamorous enough to warrant full page articles but you do note them popping up in news at a steady rate.