Under most red and now also under this red-green government, Sweden has boom.
The opposite usually applies under blue rule. Even in the US, the economy tends to do better under the Democrats than under the Republicans. My conclusion is that redistribution of money via increased taxes, subsidies and social insurance stimulates the purchasing power of low and middle income earners. These cannot afford to save so much, but consume what they get extra. It creates jobs that generate increased tax revenue.
In addition, red governments tend to invest more in the public sector, which also creates more jobs which leads to more consumption and in turn more tax revenue.
According to GP's article, the state's and municipalities' willingness to invest is now spreading to the entrepreneurs. They now also dare to invest, which further blocks the boom.
This boom has nevertheless been achieved with very minimal extra stimulus. Think how it could have gone if we invested more in stimulating the economy and employment.
A bottleneck is the lack of competent personnel in many sectors. The Alliance set the stage for this shortcoming when they made practical high school educations non-qualifying for university and thus less attractive. In addition, they cut back on all labor market education except for the toughest professions.
Another danger that applies to the entire Western world is that the purchasing power of low- and middle-income earners has decreased over the past thirty years in relation to the development of profits and the development of housing prices. The aim has been to keep inflation down. The price is that consumption has been kept going with an increased number of loans for private consumption and the purchase of increasingly expensive private homes. When people for one reason or another cannot pay the loans on their loans, the whole system fails and there are financial crashes.
When we make sure that everyone gets good conditions, the whole society goes better and vice versa.