Growth above this level leads to decreased unemployment and vice versa. But it is not just the strength of demand growth that determines the level of unemployment. Other factors, such as economic structures, are also involved and at some level of unemployment the only result of additional growth stimuli is bottlenecks and shortages. Wage costs will then rise in a way that conflicts with low and stable inflation. The GDP growth rate of 3.7% for the first half of this year accordingly exceeds any reasonable assessment of the Swedish economy’s long-term potential. For a time, however, such a high growth rate can be feasible if firms are able to recruit the necessary labour, for instance because the economy is recovering from a situation with high unemployment. That has been the case in Sweden’s labour market and pressure from wages and prices has thereby been able to remain low. Neither are any dramatic changes foreseen in respect of wages in the near future. But how long can this situation last in the present economic upswing? How far can unemployment be reduced without firms encountering recruitment problems more generally? Even with the high unemployment at present, it is, for example, already difficult to recruit computer consultants and some other occupational categories. The situation in certain segments of the Stockholm labour market is also tighter than in other parts of Sweden. But so far, the bottleneck problems seem to be fairly restricted. As yet there are no indications of more widespread shortages.
If we are to prevent another crisis, action is required on both of the fundamental causes. First, we need to resolve the problems caused by massive capital flows from poor to rich countries. Yet the imbalances are growing again. This problem can be tackled only by international cooperation – most obviously through the G20 – and I hope that the trade union movement will continue to engage with that process. Second, our financial system needs radical reform. Slowly but surely, we must move towards a banking system that does not put both the economy and your members’ livelihoods at risk. In the long run, banks will have to hold much more capital and be much less highly leveraged. Part of the answer is improving the way we regulate banks, and devising policy tools to control the risks taken by the financial system as a whole. The aim should not be to prevent all bank failures. Just as with every other company in the economy, banks that get it wrong must be allowed to fail, without risk to ordinary depositors or taxpayers. In 2008, banks were bailed out not to protect them but to protect the rest of the economy from the banks. That may not seem fair – and it isn’t – when other companies, such as Jaguar, had to stand on their own feet or go to the wall. So banks too must face market discipline. But we need to do more than reform our banking system.