the psychological and social difference between receiving money from a source which a population would consider to be 'theirs' cannot be overstated
It can be overstated; you've overstated it. In contrast to the careful research described in the article, you've just made a bunch of stuff up. Your rush to assume race as the dominant factor is another example.
Do you know what the Swedes didn't have a problem with a decade ago? Welfare abuse. All of a sudden, they have a problem with it now. Do you know who are the ones abusing the system? Hint: it's not the Swedes.
Every other country which has accepted middle eastern immigrants in the last decade are experiencing the same problems.
If a population does not respect your system, they will abuse it, period.
If you can get over yourself for a second, I'm sure you'll be able to figure out why.
As a Swede I'm not sure there's any base for this claim, other than that we now have racist politicians who make populist statements like this one without shame, referring to cherry picked data at best.
Generally, if you're going to make racist statements, at least try to back them up with some data and/or source.
Currently I am at a cafe in Thailand, hanging out with a bunch of swedes from diverse backgrounds. Just asked them bout this. Apparently, notdrunkatall, according to my Swedish friends, you are incorrect, and that the welfare system is considered a massive success in Sweden and that the immigration problem is seen as a minor, short term issue that right wing politicians make a big stink out of to get nationalistic votes.
The welfare system in Sweden IS seen as a massive success because it HAS been a massive success, and didn't have many serious problems because people respected it as a temporary thing, and receiving welfare came with a social stigma.
That is changing as a direct result of increasing immigration, and welfare reform is on the horizon across Europe, not just in Sweden.
Instead of asking them a loaded question in order to receive the answer that you want to receive, why not try asking them an unloaded question? Something like: do immigrants treat the welfare system differently than do native Swedes? Obvious answer is obvious.
But you've already said enough to refute your own argument: the immigration problem. It's a problem, is it not? And it's a problem because those people respect the system less than Swedes do, thus necessitating reform. It's not a major problem because the Swedes are proud of their system which has worked so well, with so little abuse, until just recently, and they're certain that they can figure this problem out as well before it gets too bad. But it is a problem nonetheless because, well, I'll just let you go back and read my original assertion.
How the fuck is it that a forum of supposedly intelligent people have such a massive problem with basic fucking logic?
So, let me see if I have your position right: because some people will abuse a system that will improve things for many more people, we should not implement said system? Is that right? I think it is telling that you would rather not have one "type" of person benefit unjustly in the face of all of society benefiting greatly. Says more about your feelings about "types" of people than your willingness to participate in the heterogeneous society of modern civilization.
How do I have your position wrong? Please enlighten me. Telling me I suck at "this" is hardly informative or constructive.
You indicated how a) this was a special case and that other types of people wouldn't behave similarly and that b) because other types of people wouldn't behave similarly this type of social policy shouldn't be enacted.
Yes? What did I miss?
Additionally, it is telling that you consider me to be plural. As if I am speaking on behalf of some sort of group that is "other" to you. Methinks, perhaps, you've caught the identity politics meme. You and I, we are not on separate teams, in different groups, or of a different type.
I got over myself... is it prejudice? Because I'm pretty sure it's prejudicial interpretation of whatever data or anecdote you're making vague reference to.
It can be overstated; you've overstated it. In contrast to the careful research described in the article, you've just made a bunch of stuff up. Your rush to assume race as the dominant factor is another example.