The idea of a financial budget is outdated

What do people and nature really need?

The Case for Socioecological and Real-Economic Budgets

In Sweden, much debate centers around whether the fiscal framework should target a surplus, deficit, or balanced budget to meet the country’s vast investment needs, particularly those that have been neglected for too long. What often goes unspoken, though, is that those advocating for stricter targets—such as balanced or surplus goals—are usually more comfortable allowing private banks to create money. This approach leads to reduced public sector resources, worsens mental health, and most importantly, helps maintain current class divides. But is running a deficit the solution?

In reality, it’s not about choosing between a surplus or deficit. The problem is that we are stuck with the wrong approach altogether—financial budgets should not be the primary metric. The state has the power to create money as needed, and it can regulate inflation and distribution through taxes and the state budget. What we truly need is a shift toward socioecological and real-economic budget planning, driven by human and environmental needs rather than arbitrary financial targets.

What is a Socioecological Budget?

A socioecological budget focuses on what society and the environment need to function sustainably, not on short-term financial goals. This does not mean spending “boldly” for the sake of it. Instead, it means investing in what people, nature, and the real economy need to thrive in the long term.

For example, imagine if we built homes and products designed to last 100 times longer than they do today. The immediate investment might seem high, but it would drastically reduce waste, energy consumption, and long-term costs. In such a scenario, once people’s needs are met and we have durable, sustainable infrastructure, the state could reduce the money supply through taxation or adjustments in the state budget. This is a balance that takes the ecological impact into account, ensuring that we don’t overproduce or waste resources while also meeting the needs of the population.

Adjusting Economic Activity Based on Needs

A needs-based budget does not aim to maximize production or economic activity for its own sake. Instead, it focuses on what is required socioecologically and real-economically. Sometimes that means ramping up production—such as when we need more renewable energy infrastructure or public housing. Other times, it means scaling back, especially if overproduction threatens the climate or depletes natural resources.

Unlike traditional economic models, which often measure success by growth or productivity, a socioecological approach asks: What does society actually need right now? For instance, if we reach a point where we have enough durable goods, housing, and infrastructure, it may make sense to slow production to protect natural resources. Meanwhile, the state can still ensure that everyone’s basic needs are met without forcing people to borrow from private banks just to survive.

Avoiding Excessive Debt by Meeting Real Needs

One of the greatest risks of a purely financial budget is that it pushes people into private debt. When governments prioritize balanced budgets or surpluses, they often cut back on public services, leaving individuals with no choice but to borrow from private banks. This increases inequality and traps people in cycles of debt, particularly when their real needs—like housing, healthcare, or education—are unmet.

A socioecological budget seeks to avoid this by meeting people’s needs directly, through state-led investment. When public housing, healthcare, and other services are adequately funded, individuals do not need to turn to private lenders, reducing household debt and financial stress. This is not about maximizing productivity at all costs but rather about ensuring that productivity serves real needs, without damaging the environment or exhausting natural resources.

The Real-Economic Balance

Ultimately, financial balance is only one part of the picture, and not even the most important one. A state’s real balance should focus on socioecological health and real-economic stability. A real-economic budget asks: Are we providing for people’s real needs? Are we protecting the environment for future generations? Are we creating an economy that is sustainable in the long term?

By shifting our focus to socioecological and real-economic priorities, Sweden could move away from the short-term constraints of financial targets and toward a future where everyone’s needs are met in a way that’s both environmentally sustainable and economically viable. Whether that requires increasing or decreasing production or economic activity will depend on what the society and environment need—not on arbitrary financial goals.

In summary, it’s time we rethink how we measure success. Instead of fixating on financial budgets, we should focus on the socioecological and real-economic outcomes that matter most. Only then can we create a society where people and nature thrive together, free from unnecessary financial constraints.