#5,993 in Books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism
Sentiment score: 5
Reddit mentions: 14
We found 14 Reddit mentions of Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism. Here are the top ones.
or
- Medline Peri Bottle is empty and can be filled and refilled with water or cleansing solution at home
- A favorite in hospitals, these squirt bottles are great for new moms and postpartum care
- Perineal irrigation bottles come in a resealable poly bag to allow for storage and transport
- 3 pack of cleansing bottles allows you to keep in multiple places within your household
- Perineal spray bottles are 8 oz and simple to use
Features:
Specs:
| Height | 8.6 Inches |
| Length | 5.7 Inches |
| Number of items | 1 |
| Release date | August 2016 |
| Weight | 0.6 Pounds |
| Width | 0.7 Inches |
You should read this: https://www.amazon.ca/Debunking-Utopia-Exposing-Nordic-Socialism/dp/1944229396
The nordics made their money from free markets, their bloated social programs are rapidly eroding the success that those free market policies produced.
Also keep in mind that Norway has a population of 5 million, that's less than Colorado. Of course their government will be more efficient than the behemoth that Bernie wants.
Denne boka tar for seg dette: https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-Utopia-Exposing-Nordic-Socialism/dp/1944229396
Skrevet av broren til Tino Sanandaji.
Han argumenterer for kulturen som har blitt formet i Skandinavia på grunn av mange faktorer, blant annet kjipt vær/temp og mangel på mat.
Dette har gjort at det nordiske samfunnet historisk har vært homogent(ikke nødvendigvis i etnisitet, kultur er viktigst). Folk har villet det samme, og trukket i samme retning. Tillit innad i samfunnet har vært veldig høy. Det har vært høy arbeidsmoral og bra samarbeid. Et eksempel er at det for mange år siden ikke bare var å hente seg mat i skogen. Man måtte planlegge/rasjonere maten for vinteren med hardt arbeid på sommeren og høsten. Alternativet var døden.
Det argumenteres for at den nordiske modellen fungerer bare i Norden på grunn av den kulturbakgrunnen vi har.
Should read the book debunking utopia
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Debunking-Utopia-Exposing-Nordic-Socialism/dp/1944229396
> Ord har betydelser.
Lyft näsan från ordboken nu.
> Om ord tillskrivs vilken betydelse som helst av vem som helst blir konversation, meningsutbyte och utveckling i det närmaste omöjligt.
Reductio ad absurdum, sluta larva dig
> Jag vet att du inte vet vad planekonomin innebar eller att planekonomi och den långa raden av politiska utrensningar som skakade hela det ryska samhället inte är samma sak men än en gång, ord betyder saker. Planekonomin handlade i första hand om produktionsmål för tackjärn, järnmalm och kol, kritiskt viktiga resurser för industrialisering och sedermera kriget mot Tyskland. För det ändamålet var planekonomin effektiv.
Är du på riktigt?
Det är trivialt: Planekonomin i sig var slaveri, repression och massmord. Du kan inte stoppa dom sakerna i olika små fack och låtsas som att dom inte hör ihop även om det står på olika ställen i ordboken.
Det är skillnad på vad ordboken säger och vad utfallet blev.
Saxat rakt från wikipedia sidan om din fina femårsplan:
> the collectivization created a large-scale famine in the Soviet Union in which many millions died.
Vi pratar alltså om miljoner människor som helt enkelt dog som en del av planekonomin.
Men visst, "planekonomi" är ett ord som du kan rabbla fram. Grattis.
Här har du alltså egentligen diskvalificerat dig ur en seriös diskussion eftersom du inte har koll på grundläggande fakta i det du skriver och dessutom förringar du folkmord.
Nu är vi dock lustigt nog tillbaka till mitt ursprungliga inlägg där du har bevisat mig rätt på fler än ett sätt:
Det är precis samma mekanism bakom svälten i Ukraina 1932/1933, miljoner döda som försäkringskassans slöseri med skattepengar i dagens Sverige:
Folk tar helt enkelt dåliga beslut i kollektivistiska system. Dessutom leder det troligtvis till passiv och självgod dumhet ...
Sen vill du ha en separat diskussion huruvida den svenska utjämningspolitiken har skapat ekonomisk tillväxt. Det är nog en diskussion som är lite för komplex för dig med tanke på att du spyr ur dig kommunistisk propaganda från 1930-talet.
> jag kanske har en bakgrund inom ekonomisk historia?
Argument from authority, mera trams från självgode dig
Det är ju extra lustigt eftersom du dels inte kan din historia ordentligt och dels inte förstår grundläggande koncept som korrelation/kausalitet eller statistisk analys eftersom du skriver:
> Det jag däremot hittar är att de stater i USA som har högst andel människor med skandinaviskt ursprung är lite mer välbeställda än genomsnittet, dock har de fortfarande en genomsnittligt lägre hushållsinkomst än den i Sverige.
Jag pratade om en grupp (svenska invandrare i USA), då kan du inte börja jämföra hela stater.
Det här är ju pinsamt eftersom det var en av få konkreta saker som du har sagt men dessutom har du fel i sak eftersom enbart delstaten Minnesota (där flest svenskättlingar finns enligt denna karta) har en högre BNP/capita än Sverige. Dom andra relevanta staterna har ännu högre BNP/capita (North Dakota, Delaware, osv) ....
Här är en annan ganska bra artikel som också jämför just inkomster mellan Sverige och olika amerikanska stater som visar samma sak.
Hur var det med faktan nu? ; )
Det här är faktiskt ganska grundläggande saker ...
Jag orkar inte lista alla fel som du rabblar upp ...
> [Citation needed] - Jag tror du hittade på det här rakt av
Återigen bevisar du mitt första inlägg om tillit i samhället: "En tjuv tror att alla andra är tjuvar. En lögnare tror att alla andra är lögnare. Och agerar därefter."
För en djupare analys av just svensk tillväxt i relation till ekonomisk utjämning kan du läsa en bok (inte en ordbok alltså utan en bok som faktiskt har med ämnet att göra).
(Jag hittade också en förenklad online resurs här)
[https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Sweden%20Paper.pdf]
[Citat]:(https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Sweden%20Paper.pdf)
> If Americans with Swedish ancestry were to form their own country, their per capita GDP would be $56,900, more than $10,000 above the income of the average American. This is also far above Swedish GDP per capita, at $36,600. Swedes living in the USA are thus approximately 53 per cent more wealthy than Swedes (excluding immigrants) in their native country (OECD, 2009; US Census database).
[Citat]:(https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Sweden%20Paper.pdf)
> Rather than being the cause of Sweden’s social strengths, the high-tax welfare state might instead have been made possible by the hard-won Swedish stock of social capital. It was well before the welfare state, when hard work paid off, that a culture with a strong work ethic and strong trust and social cohesion developed. As discussed above, the modern system has eroded some of these norms.
Jag tänker inte ta upp upp allt här men i princip hela boken går ut på att bevisa att ditt påstående är kategoriskt felaktigt:
> Traditionellt har vår ekonomiska utjämningspolitik varit den enskilt största faktorn till Sveriges ekonomiska styrka.
Nej, det är helt enkelt inte sant.
Citat igen:
> Another popular notion is that Sweden´s phenomenal growth rate is closely tied to a period dominated by Social Democratic party rule and high taxes. In fact, between 1870 and 1936, the start of the social democratic era, Sweden had the highest growth rate in the industrialised world. Between 1936 and 2008, however, the growth rate was only ranked 18th out of 28 industrialised nations (Maddison, 2010).
Citat:
> The rapid growth of the state in the late 1960s and 1970s led to a large decline in Sweden’s relative economic performance. In 1975, Sweden was the 4th richest industrialised country in terms of GDP per head. By 1993, it had fallen to 14th.
Citat:
> Sweden developed state welfare provision during the first half of the 20th century, but the welfare institutions were financed by relatively low taxes. As noted previously, tax revenues were still only around 21 per cent of GDP in 1950 (Ekonomifakta, n. d.). Interestingly enough, the impressive social outcomes of Swedish society were evident already during this period. For example, in 1950, long before the high-tax welfare state, Swedes lived 2.6 years longer than Americans. Today the difference is 2.7 years (SCB database; US Department of Health and Human Services, 2009). It is also interesting that the relatively even income distribution in Sweden pre-dates the expansion of the welfare state.
Citat:
> A comparison of historical rates of income inequality in Sweden, the USA, Canada, France and Netherlands shows interesting results. Already by 1920, well before the existence of a welfare state, Sweden had amongst the lowest levels of inequality within this group of countries. Roine and Waldenström (2008)
Du försöker förenkla saker genom att säga:
> När socialismen rotade sig på allvar i Sverige (dvs senare hälften av 1800-talet [...]
Du kan inte bara rabbla saker ur ordboken om när arbetarepartiet grundades (1881) utan du måste jämföra deras faktiska politik (staten/skatterna/"utjämningen" växte rejält först efter WW2 och var som störst på 1970-talet) med vad utfallet blev vid det tillfället, dvs. det gick gradvis åt helvete ekonomiskt ju mer staten växte, såpass att sossarna runt 1980-1990 själva började montera ned stora delar. I början (1800-talet) var sossarna ute efter andra saker som allmän rösträtt och kunde inte påverka ekonomin i stort. Dessutom påvisar jag tillväxt innan partiet ens grundades!
Till och med socialdemokraterna övergav själva sin egen socialistiska ideologi (dvs. dom gav slutligen upp sin lilla dröm om att äga produktionsmedlen) på 1980-talet( Kanslihushögern) eftersom statens svällande storlek med höga skatter och omfördelningspolitik dämpade just ekonomisk tillväxt. Så hur kan det vara den största faktorn till "ekonomisk styrka"? Trams!
Svensk kultur och hårt arbete byggde Sverige! Folkhemmet var en acceptabel kostnad (fram tills nu när andra ska åka snålskjuts).
När man nu ska förstöra den svenska demografin och kulturen som gjorde Sverige framgångsrikt så kommer det gå som det går helt enkelt.
Dom andra sakerna som du tar upp (bostadsmarkad, "klyftor", osv) är småpotatis jämfört med det. Precis som tackjärn är småpotatis i relation till folkmord.
Till skillnad från postmoderna historieförfalskare så förstod socialdemokraterna själva precis vad det handlade om:
Citat, Tage Erlander i Valfrihetens samhälle (Tiden 1962), s. 82
> Därför kan vi angripa arbetslöshetsproblemen på ett helt annat sätt, i medvetande om att det vi gör är en sak som i varje fall inte influeras av skiljaktigheter i hudfärg eller religion utan att våra insatser får sin motivering uteslutande med tanke på arbetslöshetsfrågan själv. Därför bör vi måhända vara litet mera ödmjuka när vi nalkas det här problemet än vad vi många gånger kanske är.
Ödmjukhet ... kanske vore något för självgode dig som silar mygg och sväljer kameler?
Ridå.
Yes, good threads. Was away taking son to a pre collage event, and only had a chance to respond now.
Agree with you that there are perhaps degrees of socialism. Some favor strict definitions in which the government owns or controls the means of production. I like a more operative definition in which need is the basis for reward. A society for which from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs largely holds is intrinsically Marxist. So say we have Sweden with a 70% tax rate, in which your government controls a greater share of your earnings than you do, and has program after program that falls under from ability to needs, that society would be more Socialist/Marxist than capitalist. A society in which you, the individual, control the bulk of what you earn is capitalist. Progressive taxation throws a huge monkey wrench into the mix, because it applies a Marxist standard to the rich, and a capitalist standard to the poor.
You rightfully point to the intrinsic difficulty in testing out approaches, when you question how relevant is comparing the US to Germany. One can see trends, and study those trends over many societies over time, and my personal experience is the trend of socialism is to impoverish nations.
The answer to the Scandinavian people question is to contrast prosperity prior to socialism to that after, and I think we do see a decline in standard of living, which indicates for that population set the people are worse off. What socialists like to do is highlight the central abuses prior to socialism and gloss over the comparison of before and after. The essays I have read on this topic have convinced me that things got worse. This NR piece, and the book that goes into greater depth on the subject considers how socialism impacted Scandinavians. I heard the author on the radio going into this at length and it was well documented.
> "socialist-like features" in economy are often arguably beneficial.
No, they aren't. "I like this" doesn't make something economically beneficial on the whole.
> Think of the common example of the Scandinavian countries.
They have higher wealth as a result of capitalism and freer markets. They didn't become richer as a result of welfare statism. This was written for exactly this kind of bullshit. Socialism didn't make them rich.
> Scandinavian countries is pretty socialist
Absolutely not.
>but we are still doing pretty good.
I recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-Utopia-Exposing-Nordic-Socialism/dp/1944229396/
and listening to this podcast:
http://tomwoods.com/ep-717-debunking-utopia-exposing-the-myth-of-nordic-socialism/
There's a book specifically on this subject that you might find interesting - "Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism". The author is Nima Sanandaji, a Swedish-Iranian/Kurdish author, and the president of the think tank European Centre for Entrepreneurship and Policy Reform. He is also a research fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies and the Centre for the Study of Market Reform of Education, both in London. He is a co-founder of the Stockholm-based think tank Captus, which he headed as CEO for several years until 2011. He has conducted research at Chalmers University of Technology, Royal Institute of Technology and Cambridge University, and holds a PhD from the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm (in polymer engineering). His earlier work, "Scandinavian Unexceptionalism: Culture, Markets and the Failure of Third-Way Socialism", also deals with the topic.
The book is partially an examination of, and a response to, the discussions regarding the possibility and desirability of implementing the Nordic model of democratic socialism, as popularized and propagated by Bernie Sanders and his supporters during the presidential election, elsewhere, including the United States. The gist of the book's argument is that what American liberals like about Nordic societies is not a product of socialism, but rather has more to do with their unique culture—and free markets—than with their welfare state policies.
He argues that the culture in place in Scandinavia allowed it to achieve the bulk of its current prosperity and equality early on, before the introduction of third-wave socialist policies and the expansion of the welfare state in the second half of the 20th century. According to his data, everything that Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, and other leading Democrats admire about Nordic countries already existed in the middle of the twentieth century, when these societies had small public sectors and low taxes. In fact, and I think this is one of the most interesting aspects of the book's argument, these outcomes seemingly can be found in the United States, too, among a specific group of people: Americans with Nordic ancestry. According to the book, today, measured by GDP per capita, Danish Americans’ living standards are 55 percent higher than those of Danes; living standards of Swedish Americans are 53 percent higher than those of Swedes; and Finnish Americans’ living standards are 59 percent higher than the Finns’. Even for Norwegian Americans, who lack the oil wealth of Norway, living standards outpace those of the Norwegians by three percent, which the author presents as an argument in favour of his thesis that the prosperity of the Nordics is not a product of their policies.
The overall line of argumentation the author presents along this and his other works is that there is nothing magical about the Nordics which, like most other countries, have thrived economically in periods of free market reforms and have stagnated when taxes and government involvement in the economy have increased.
Personally, I do not have a very strong opinion as I find the argument over whether this approach would benefit a country like the United States to be strictly academical, but I do find Sanandaji's writing and research to be rather convincing.
Yes, I'm Swedish.
Their are 8 major parties competing for power. Two blocks and one outsider.
There is the "red-green" block consisting of the Social democrats, The green party and the Left party (formerly the communist party) These currently hold power with a minority of the vote, supported by the "opposition".
Then there is the "Alliance" made out of the Liberal party, The Moderates, The Center party and the Christian Democrats.
Then there is the third option, the Swedish Democrats, whom have been isolated due to being labled a "nazi alt-right" party by the state controlled media (they want to limited immigration and have fiscal responsibility) Currently polling at 20-30% of the vote, depending on who ordered the poll.
I'm guessing that the Swedish Democrats will be the biggest party after the 2018 election, with about 30% of the vote. This will breakup the "alliance" and create a new left-center block consisting of the:
Social Democrats, Green party and Center party. Basically paving the way to hell with good intentions.
The future looks bleak.
If you're interested in modern Swedish political history I recommend reading this book:
Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism
https://www.amazon.ca/Debunking-Utopia-Exposing-Nordic-Socialism/dp/1944229396
I wish I had enough money to buy a copy for every Reddit user.
WOW that's a lie.
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/9789264183896-en/03/11/index.html;jsessionid=72onp8ie4ojr6.x-oecd-live-03?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/9789264183896-38-en&containerItemId=%2Fcontent%2Fchapter%2F9789264183896-38-en&accessItemIds=/content/book/9789264183896-en&mimeType=text/html)?&_csp_=45f4df11dc99cd2019aa9aa30865f74f
May I suggest a book about that specific subject?
Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism
Some in the Democratic Party call Nordic Countries socialism.. I am saying they are not socialist by definition.
So technically yes it is brainwashing to believe Nordic Countries are socialism and that is a tactic of the left today in the USA..
I DO believe socialism is inherently evil.. and we shouldn’t be making romance with the word and theory. shall I explain? The definition of socialism is: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
So if you are implying that believing socialism is evil by definition is a brainwashing then I have to strongly disagree. Its morality.. I believe in morality..
This means theft in my opinion.. theft.. I think it’s evil to steal something from someone who didn’t produce it and give it to someone who didn’t produce it..
Steven Crowder presents the argument very well in the video below.
Please watch this video because I don’t have the time to type it all... thank you.
I can not recall one true successful true socialist state.. the Nordic countries gained their wealth thorough capitalism and some one else in this thread explained it also.. about Norway’s trillion dollar energy fund.. there’s also a great book on the topic too..
Let me state one more time...
Socialism by definition is evil
https://youtu.be/xF2lFGyADtM
https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-Utopia-Exposing-Nordic-Socialism/dp/1944229396
A lot of people think this, but they don't actually understand how some of these current European systems operate and how they got their.
I encourage people to check out this book , it explains this myth that Europe's socialist tendencies have actually worked to benefit rather than hinder , the function of their economies
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1944229396/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500447244&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=the+myth+of+nordic&dpPl=1&dpID=51rxydIMNdL&ref=plSrch