What do you think?
Rate this book
Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism
Left-leaning academics, liberal pop stars such as Bruce Springsteen, and Democrat politicians from Bernie Sanders to Bill and Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama all have one thing in common: they are avid admirers of Nordic-style social democracy. The reason is simple. At first glance, Nordic countries seem to have everything liberals want to see in America: equal income distribution, good health, low levels of poverty, and thriving economies, all co-existing with big welfare states. By copying Nordic policies, many in the American left hope to transform America to a similar socialist "utopia."
In Debunking Utopia, Swedish author Nima Sanandaji explains why this is all wishful thinking. Certainly, some aspects of Nordic welfare states, such as childcare provision, merit the admiration of liberals. But overall, it is a unique culture based on hard work, healthy diets, social cohesion and high levels of trust that have made Nordic countries successful. Sanandaji explains how the Nordic people adopted this culture of success in order to survive in the unforgiving Scandinavian climate. He systematically proves that the high levels of income equality, high lifespans and other signs of social success in the Nordics all predate the expansion of the welfare state. If anything, the Nordic countries reached their peak during the mid-twentieth century, when they had low taxes and small welfare states. Perhaps most astonishing are his findings that Nordic-Americans consistently outperform their cousins who live across the ocean. People of Nordic descent who live under the American capitalist system not only enjoy higher levels of income, but also a lower level of poverty than the citizens of the Nordic countries themselves.
Sanandaji's previous writings on the roots of Nordic success have gained media attention around the world and been translated into many languages. Debunking Utopia, which expands on this work, should be read by all—liberals and conservatives alike—who follow the debate over the future of American welfare. As Sanandaji shows, there is much Americans can learn from both the successes and failures of Nordic-style social democracy.
In Debunking Utopia, Swedish author Nima Sanandaji explains why this is all wishful thinking. Certainly, some aspects of Nordic welfare states, such as childcare provision, merit the admiration of liberals. But overall, it is a unique culture based on hard work, healthy diets, social cohesion and high levels of trust that have made Nordic countries successful. Sanandaji explains how the Nordic people adopted this culture of success in order to survive in the unforgiving Scandinavian climate. He systematically proves that the high levels of income equality, high lifespans and other signs of social success in the Nordics all predate the expansion of the welfare state. If anything, the Nordic countries reached their peak during the mid-twentieth century, when they had low taxes and small welfare states. Perhaps most astonishing are his findings that Nordic-Americans consistently outperform their cousins who live across the ocean. People of Nordic descent who live under the American capitalist system not only enjoy higher levels of income, but also a lower level of poverty than the citizens of the Nordic countries themselves.
Sanandaji's previous writings on the roots of Nordic success have gained media attention around the world and been translated into many languages. Debunking Utopia, which expands on this work, should be read by all—liberals and conservatives alike—who follow the debate over the future of American welfare. As Sanandaji shows, there is much Americans can learn from both the successes and failures of Nordic-style social democracy.
240 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2016
79 people are currently reading
1062 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews
March 3, 2023
بسیاری از مردمِ کشور ما بر این باورند که سیستم‌های سیاسی-اقتصادیِ سوسیالیستی در اروپا و به خصوص در کشورهای ناحیه‌ی اسکاندیناوی مثل سوئد، فنلاند، نروژ و ... به خوبی جواب داده‌اند. به همین دلیل است که این کتاب یکی از کتاب‌هایی است که خواندنش بر ایرانی جماعت واجب است. مخصوصاً بر کسانی که هنوز به کارکرد سوسیالیسم باور دارند و آن‌هایی که بر این باورند که کشورهای اسکاندیناوی (نوردیک) نمونه‌های موفقی از سوسیالیسم در جهان معاصرند.
کتاب فوق‌العاده بود. به مهم‌ترین ابهام‌ها و پرسش‌های پیرامون سوسیالیسم پاسخ می‌داد و ارزش دوباره‌خوانی را نیز دارد. در مورد خدمات رایگان دولتی و دولت رفاه هنوز دو موضوع باقی مانده که به نظرم جایشان در این کتاب و چنین کتاب‌هایی خالی است: پرداختنِ بیشتر به سیستم درمان و سیستم آموزش کشور و اینکه چطور میتوان این دو مورد را خصوصی کرد و آیا خصوصی کردنِ هرچه بیشترِ سیستم آموزش و سیستم درمان کار درستی است یا نه و دیگر کشورها در زمینه آموزش و درمان و هزینه‌های آن چه می‌کنند و چه نتایجی به دست آورده‌اند.
کتاب فوق‌العاده بود. به مهم‌ترین ابهام‌ها و پرسش‌های پیرامون سوسیالیسم پاسخ می‌داد و ارزش دوباره‌خوانی را نیز دارد. در مورد خدمات رایگان دولتی و دولت رفاه هنوز دو موضوع باقی مانده که به نظرم جایشان در این کتاب و چنین کتاب‌هایی خالی است: پرداختنِ بیشتر به سیستم درمان و سیستم آموزش کشور و اینکه چطور میتوان این دو مورد را خصوصی کرد و آیا خصوصی کردنِ هرچه بیشترِ سیستم آموزش و سیستم درمان کار درستی است یا نه و دیگر کشورها در زمینه آموزش و درمان و هزینه‌های آن چه می‌کنند و چه نتایجی به دست آورده‌اند.
August 30, 2018
Wow! If you've always looked to the Nordic countries as a role model for high-functioning Social Democracy a' la Bernie Sanders, you really need to read this book. The author uses a range of metrics to bust the myth that big government, social welfare, free everything, etc. can easily go hand in hand with economic prosperity. A real eye-opener of a book, although it is written like a thesis. Now I need to find a book that convincingly counters the arguments here. 5* for insight.
September 10, 2016
This is a powerful rebuttal to the prevailing "wisdom" among liberal elites and the otherwise less-aware types in the U.S. and elsewhere who celebrate the "Scandinavian Socialist model" without even understanding (1) what it is, (2) the true underpinnings of Scandinavian success, (3) why it works better (to the extent it works at all) in a small, homogeneous population, and (4) that it hasn't been working and that that Scandinavians themselves resent the term socialism and have in fact been cutting taxes and liberalizing their market economies for years.
I liked this even better than Swedish Unexceptionlism, which was more of a monograph on many of the same topics, and which largely excluded Iceland. Iceland is well represented in this book and serves as an important source of differentiation among the Nordics, although much of the data was gathered during Iceland's rampant capitalist adventures of the early 2000s before it descended into mayhem following the market crash of 2008. Still, this book illustrates that throughout the Nordics, including Iceland, it is culture more than welfare state policies, that has contributed to those nations' success.
The Swedish-Iranian (Kurdish) author provides a unique insider/outsider perspective, and points to such factors as trust, social cohesion, individual responsibility, as the real reason that Scandinavia has prospered. And that as liberal welfare policies have eroded those cultural traits, so too has the success begun to wane. He characterizes the welfare state as meeting its heyday in the 1970s, and since proven a failure.
Sweden has cut taxes, liberalized its economy, and most recently cracked down on open-door immigration. Denmark has been wary of immigration for years, and has cut welfare benefits and begun to emphasize individual responsibility through policy. Norway has the luxury of artificially propping its welfare state through vast oil resources, but even it has recognized the devastating toll this has taken on the population's work ethic, and its center-right government has begun to make significant changes.
The Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clintons of the world view Scandinavia through rose colored glasses, and naively believe that Nordic policies can be applied to the U.S. like you would format paint on Microsoft Word. But the reality is far more complex, and even a cursory look at the Scandinavian immigrants to the United States reveals they fare much better under American policies than their cousins back in the homeland.
This book is an important contribution towards dispelling the widespread myths of the Scandinavian Shangri-La. To truly recreate the perceived advances and successes of those countries, would-be copycats should instead focus on recreating cultural attributes that have proven successful: strong families, individual responsibility, social cohesion, and high levels of trust.
Really loved this one.
I liked this even better than Swedish Unexceptionlism, which was more of a monograph on many of the same topics, and which largely excluded Iceland. Iceland is well represented in this book and serves as an important source of differentiation among the Nordics, although much of the data was gathered during Iceland's rampant capitalist adventures of the early 2000s before it descended into mayhem following the market crash of 2008. Still, this book illustrates that throughout the Nordics, including Iceland, it is culture more than welfare state policies, that has contributed to those nations' success.
The Swedish-Iranian (Kurdish) author provides a unique insider/outsider perspective, and points to such factors as trust, social cohesion, individual responsibility, as the real reason that Scandinavia has prospered. And that as liberal welfare policies have eroded those cultural traits, so too has the success begun to wane. He characterizes the welfare state as meeting its heyday in the 1970s, and since proven a failure.
Sweden has cut taxes, liberalized its economy, and most recently cracked down on open-door immigration. Denmark has been wary of immigration for years, and has cut welfare benefits and begun to emphasize individual responsibility through policy. Norway has the luxury of artificially propping its welfare state through vast oil resources, but even it has recognized the devastating toll this has taken on the population's work ethic, and its center-right government has begun to make significant changes.
The Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clintons of the world view Scandinavia through rose colored glasses, and naively believe that Nordic policies can be applied to the U.S. like you would format paint on Microsoft Word. But the reality is far more complex, and even a cursory look at the Scandinavian immigrants to the United States reveals they fare much better under American policies than their cousins back in the homeland.
This book is an important contribution towards dispelling the widespread myths of the Scandinavian Shangri-La. To truly recreate the perceived advances and successes of those countries, would-be copycats should instead focus on recreating cultural attributes that have proven successful: strong families, individual responsibility, social cohesion, and high levels of trust.
Really loved this one.
September 19, 2025
The first two words of the book are "Bernie Sanders". The purpose of the book is apparently to refute misconceptions about "Nordic socialism" among American Leftists. To some degree he might achieve this, but for anybody with a prior knowledge of the history and economics of the Nordic countries the book provides hardly anything new. That Nordic society were relatively egalitarian before the introduction of the welfare state is well known, so is the fact that they achieved prosperity with liberal politics, that extreme welfare policies in the 1970s had disastrous consequences and that the countries reachieved prosperity with market-oriented policies.
The most important argument is that other that similar politics did not yiedl the same results in other European countries, and that countries like Switzerland achieved a high standard of living and a high standard of public health with a much lower tax burden.
Some arguments are flawed, or reflect specific Swedish circumstances:
- Not everywhere have farmers been free, in Denmark they were forced to live on a specific estate (stavnsbånd)
- The role of climate is overrated. Denmark and Southern Sweden have moderate and not harsh climates, and provide very good conditions for agriculture.
- the role of coffee for identification with the workplace is at best anecdotical.
- Not all immigrants get caught in the "welfare ytrap".
The most important argument is that other that similar politics did not yiedl the same results in other European countries, and that countries like Switzerland achieved a high standard of living and a high standard of public health with a much lower tax burden.
Some arguments are flawed, or reflect specific Swedish circumstances:
- Not everywhere have farmers been free, in Denmark they were forced to live on a specific estate (stavnsbånd)
- The role of climate is overrated. Denmark and Southern Sweden have moderate and not harsh climates, and provide very good conditions for agriculture.
- the role of coffee for identification with the workplace is at best anecdotical.
- Not all immigrants get caught in the "welfare ytrap".
March 1, 2018
The writing style leaves a lot to be desired (and less repeated), but is deceptively accessible, and almost too causal, especially considering seriousness of the themes it addresses. Heavy topics demand heavy citations, and I somehow ended up wishing for more than the author included*, even though it seems well referenced.
I must admit I have been one of the "why can't we all just be like Sweden" crowd until recently - guess now I know why (we can't). Even more worryingly, Sweden** doesn't seem to be all that we hyped it up to be.
Recommended to anyone with even cursory interest in politics, economy and social issues in general.
* My fellow nonfiction book clubber Kim's complaining about the demise of decent referencing seems to be rubbing off on me
** North European countries
I must admit I have been one of the "why can't we all just be like Sweden" crowd until recently - guess now I know why (we can't). Even more worryingly, Sweden** doesn't seem to be all that we hyped it up to be.
Recommended to anyone with even cursory interest in politics, economy and social issues in general.
* My fellow nonfiction book clubber Kim's complaining about the demise of decent referencing seems to be rubbing off on me
** North European countries
March 9, 2017
Covers a very important topic and clarifies some serious misconceptions about Nordic societies.
Could have used a good editor to make the book more readable and a good copyeditor/proofreader to increase consistency in word use and spelling. Still, an important contribution to the discussion.
Could have used a good editor to make the book more readable and a good copyeditor/proofreader to increase consistency in word use and spelling. Still, an important contribution to the discussion.
February 16, 2021
Interesting take but kinda repetitive.
Best regards, Nordic dude.
Best regards, Nordic dude.
February 6, 2017
Let me start this review with a statement of full disclosure. While I am not an expert in the fields of history and government, I am a student of those areas. I have never been a fan of socialism (no matter what adjective you place before it), and I was very concerned of the rabid-like following of Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election. Added to the irony was the fact that as Sanders pushed for socialism, socialist countries Greece and Venezuela were imploding. My primary concerns about socialism are that it ALWAYS looks good on paper but ALWAYS fails in execution (it has never succeeded), and that it uses coercion to function.
Still, when Sanders used Nordic countries such as Sweden as examples of democratic socialism working just fine, I thought maybe I am missing something. It seemed too good to be true. When I came across "Debunking Utopia," written by an Iranian-born who migrated to Sweden, I was intrigued.
He notes that while Sanders was championing the benefits of the democratic socialism of Nordic countries, every one of them currently had a right-of-center leader in power, and government entitlements were being rolled back. Sanders was promoting a system that was at its prime in 2000, not presently.
While he acknowledges that Scandinavian citizens do indeed have a higher standard of living than America, he argues that their standard of living was not because of government programs. For example, comparing the pre-socialist standard from 1960 to the standard when socialism was at its prime (2000), he noted that this standard was actually 50% higher in the former than the latter. In other words, while the standard of living is still higher than America, it is still far less than it was BEFORE this system was established. Sanandaji actually concludes that this standard has more to do with Sweden's traditional work ethic and overall health. To emphasize this, he compares this standard between Nordic citizens verses Nordic citizens who immigrated to the United States, and concludes that the Nordic-Americans in the US is actually higher than not only the general population, but also far higher than Nordic citizens. He argues that the Nordic lifestyle AND American opportunity argues is the perfect mix.
This was a great book to look at the popular claims that Swedish government systems should be replicated in the US. It debunks that ideology.
Sadly, for those more interested in the "on-paper" theories of democratic socialism and is actively arguing that it will work here, a book like this probably won't matter. Its easy to share Facebook memes and articles on Vox or Dailybeast on social media. Or they'll resort to the popular claim "that's different" or resort to the favorite "-isms" widely used to shut down an argument.
But for anyone who wants to verify whether the democratic socialism actually works as well as promoted in the last election, I HIGHLY recommend this book.
Still, when Sanders used Nordic countries such as Sweden as examples of democratic socialism working just fine, I thought maybe I am missing something. It seemed too good to be true. When I came across "Debunking Utopia," written by an Iranian-born who migrated to Sweden, I was intrigued.
He notes that while Sanders was championing the benefits of the democratic socialism of Nordic countries, every one of them currently had a right-of-center leader in power, and government entitlements were being rolled back. Sanders was promoting a system that was at its prime in 2000, not presently.
While he acknowledges that Scandinavian citizens do indeed have a higher standard of living than America, he argues that their standard of living was not because of government programs. For example, comparing the pre-socialist standard from 1960 to the standard when socialism was at its prime (2000), he noted that this standard was actually 50% higher in the former than the latter. In other words, while the standard of living is still higher than America, it is still far less than it was BEFORE this system was established. Sanandaji actually concludes that this standard has more to do with Sweden's traditional work ethic and overall health. To emphasize this, he compares this standard between Nordic citizens verses Nordic citizens who immigrated to the United States, and concludes that the Nordic-Americans in the US is actually higher than not only the general population, but also far higher than Nordic citizens. He argues that the Nordic lifestyle AND American opportunity argues is the perfect mix.
This was a great book to look at the popular claims that Swedish government systems should be replicated in the US. It debunks that ideology.
Sadly, for those more interested in the "on-paper" theories of democratic socialism and is actively arguing that it will work here, a book like this probably won't matter. Its easy to share Facebook memes and articles on Vox or Dailybeast on social media. Or they'll resort to the popular claim "that's different" or resort to the favorite "-isms" widely used to shut down an argument.
But for anyone who wants to verify whether the democratic socialism actually works as well as promoted in the last election, I HIGHLY recommend this book.
February 5, 2017
I was going to rate this book 2 or 3 stars until the very last page. The reason being that, though, the author has made one great well argued observation - that was it, it was literally one argument. The observation is that the unique Nordic socialist system is un-imitable because of its historic and cultural origins. And even though the author argues that these "hard core" socialist systems have undergone major revisions to their original values starting in the seventies, he fails to prove that the cause of these revisions are underlying fundamental system flaws, rather they may be indicative of adaptations to changing cultural norms and values, which is normal phenomena for any sustainable system. The aesthetics of the system and some or many of its governing mechanisms, rules and dynamics may have changed, but the main objective and value has remained unchanged. The reason I gave the book a 5 star reason is because of one statement that was made on the last page and it was the statement that societies do not advance because of political mandates but because of interaction between good policies and culture - a statement that has profound implications to any position on the political systems continuum from anarchists to dictatorships. An observation that can be seen especially clear in developing countries that call for good governing while having incompatible and supporting cultures; the result being political mandates that are weak.
February 16, 2018
A great book that really provides irrefutable evidence that the Nordic system is not as great as advertised by some US politicians. Sanandaji backs up many of the ideas I already had about what lead to the welfare states that exist in countries like Sweden and Denmark. I'm afraid too many diehard liberals would steer clear of this book though.
May 6, 2018
Good case for that Socialism has been harmful to Nordic countries, and that the reason for Nordic prosperity was culture not politics.
One part of the argument is comparing the prosperity of Nordic descendents in USA to those who stayed. The migrants were on average poorer than those who stayed, none the less modern Nordic descended Americans earn on average 50% more than Nordics, have lower unemployment et cetera.
One part of the argument is comparing the prosperity of Nordic descendents in USA to those who stayed. The migrants were on average poorer than those who stayed, none the less modern Nordic descended Americans earn on average 50% more than Nordics, have lower unemployment et cetera.
October 27, 2022
Excellent book. Highly informative.
December 12, 2021
Excellent book, it flows very well and is full of information that is delivered straight to the point. Good to know about the struggles of the Nordic countries in spite of being portrayed as "model countries " by the leftists in the united states.
March 11, 2021
There is a reason or a justification why I have given this work a positive review regardless if I am opposed to it. The reasons are to be listed down in a numerical fashion in order for us to arrive at key points:
1. The author is correct that one must have no illusions pertaining to democratic socialism, and that cultural factors have more role than the political ones. In a quasi-anthropological explanation, the author cites geographical location and social cohesion as contributory factors to Nordic prosperity, although since the author carries a baggage with respect to his justification, he simply leaves its hanging.
2. His baggage or his agenda in this work is to enunciate a basic critique of democratic socialism and its adherents (mostly young professionals who comprise the precariat sector of the labor force). Still, he does not go on further on why democratic socialism or social democracy is gaining traction. The failure of global capitalism to address the issues of integration and of the gradual automation of labor (or its outsourcing) has all but stripped this generation and that of the next of any prospects to improve themselves. The State can no longer function, and it has lost its legitimacy, revealing itself to be farce on one hand, and of an apparatus in service of global capital on the other.
3. We cannot expect the author to enunciate this, as these arguments will be self defeating to his premise. One must also bring up the increasing number of migrants since 2015, the measures of these States with regard to the refugees and the rise of populist parties in the continent. All of these plagues or disasters are symptoms of late capitalism's inability to provide a better tomorrow aside from the maintenance of the status quo. The hardline-humanitarian divide in various discourses around the refugees, reflects this monotony. We can still experience technological innovations in spite of cultural exhaustion, but to live the life of the everyday is becoming difficult.
4.One may cite In Defense of Global Capitalism together with its statistical data ala Pinker to refute these claims, while lacking the rigor to properly describe rising income gaps, the concentration of wealth to certain areas and large-scale environmental disasters brought by the change in climate. It is easy to tally an aggregate number of improvements while ignoring that these numbers are simply an estimate.
5. The Americans, with their steady diet of Reaganomics (both Republicans and Democrats) have unanimously regarded neoclassical principles as self-evident. Tax cuts are policies embraced by the establishment to appease the economic elite. This is all at the detriment of everyone else; no wonder why populist politics in all spectrums are becoming an alternative.
Overall, this person conveys an utmost negation of the author's work, while accepting its premises for a different conclusion that one can even define as illogical. The author's attack on social democracy (social reformism ala Roosevelt) and democratic socialism (which is vanilla socialism) is a confirmation of a bankrupt ideological sphere. Therefore, we can utilize the author's means of critique and analysis for a revolutionary endgoal. The road to revolution in this age of crisis, unless some black swan will change everything, is an inevitable fate. It will either lead to the overthrow of one class or to the common ruin of both.
There is no turning back at this point.
1. The author is correct that one must have no illusions pertaining to democratic socialism, and that cultural factors have more role than the political ones. In a quasi-anthropological explanation, the author cites geographical location and social cohesion as contributory factors to Nordic prosperity, although since the author carries a baggage with respect to his justification, he simply leaves its hanging.
2. His baggage or his agenda in this work is to enunciate a basic critique of democratic socialism and its adherents (mostly young professionals who comprise the precariat sector of the labor force). Still, he does not go on further on why democratic socialism or social democracy is gaining traction. The failure of global capitalism to address the issues of integration and of the gradual automation of labor (or its outsourcing) has all but stripped this generation and that of the next of any prospects to improve themselves. The State can no longer function, and it has lost its legitimacy, revealing itself to be farce on one hand, and of an apparatus in service of global capital on the other.
3. We cannot expect the author to enunciate this, as these arguments will be self defeating to his premise. One must also bring up the increasing number of migrants since 2015, the measures of these States with regard to the refugees and the rise of populist parties in the continent. All of these plagues or disasters are symptoms of late capitalism's inability to provide a better tomorrow aside from the maintenance of the status quo. The hardline-humanitarian divide in various discourses around the refugees, reflects this monotony. We can still experience technological innovations in spite of cultural exhaustion, but to live the life of the everyday is becoming difficult.
4.One may cite In Defense of Global Capitalism together with its statistical data ala Pinker to refute these claims, while lacking the rigor to properly describe rising income gaps, the concentration of wealth to certain areas and large-scale environmental disasters brought by the change in climate. It is easy to tally an aggregate number of improvements while ignoring that these numbers are simply an estimate.
5. The Americans, with their steady diet of Reaganomics (both Republicans and Democrats) have unanimously regarded neoclassical principles as self-evident. Tax cuts are policies embraced by the establishment to appease the economic elite. This is all at the detriment of everyone else; no wonder why populist politics in all spectrums are becoming an alternative.
Overall, this person conveys an utmost negation of the author's work, while accepting its premises for a different conclusion that one can even define as illogical. The author's attack on social democracy (social reformism ala Roosevelt) and democratic socialism (which is vanilla socialism) is a confirmation of a bankrupt ideological sphere. Therefore, we can utilize the author's means of critique and analysis for a revolutionary endgoal. The road to revolution in this age of crisis, unless some black swan will change everything, is an inevitable fate. It will either lead to the overthrow of one class or to the common ruin of both.
There is no turning back at this point.
October 4, 2018
It still baffles me to this day that people willingly give up rights and liberties in exchange for an inferior product. Is it just laziness?
Here in the US, currently we are seeing one party that is pursuing these centralized government ideas despite incredible amounts of evidence that these ideas, especially regarding the economy, are not only bad, but destructive both to the economy and to human rights.
The US's emergence and continued prosperity has transformed the world, eradicating poverty in certain areas and lessening it greatly in areas where it hasn't been eradicated. In more broad terms, the prosperity had led to solving human rights issues all over the world. Why would the Left want to spoil that? Because they don't care about humanity. They don't. It started with LBJ and continues today. They want control.
The bottom line is that he prosperity of the US continues today in spite of how much regulation and reach the government employs. How much more could we impact the world with more freedom to do so? We are still enduring the effects of disastrous programs like FDR's New Deal.
At some point as citizens we have to take up our individual responsibility to fact check this party who continues to point to these Scandinavian countries as success stories and we need to gain context on the whole, true story.
This book is a fantastic place to start. I would also recommend locating and listening to a number of podcasts featuring interviews with people and economists who have lived in these countries.
The only way to truly pursue and defend human rights is to pursue true freedom and liberty. At the moment there is a resurgence of this thought in the US. I'm hoping it continues to grow and we again can be the shining light to the world, freeing mankind all over.
Here in the US, currently we are seeing one party that is pursuing these centralized government ideas despite incredible amounts of evidence that these ideas, especially regarding the economy, are not only bad, but destructive both to the economy and to human rights.
The US's emergence and continued prosperity has transformed the world, eradicating poverty in certain areas and lessening it greatly in areas where it hasn't been eradicated. In more broad terms, the prosperity had led to solving human rights issues all over the world. Why would the Left want to spoil that? Because they don't care about humanity. They don't. It started with LBJ and continues today. They want control.
The bottom line is that he prosperity of the US continues today in spite of how much regulation and reach the government employs. How much more could we impact the world with more freedom to do so? We are still enduring the effects of disastrous programs like FDR's New Deal.
At some point as citizens we have to take up our individual responsibility to fact check this party who continues to point to these Scandinavian countries as success stories and we need to gain context on the whole, true story.
This book is a fantastic place to start. I would also recommend locating and listening to a number of podcasts featuring interviews with people and economists who have lived in these countries.
The only way to truly pursue and defend human rights is to pursue true freedom and liberty. At the moment there is a resurgence of this thought in the US. I'm hoping it continues to grow and we again can be the shining light to the world, freeing mankind all over.
March 8, 2017
همه ی آنچه درباب اقتصاد و سیاست کشورهای اسکاندیناوی که فکر میکنیم میدانیم ولی نمیدانیم در این کتاب جمع و جور نوشته ی نویسنده ی ایرانی الاصل نیما سنندجی که نه تنها خود مستقیما از مزایای دولت رفاه این کشورها استفاده کرده و با آن اشناست بلکه از آن افسانه زدایی میکند و اکثر پیش فرضهای مارا در مورد آنچه که فکر میکنیم میدانیم عوض میکند
July 30, 2017
Critique the Bern!
May 21, 2023
سوسیالیسم کار نمی‌کند؛ حتی در کشورهای نوردیک.
در سال‌های اخیر چپ‌گرایان آمریکایی تصویری آرمان‌شهری از کشورهای نوردیک ( اعم از سوئد، دانمارک،نروژ و...) ساخته‌‌اند و در رسانه‌ها تبلیغ می‌کنند که براساس آن آرزویی شکل گرفته مبنی بر اینکه باید برای یک زندگی بهتر آمریکا را هم هر چه بیشتر به چیزی شبیه همان کشورهای نوردیک تبدیل کرد. تمام تلاش نویسنده‌ی کتاب (که خودش سوئدی-ایرانی‌ست) در این راستاست که بگوید این آرزو خام و رویاگونه است. سوسیالیسم در کشورهای نوردیک موفقیت بزرگ و پایداری خلق نکرده است و اگر موفقیت بزرگ و پایداری وجود دارد به خاطر سوسیالیسم نیست.
در اواخر قرن نوزدهم و اوایل قرن بیست رفته‌رفته ایده‌ی دولت‌های رفاه بزرگ به جهان معرفی می‌شد. ایده‌ای سیاسی-اقتصادی که از اندیشه‌های چپ نشئت می‌گرفت و شامل دولت‌های بزرگ با کنترل‌های دولتی گسترده و مالیات‌های بالاتر نسبت به سیستم‌های سرمایه‌داری بود. کشورهای نوردیک از سال‌های دهه‌ی ۶۰ میلادی به طور کامل، زیر پرچم سوسیال دموکراسی، به سمت دولت‌های رفاه بزرگ و گسترده رفتند و در ابتدای قرن بیست و یکم این سیاست‌ها کمابیش در اکثر کشورهای این منطقه به اوج خود رسید. داده‌هایی که از این کشورها به چپ‌گرایان آمریکایی می‌رسید آنان را شیفته‌ی خود کرده بود! به گمان ایشان نوردیک‌ها با اجرای سیاست‌های سوسیالیستی توانسته بودند "طبق آمار" به طول عمر بالا، ثروت‌های کافی، رضایت از زندگی، عدالت اجتماعی، خدمات اجتماعی سخاوت‌مندانه و برابری‌های جنسیتی و خلاصه تمام آنچه در یک آرمانشهر سوسیالیستی یافت می‌شود، برسند. پس تنها سوالی که باقی می‌ماند این است که چرا ما هرچه زودتر در مسیر تبدیل شدن به سوئد یا دانمارک حرکت نمی‌کنیم؟! به این دلیل که با داده‌ها برخوردی سوگیرانه و حتی کوته‌نگرانه شده است.
کشورهای نوردیک از فرهنگ منحصربه‌فرد و جالبی در طول قرن‌ها برخوردار بوده‌اند که می‌شود آن را اصلی‌ترین دلیل وضعیت مطلوب زندگی آن‌ها دانست. چیزی که فقط محدود به زمان حضور سوسیالیسم در این کشور نبوده است. این فرهنگ شامل بنیان‌های قوی خانوادگی، اعتماد بالا به دیگران، رژیم‌های غذایی و عادت‌های سالم، اخلاق کاری منضبط و مسئولیت‌پذیری بالا به همراه جمعیت پایین و یک‌دست بودن تنوع افراد در جامعه است. اگر به داده‌ها و فکت‌های علمی در ابعاد گسترده نگاهی بیندازیم متوجه می‌شویم که این ویژگی‌ها مدت‌های مدیدی در جوامع نوردیک حضور داشته است و نمی‌توان آن‌ها را میوه‌ی معجزه‌ی سوسیالیسم دانست!
جالب است که چپ‌گرایان اعتقاد دارند سوسیالیسم کار میکند زیرا در جوامع نوردیک کار کرده است اما اینکه این ایده‌ها در بسیاری از کشورهای دیگر همچون شوروی و کره‌ی شمالی و کوبا و ونزوئلا و... وضعیت مردم را با خاک یکسان کرده، اهمیتی ندارد! شاید بشود گفت جوامع نوردیک به قدری قدرت و پایگاه داشته‌اند که توانسته‌اند در برابر سوسیالیسم تا حدی مقاومت کنند!
البته از یک نکته نمی‌توان گذشت. ایده‌های سوسیالیستی در جوامعی مثل کشورهای نوردیک با ویژگی‌های که ذکر شد و فقط در چنین کشورهایی، احتمال موفقیت دارد. اما در کوتاه‌مدت. صدمه‌ای که در بلندمدت بر کشورهای نوردیک وارد شد چنین بود:
در ابتدا وقتی بخش‌های دولتی بزرگ شدند، مالیات‌ها به طرز سرسام‌آوری بالا رفت، سهمیه‌های جنسیتی برای مشاغل تعیین شد، اتحادیه‌های کارگری همراه با تعیین دستمزدهای شغلی دستوری شکل گرفت و بذل و بخشش‌های فراوانی برای بیکاران و بیماران و خانواده‌های بی‌سرپرست و... انجام شد، آن فرهنگ منحصربه‌فرد که اعتماد و اتحاد اجتماعی بالایی داشت توانست این شرایط را بپذیرد و همچنان با مسئولیت‌پذیری خود کار درست را انجام دهد. اما از یک نقطه‌ای به بعد این سیستم در گرداب خودتخریبی فرورفت.
دخالت‌های دولتی، از دست رفتن شانس‌های کار خصوصی و مالیات‌های بالا، انگیزه‌ی کارآفرینی و خلق سرمایه و ارزش افزوده را از مردم گرفتند و کارمزدهای آنچنانی اکثر مشاغل خدماتی را برای کارفرما تا حدی گران کردند که استخدام کارمند غیرممکن می‌نمود. نفوذ دولت به مشاغلی که قبلاً توسط زنان به صورت خصوصی اداره می‌شد باعث بیکار شدن آن‌ها شد، برابری‌های جنسیتی را بر هم زد و حتی اعمال سهمیه‌های اجباری جنسیتی هم اثر معکوس داشت. مهاجرت بالا باعث از بین رفتن یکدستی جامعه و بالا رفتن نرخ بیکاری در مهاجرین شد و بذل و بخشش‌های فراوان دولت سبب این شد که ادعای بیکار بودن یا بی‌سرپرست بودن خانواده از کار کردن و پرداخت مالیات برای جمعیت بزرگی از مردم نوردیک به صرفه‌تر باشد که همین به رواج فساد اخلاقی، وابستگی‌های اجتماعی، بی‌مسئولیتی و اتکا به دولت و خانواده‌های بی��نیان و فروپاشیده منجر شد.
این همان نتیجه‌ای‌ست که فرانکیل روزولت، کسی که پیشنهاد اجرای طرح نیو دیل New Deal در آمریکای پس از دوران رکود بزرگ great depression را داد و یکی از اولین شکل‌های دولت رفاه در آمریکا بود، به صراحت در مورد آن اخطار داده بود.
نگاهی به آمارهای مهاجرین از کشورهای نوردیک به آمریکا در قرن بیستم نشان می‌دهد که نسل‌های بعدی این افراد که فرهنگ خاص نوردیکی خود را در جامعه‌ی سرمایه‌داری آمریکایی پیاده کرده‌اند اکنون از بسیاری از جهات نه فقط از عموزادگان نوردیک خود بلکه از میانگین جامعه‌ی آمریکا هم موفق‌ترند.
آنچه که اکنون در کشورهای نوردیک اتفاق افتاده این است که شاهد برگشت قابل توجهی از سوسیالیسم به سمت سرمایه‌داری و یک سیستم آزادتر و رقابتی‌تر به همراه دولت‌های رفاهی کوچک‌تر هستیم. در بسیاری از حوزه‌های شغلی و تنظیم بازار و همچنین بوروکراسی‌های دولتی، آزادی عمل زیادی برای شهروندان تعریف شده است و آنچه از سوسیالیسم باقی مانده بعضی بخش‌های بزرگ دولتی و مالیات‌های بالاست که آن‌ها هم در مسیر کاهشی قرار دارند.
حرف اصلی این است: اجرای چنین سیاست‌هایی که می‌تواند در تمام ارکان زندگی افراد نفوذ کند، در بافت اجتماعی، فرهنگی و جغرافیایی خاصی ممکن است نتایجی به همراه داشته باشد که در جامعه‌ی دیگری با فرهنگی متفاوت نتایجی معکوس به دست آید. صرف کپی کردن یک سیاست و بی‌توجهی به متغیرهای دیگر می‌تواند پیامدهای خطرناکی را به دنبال داشته باشد.
آن طور که به نظر می‌رسد چپ‌گرایان آمریکایی همچنان اصرار دارند به پیش‌روی در مسیری که هر کشوری از انتهایش پشیمان برگشته ادامه دهند. با قلبی آکنده از اندوه برایشان آرزوی موفقیت می‌کنم!
در سال‌های اخیر چپ‌گرایان آمریکایی تصویری آرمان‌شهری از کشورهای نوردیک ( اعم از سوئد، دانمارک،نروژ و...) ساخته‌‌اند و در رسانه‌ها تبلیغ می‌کنند که براساس آن آرزویی شکل گرفته مبنی بر اینکه باید برای یک زندگی بهتر آمریکا را هم هر چه بیشتر به چیزی شبیه همان کشورهای نوردیک تبدیل کرد. تمام تلاش نویسنده‌ی کتاب (که خودش سوئدی-ایرانی‌ست) در این راستاست که بگوید این آرزو خام و رویاگونه است. سوسیالیسم در کشورهای نوردیک موفقیت بزرگ و پایداری خلق نکرده است و اگر موفقیت بزرگ و پایداری وجود دارد به خاطر سوسیالیسم نیست.
در اواخر قرن نوزدهم و اوایل قرن بیست رفته‌رفته ایده‌ی دولت‌های رفاه بزرگ به جهان معرفی می‌شد. ایده‌ای سیاسی-اقتصادی که از اندیشه‌های چپ نشئت می‌گرفت و شامل دولت‌های بزرگ با کنترل‌های دولتی گسترده و مالیات‌های بالاتر نسبت به سیستم‌های سرمایه‌داری بود. کشورهای نوردیک از سال‌های دهه‌ی ۶۰ میلادی به طور کامل، زیر پرچم سوسیال دموکراسی، به سمت دولت‌های رفاه بزرگ و گسترده رفتند و در ابتدای قرن بیست و یکم این سیاست‌ها کمابیش در اکثر کشورهای این منطقه به اوج خود رسید. داده‌هایی که از این کشورها به چپ‌گرایان آمریکایی می‌رسید آنان را شیفته‌ی خود کرده بود! به گمان ایشان نوردیک‌ها با اجرای سیاست‌های سوسیالیستی توانسته بودند "طبق آمار" به طول عمر بالا، ثروت‌های کافی، رضایت از زندگی، عدالت اجتماعی، خدمات اجتماعی سخاوت‌مندانه و برابری‌های جنسیتی و خلاصه تمام آنچه در یک آرمانشهر سوسیالیستی یافت می‌شود، برسند. پس تنها سوالی که باقی می‌ماند این است که چرا ما هرچه زودتر در مسیر تبدیل شدن به سوئد یا دانمارک حرکت نمی‌کنیم؟! به این دلیل که با داده‌ها برخوردی سوگیرانه و حتی کوته‌نگرانه شده است.
کشورهای نوردیک از فرهنگ منحصربه‌فرد و جالبی در طول قرن‌ها برخوردار بوده‌اند که می‌شود آن را اصلی‌ترین دلیل وضعیت مطلوب زندگی آن‌ها دانست. چیزی که فقط محدود به زمان حضور سوسیالیسم در این کشور نبوده است. این فرهنگ شامل بنیان‌های قوی خانوادگی، اعتماد بالا به دیگران، رژیم‌های غذایی و عادت‌های سالم، اخلاق کاری منضبط و مسئولیت‌پذیری بالا به همراه جمعیت پایین و یک‌دست بودن تنوع افراد در جامعه است. اگر به داده‌ها و فکت‌های علمی در ابعاد گسترده نگاهی بیندازیم متوجه می‌شویم که این ویژگی‌ها مدت‌های مدیدی در جوامع نوردیک حضور داشته است و نمی‌توان آن‌ها را میوه‌ی معجزه‌ی سوسیالیسم دانست!
جالب است که چپ‌گرایان اعتقاد دارند سوسیالیسم کار میکند زیرا در جوامع نوردیک کار کرده است اما اینکه این ایده‌ها در بسیاری از کشورهای دیگر همچون شوروی و کره‌ی شمالی و کوبا و ونزوئلا و... وضعیت مردم را با خاک یکسان کرده، اهمیتی ندارد! شاید بشود گفت جوامع نوردیک به قدری قدرت و پایگاه داشته‌اند که توانسته‌اند در برابر سوسیالیسم تا حدی مقاومت کنند!
البته از یک نکته نمی‌توان گذشت. ایده‌های سوسیالیستی در جوامعی مثل کشورهای نوردیک با ویژگی‌های که ذکر شد و فقط در چنین کشورهایی، احتمال موفقیت دارد. اما در کوتاه‌مدت. صدمه‌ای که در بلندمدت بر کشورهای نوردیک وارد شد چنین بود:
در ابتدا وقتی بخش‌های دولتی بزرگ شدند، مالیات‌ها به طرز سرسام‌آوری بالا رفت، سهمیه‌های جنسیتی برای مشاغل تعیین شد، اتحادیه‌های کارگری همراه با تعیین دستمزدهای شغلی دستوری شکل گرفت و بذل و بخشش‌های فراوانی برای بیکاران و بیماران و خانواده‌های بی‌سرپرست و... انجام شد، آن فرهنگ منحصربه‌فرد که اعتماد و اتحاد اجتماعی بالایی داشت توانست این شرایط را بپذیرد و همچنان با مسئولیت‌پذیری خود کار درست را انجام دهد. اما از یک نقطه‌ای به بعد این سیستم در گرداب خودتخریبی فرورفت.
دخالت‌های دولتی، از دست رفتن شانس‌های کار خصوصی و مالیات‌های بالا، انگیزه‌ی کارآفرینی و خلق سرمایه و ارزش افزوده را از مردم گرفتند و کارمزدهای آنچنانی اکثر مشاغل خدماتی را برای کارفرما تا حدی گران کردند که استخدام کارمند غیرممکن می‌نمود. نفوذ دولت به مشاغلی که قبلاً توسط زنان به صورت خصوصی اداره می‌شد باعث بیکار شدن آن‌ها شد، برابری‌های جنسیتی را بر هم زد و حتی اعمال سهمیه‌های اجباری جنسیتی هم اثر معکوس داشت. مهاجرت بالا باعث از بین رفتن یکدستی جامعه و بالا رفتن نرخ بیکاری در مهاجرین شد و بذل و بخشش‌های فراوان دولت سبب این شد که ادعای بیکار بودن یا بی‌سرپرست بودن خانواده از کار کردن و پرداخت مالیات برای جمعیت بزرگی از مردم نوردیک به صرفه‌تر باشد که همین به رواج فساد اخلاقی، وابستگی‌های اجتماعی، بی‌مسئولیتی و اتکا به دولت و خانواده‌های بی��نیان و فروپاشیده منجر شد.
این همان نتیجه‌ای‌ست که فرانکیل روزولت، کسی که پیشنهاد اجرای طرح نیو دیل New Deal در آمریکای پس از دوران رکود بزرگ great depression را داد و یکی از اولین شکل‌های دولت رفاه در آمریکا بود، به صراحت در مورد آن اخطار داده بود.
نگاهی به آمارهای مهاجرین از کشورهای نوردیک به آمریکا در قرن بیستم نشان می‌دهد که نسل‌های بعدی این افراد که فرهنگ خاص نوردیکی خود را در جامعه‌ی سرمایه‌داری آمریکایی پیاده کرده‌اند اکنون از بسیاری از جهات نه فقط از عموزادگان نوردیک خود بلکه از میانگین جامعه‌ی آمریکا هم موفق‌ترند.
آنچه که اکنون در کشورهای نوردیک اتفاق افتاده این است که شاهد برگشت قابل توجهی از سوسیالیسم به سمت سرمایه‌داری و یک سیستم آزادتر و رقابتی‌تر به همراه دولت‌های رفاهی کوچک‌تر هستیم. در بسیاری از حوزه‌های شغلی و تنظیم بازار و همچنین بوروکراسی‌های دولتی، آزادی عمل زیادی برای شهروندان تعریف شده است و آنچه از سوسیالیسم باقی مانده بعضی بخش‌های بزرگ دولتی و مالیات‌های بالاست که آن‌ها هم در مسیر کاهشی قرار دارند.
حرف اصلی این است: اجرای چنین سیاست‌هایی که می‌تواند در تمام ارکان زندگی افراد نفوذ کند، در بافت اجتماعی، فرهنگی و جغرافیایی خاصی ممکن است نتایجی به همراه داشته باشد که در جامعه‌ی دیگری با فرهنگی متفاوت نتایجی معکوس به دست آید. صرف کپی کردن یک سیاست و بی‌توجهی به متغیرهای دیگر می‌تواند پیامدهای خطرناکی را به دنبال داشته باشد.
آن طور که به نظر می‌رسد چپ‌گرایان آمریکایی همچنان اصرار دارند به پیش‌روی در مسیری که هر کشوری از انتهایش پشیمان برگشته ادامه دهند. با قلبی آکنده از اندوه برایشان آرزوی موفقیت می‌کنم!
September 4, 2018
Written by a Swede who was born to immigrant parents, this book explains the truth behind Nordic Socialism. A favorite argument on the Left is to say that America needs to be more like Denmark or more like Sweden. We need to provide cradle to grave care, pay higher taxes, and get over it. The fact of the matter is, the Nordic models of socialism would never work in America.
The author argues that it is a matter of culture. Long before large scale democratic socialism took hold of Scandinavia, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and by extension, Iceland and Finland, had built societies based on family values, sobriety, personal responsibility and trust. Socialism as a result works well in these countries because of culture. Because Nordic people are reliable and can rely on one another, their systems that they pay into work.
Despite this, the systems are failing. Over the past through decades, massive cuts in regulations, taxes, and welfare have occurred in all of the Nordic countries. Norway, which discovered large oil reserves last century, has that resource which pumps money into its welfare state. It helps that Norway and Denmark are more market friendly and less regulated than America, making it easier for businesses to survive.
A lot has changed in these countries in the past few years. Sweden’s choice to allow more migrants per capita than any other European nation has led to an increase in crime, poverty, and social immobility. The author uses statistics which show that immigrants have a better chance of flourishing in America’s system as the benefits provided in the Nordic countries causes many immigrants to be trapped in a cycle and never move up the societal ladder.
The point of this book is to debunk the lies of Bernie Sanders and the radical left in America. The book is repetitive but important because it drills into you the understating that Nordic success is found in its culture and not in its model of government. The United States should not try and replicate Nordic socialism but instead should implement Nordic culture. But even with that, the book clearly shows, along with history, that socialism fails every time.
The author argues that it is a matter of culture. Long before large scale democratic socialism took hold of Scandinavia, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and by extension, Iceland and Finland, had built societies based on family values, sobriety, personal responsibility and trust. Socialism as a result works well in these countries because of culture. Because Nordic people are reliable and can rely on one another, their systems that they pay into work.
Despite this, the systems are failing. Over the past through decades, massive cuts in regulations, taxes, and welfare have occurred in all of the Nordic countries. Norway, which discovered large oil reserves last century, has that resource which pumps money into its welfare state. It helps that Norway and Denmark are more market friendly and less regulated than America, making it easier for businesses to survive.
A lot has changed in these countries in the past few years. Sweden’s choice to allow more migrants per capita than any other European nation has led to an increase in crime, poverty, and social immobility. The author uses statistics which show that immigrants have a better chance of flourishing in America’s system as the benefits provided in the Nordic countries causes many immigrants to be trapped in a cycle and never move up the societal ladder.
The point of this book is to debunk the lies of Bernie Sanders and the radical left in America. The book is repetitive but important because it drills into you the understating that Nordic success is found in its culture and not in its model of government. The United States should not try and replicate Nordic socialism but instead should implement Nordic culture. But even with that, the book clearly shows, along with history, that socialism fails every time.
June 17, 2019
As the title states, this book - with extensive citations - systematically debunks the entire argument of the 'Scandinavian socialist utopia'. Nima effectively argues that it is their unique culture, not government policy, that has led to the past success of these countries in terms of social/welfare reform and expansionary government.
A few points:
- Many of these countries reject the idea they are socialist and instead say they are market economies.
- Much of the growth in large companies was prior to the welfare 'reforms' and it somewhat stalled thereafter.
- Minimum wage laws and extensive compliance for employers has effectively shut lower skilled immigrants out of the workforce, with close to 75% of working age immigrants from third world countries being unemployed.
- Taxes are on the way down in many of these countries and so are benefits as politicians realise that they are driving the wrong behavior and their current policies are unsustainable.
It strikes me that the evidence is right in front of us, yet we keep ignoring it and keep trying to create a utopian welfare state in the endless quest for 'equality'. Scandinavian countries have already done what the left in many other western economies is trying to hoist upon us, with a completely different
A few points:
- Many of these countries reject the idea they are socialist and instead say they are market economies.
- Much of the growth in large companies was prior to the welfare 'reforms' and it somewhat stalled thereafter.
- Minimum wage laws and extensive compliance for employers has effectively shut lower skilled immigrants out of the workforce, with close to 75% of working age immigrants from third world countries being unemployed.
- Taxes are on the way down in many of these countries and so are benefits as politicians realise that they are driving the wrong behavior and their current policies are unsustainable.
It strikes me that the evidence is right in front of us, yet we keep ignoring it and keep trying to create a utopian welfare state in the endless quest for 'equality'. Scandinavian countries have already done what the left in many other western economies is trying to hoist upon us, with a completely different
December 3, 2024
Things I liked: a different perspective about the pitfalls of socialism and the ultimate theory that a homogeneous culture makes socialism successful in smaller economies.
Things I disliked: the repetitiveness, the rhetorical questions, every mention of Bernie Sanders, the phrase "Shangri-la," the repetitiveness, the rhetorical questions.
This book was written as a college thesis and could've easily made its argument more succinctly. As other reviewers have noted, a good editor and proofreader would have made this a more enjoyable and informative experience. I didn't realize before reading this book that it would be so pro-American capitalism, and I find that there are fundamental flaws in that argument (but that is a matter of value placement and perspective).
I found it ironic that an immigrant who benefitted from the welfare state that gave him 2 PhDs (for free) would write a book that is profoundly anti-immigration and anti-welfare state. 2.5 rounded down.
Things I disliked: the repetitiveness, the rhetorical questions, every mention of Bernie Sanders, the phrase "Shangri-la," the repetitiveness, the rhetorical questions.
This book was written as a college thesis and could've easily made its argument more succinctly. As other reviewers have noted, a good editor and proofreader would have made this a more enjoyable and informative experience. I didn't realize before reading this book that it would be so pro-American capitalism, and I find that there are fundamental flaws in that argument (but that is a matter of value placement and perspective).
I found it ironic that an immigrant who benefitted from the welfare state that gave him 2 PhDs (for free) would write a book that is profoundly anti-immigration and anti-welfare state. 2.5 rounded down.
November 19, 2018
This is a great topic and explores the source of wealth and prosperity for Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark and also Iceland.
Some good perspectives on how the work ethic and culture of these countries played such a big part in giving them a head start on other developed nations.
A good lesson in this book is the perils of generalisations and also of looking at snapshots of countries prosperity at a point in time.
A far better perspective on the utility Scandinavian social and economic policies is gained by examining their evolution and future directions.
It is also good to see how the USA ranks below these countries in terms of economic freedom according to The US think tank The Heritage Foundation
Some good perspectives on how the work ethic and culture of these countries played such a big part in giving them a head start on other developed nations.
A good lesson in this book is the perils of generalisations and also of looking at snapshots of countries prosperity at a point in time.
A far better perspective on the utility Scandinavian social and economic policies is gained by examining their evolution and future directions.
It is also good to see how the USA ranks below these countries in terms of economic freedom according to The US think tank The Heritage Foundation
March 24, 2019
This was a very nuanced look at democratic socialism in the Nordic countries.
The author, an immigrant to Sweden who is now a professor in the US, takes issue with various Democratic talking points on the Nordic countries and socialism. Though he is in no way a Conservative in the traditional American sense of small government (he is an advocate for free college and child care).
He takes an in depth look at what makes the Nordic countries unique- Culture. He also compares success within Nordic cultures to those within the US. He talks about immigration and welfare dependency.
A very quick, easy read with plenty of grafts and a conversational writing.
The author, an immigrant to Sweden who is now a professor in the US, takes issue with various Democratic talking points on the Nordic countries and socialism. Though he is in no way a Conservative in the traditional American sense of small government (he is an advocate for free college and child care).
He takes an in depth look at what makes the Nordic countries unique- Culture. He also compares success within Nordic cultures to those within the US. He talks about immigration and welfare dependency.
A very quick, easy read with plenty of grafts and a conversational writing.
March 13, 2019
Though well written, this book contains little that can’t be Googled. Its thesis is that the high standard of living enjoyed by the Nordic countries is the product not of their generous social programs, but of their culture and market economy that predated their leftward lurch. The author supplies a fair amount of supporting evidence but fails in one important respect. He claims the Nordic standard of living rose even higher after their governments moved to the right, but never specifies the actual measures taken, much less dispels the obvious post hoc ergo propter hoc objection. But overall, a fairly worthwhile and fast read.
December 14, 2020
Nima Sanandaji delivers a decent debunking to an America audience.
The book presents a series of persuasive arguments that disprove common assertions posed by various America left wing politicians. The structure of the book is straight forward, and it is a simple read.
The book is a valuable resource for those uninitiated with Nordic politics and it provides a substantial number of source references and articles.
The writing style could use some polishing and I found a few of the arguments not wholly satisfying.
Overall it's worth a read for anyone interested in current American politics.
The book presents a series of persuasive arguments that disprove common assertions posed by various America left wing politicians. The structure of the book is straight forward, and it is a simple read.
The book is a valuable resource for those uninitiated with Nordic politics and it provides a substantial number of source references and articles.
The writing style could use some polishing and I found a few of the arguments not wholly satisfying.
Overall it's worth a read for anyone interested in current American politics.
October 5, 2018
I enjoyed reading this. The arg umm ments for a pro Scandinavian socialism model are abundant. This book cuts each argument in half with well crafted and researched counter point in how that model could not work in any other place and how their success isnt based on their current policies but built on the back of a pre socialism capitalist government
January 15, 2018
Very interesting and it really give you an idea about the success of the nordic countries that it more attributed to the culture compared to the policies from the 40s to the 90s. I do feel that a few chapters are over exaggerated, for example the one that means that coffee drinking is important.
July 23, 2018
Eviscerating the claims of Nordic utopia
This book is a must read prior to the 2018 midterms and the 2020 general elections. Bernie and his followers either are lying or are ignorant. Probably a little bit of each.
This book is a must read prior to the 2018 midterms and the 2020 general elections. Bernie and his followers either are lying or are ignorant. Probably a little bit of each.
March 27, 2019
Libro muy interesante sobre el papel de la cultura y la organización social en el éxito económico de los países nórdicos. La tesis básica es que el éxito de estos países precedió la creación del estado del bienestar. Es una tesis sencilla pero bien argumentada.
September 26, 2019
Very impressive
A well researched rebuttal to many of the mistaken ideas circulating in our politics today. I appreciate the lack of partisanship and dedication to data. Good stuff.
A well researched rebuttal to many of the mistaken ideas circulating in our politics today. I appreciate the lack of partisanship and dedication to data. Good stuff.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews