5 ms·

I was watching a documentary[1] about Sweden's shift away from social democracy in the 70's/80's time-frame that Piketty talks about. From the way it sounds, t

I was watching a documentary[1] about Sweden's shift away from social democracy in the 70's/80's time-frame that Piketty talks about. From the way it sounds, the program of social democracy nearly destroyed the country. I would take Piketty's nostalgia for those times with a grain of salt. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcX6BUZlEw4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcX6BUZlEw4

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
refurb 7y ago
I have a theory that lessons learned by humanity are quickly forgotten after a few generations and thus we are condemned to trying the same old ideas (with slight tweaks) again until the current generation figures out they don't work.
- cle 7y ago
  Conversely, sometimes constraints and situations are different enough that "failed" ideas might succeed under the new constraints. The world is not a static place, and the environments in which many lessons were learned may not be relevant anymore.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    True, but it seems that Piketty's position is that those ideas succeeded and would have continued to succeed if left in place - and consequently, that if we implement them now we will also have success. If it turns out that Piketty's history is incorrect, then the past failure of such plans should make us cautious about trying them again.
  - refurb 7y ago
    Agree 100%. However, I do believe that any ideas that people want to try because they believe human behavior has changed are guaranteed to fail.
fulafel 7y ago
Tl;dw documentary, but that's not a very common interpretation. That was the time when the nordic countries built their succesful system that's in place today and is widely held in high regard.
- mongol 7y ago
  There can be too much of everything and there was too much of "social democracy" in the 70s. Author Astrid Lindgren had to pay more than 100 % tax and wrote the "childrens story" / opinion piece "Pomperipossa in Monismania" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomperipossa_in_Monismania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomperipossa_in_Monismania Next election the social democrats lost it for the first time in 40 years.
  - naravara 7y ago
    That doesn't sound like "too much Social Democracy" so much as a badly designed law that had a weird edge case.
    - mongol 7y ago
      It is not proof in itself, far from it, but it was very debated at the time as indication of social democracy having gone to far. The fact remains, social democrats lost power at this time. However the new ruling parties were unable to reform properly. True reform only started to happen about 10 years later, in the mid 1980s or so. Johan Norberg in the documentary mentions the (social democratic) finance minister Kjell-Olof Feldt as influencal in bringing change about. I agree with that. Sweden today is very different from the 70s, politically.
      - jabl 7y ago
        AFAIU Norberg is pretty far right [1] in Sweden, so not exactly how people there generally think. [1] Not far right as in Nazism, but as in pro capitalism, state intervention is communism (boo hiss!).
- 7y ago
paulintrognon 7y ago
That's funny. I just finished reading his book "Permanent Record" and that's really not what I understood from him. Maybe I missed something.
sprafa 7y ago
This documentary from the first 4 minutes looks very low effort. You can gather any number of “experts” on any given topic to give you any form of a story you’d like to tell... Also the “social democracy” you talk about is still there. University education is still free. Social democratic programs have not been completely destroyed.
- lliamander 7y ago
  >This documentary from the first 4 minutes looks very low effort. Don't know exactly what you mean by that, but OK. > You can gather any number of “experts” on any given topic to give you any form of a story you’d like to tell... Trivially true. Are the arguments sound? Are the basic facts correct? Those are the questions that matter. > Also the “social democracy” you talk about is still there. Arguable, but in any case certainly not to the degree it was in the 70's. Why? > University education is still free. Social democratic programs have not been completely destroyed. And yet the documentary claims that there is still a very high-level of student debt in Sweden. Not because of the education, but in order to subsist while going to college.
scarejunba 7y ago
Does not feel like a high-coefficient source.
- lliamander 7y ago
  Care to elaborate?
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    When deciding 'did something happen?' I need the sources to be generally reliable about fact reporting because they do not rely on pure reason. For fact reporting which is an aggregate, I need to rely upon the track record of the sources. In this case, some of the second-level sources are from the Cato Institute, which I know to be low trust source of truth[0]. This means I have to assign this a low-magnitude coefficient of trust (not a high-magnitude negative coefficient[1]). That means what you're describing could well be true. I just don't know it based on who's saying it. 0: Compare http://web.archive.org/web/20090402090751/http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/alternate_version.html http://web.archive.org/web/20090402090751/http://www.cato.or... with what I knew at the time 1: The classic "There is no gold buried here" is a high-magnitude negative coefficient
    - lliamander 7y ago
      I am unfamiliar with the history of that particular document. I don't really want to get into the question of climate change here. Nonetheless, I see what you mean about high vs. low magnitude coefficient trust. Personally, I don't assign a particularly high-magnitude coefficient for Cato either. However, I don't assign a particularly high magnitude coefficient to any economic/political think tank. For two reasons: 1. Economics is not a science in any meaningful sense of the word. There is no empirical process for falsifying theories; there is merely a dialectic. Now, the dialectic can be more or less rigorous, but there is an upper-bound to the level of certainty that dialectic can provide. 2. Everyone has an agenda. This is inescapable when it comes to politics. The best we can hope for is that all parties demonstrate some self-awareness of that fact. Relative to plenty of other sources, I would say that Cato ranks relatively well. At the very least, they are one of the most respectable libertarian sources, and should probably be taken seriously (even if you disagree with them).
ardy42 7y ago
> I was watching a documentary[1] about Sweden's shift away from social democracy in the 70's/80's time-frame that Piketty talks about. I'm not sure if I'd call that a documentary. The makes describe themsevles as "comedy news show" who are "equal-opportunity offenders": https://www.wetheinternet.tv/ https://www.wetheinternet.tv/: > ABOUT US > We the Internet TV isn't your average comedy news show: we're equal-opportunity offenders with new videos every week on current events, politics, and culture. You might call us a safe space for satire. Or you might call us something else in the comments section. We make fun of everyone—especially you—so don't say we didn't warn you!
sireat 7y ago
If I see Cato economist talking for the first 5 minutes I immediately suspect I am not getting a very balanced view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute Continuing with wikipedia: Sweden is a competitive and highly liberalized, open market economy. The vast majority of Swedish enterprises are privately owned and market-oriented, combined with a strong welfare state involving transfer payments involving up to three-fifths of GDP.[27][28] In 2014 the percent of national wealth owned by the government was 24%.[29] So again this is not the Soviet type of socialism(which I've lived through) but strong welfare state is definitely part of Sweden.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

refurb 7y ago

I have a theory that lessons learned by humanity are quickly forgotten after a few generations and thus we are condemned to trying the same old ideas (with slight tweaks) again until the current generation figures out they don't work.

cle 7y ago
Conversely, sometimes constraints and situations are different enough that "failed" ideas might succeed under the new constraints. The world is not a static place, and the environments in which many lessons were learned may not be relevant anymore.
- lliamander 7y ago
  True, but it seems that Piketty's position is that those ideas succeeded and would have continued to succeed if left in place - and consequently, that if we implement them now we will also have success. If it turns out that Piketty's history is incorrect, then the past failure of such plans should make us cautious about trying them again.
- refurb 7y ago
  Agree 100%. However, I do believe that any ideas that people want to try because they believe human behavior has changed are guaranteed to fail.

fulafel 7y ago

Tl;dw documentary, but that's not a very common interpretation. That was the time when the nordic countries built their succesful system that's in place today and is widely held in high regard.

mongol 7y ago
There can be too much of everything and there was too much of "social democracy" in the 70s. Author Astrid Lindgren had to pay more than 100 % tax and wrote the "childrens story" / opinion piece "Pomperipossa in Monismania" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomperipossa_in_Monismania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomperipossa_in_Monismania Next election the social democrats lost it for the first time in 40 years.
- naravara 7y ago
  That doesn't sound like "too much Social Democracy" so much as a badly designed law that had a weird edge case.
  - mongol 7y ago
    It is not proof in itself, far from it, but it was very debated at the time as indication of social democracy having gone to far. The fact remains, social democrats lost power at this time. However the new ruling parties were unable to reform properly. True reform only started to happen about 10 years later, in the mid 1980s or so. Johan Norberg in the documentary mentions the (social democratic) finance minister Kjell-Olof Feldt as influencal in bringing change about. I agree with that. Sweden today is very different from the 70s, politically.
    - jabl 7y ago
      AFAIU Norberg is pretty far right [1] in Sweden, so not exactly how people there generally think. [1] Not far right as in Nazism, but as in pro capitalism, state intervention is communism (boo hiss!).
7y ago

paulintrognon 7y ago

That's funny. I just finished reading his book "Permanent Record" and that's really not what I understood from him. Maybe I missed something.

sprafa 7y ago

This documentary from the first 4 minutes looks very low effort. You can gather any number of “experts” on any given topic to give you any form of a story you’d like to tell... Also the “social democracy” you talk about is still there. University education is still free. Social democratic programs have not been completely destroyed.

lliamander 7y ago
>This documentary from the first 4 minutes looks very low effort. Don't know exactly what you mean by that, but OK. > You can gather any number of “experts” on any given topic to give you any form of a story you’d like to tell... Trivially true. Are the arguments sound? Are the basic facts correct? Those are the questions that matter. > Also the “social democracy” you talk about is still there. Arguable, but in any case certainly not to the degree it was in the 70's. Why? > University education is still free. Social democratic programs have not been completely destroyed. And yet the documentary claims that there is still a very high-level of student debt in Sweden. Not because of the education, but in order to subsist while going to college.

scarejunba 7y ago

Does not feel like a high-coefficient source.

lliamander 7y ago
Care to elaborate?
- scarejunba 7y ago
  When deciding 'did something happen?' I need the sources to be generally reliable about fact reporting because they do not rely on pure reason. For fact reporting which is an aggregate, I need to rely upon the track record of the sources. In this case, some of the second-level sources are from the Cato Institute, which I know to be low trust source of truth[0]. This means I have to assign this a low-magnitude coefficient of trust (not a high-magnitude negative coefficient[1]). That means what you're describing could well be true. I just don't know it based on who's saying it. 0: Compare http://web.archive.org/web/20090402090751/http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/alternate_version.html http://web.archive.org/web/20090402090751/http://www.cato.or... with what I knew at the time 1: The classic "There is no gold buried here" is a high-magnitude negative coefficient
  - lliamander 7y ago
    I am unfamiliar with the history of that particular document. I don't really want to get into the question of climate change here. Nonetheless, I see what you mean about high vs. low magnitude coefficient trust. Personally, I don't assign a particularly high-magnitude coefficient for Cato either. However, I don't assign a particularly high magnitude coefficient to any economic/political think tank. For two reasons: 1. Economics is not a science in any meaningful sense of the word. There is no empirical process for falsifying theories; there is merely a dialectic. Now, the dialectic can be more or less rigorous, but there is an upper-bound to the level of certainty that dialectic can provide. 2. Everyone has an agenda. This is inescapable when it comes to politics. The best we can hope for is that all parties demonstrate some self-awareness of that fact. Relative to plenty of other sources, I would say that Cato ranks relatively well. At the very least, they are one of the most respectable libertarian sources, and should probably be taken seriously (even if you disagree with them).

ardy42 7y ago

> I was watching a documentary[1] about Sweden's shift away from social democracy in the 70's/80's time-frame that Piketty talks about. I'm not sure if I'd call that a documentary. The makes describe themsevles as "comedy news show" who are "equal-opportunity offenders": https://www.wetheinternet.tv/ https://www.wetheinternet.tv/: > ABOUT US > We the Internet TV isn't your average comedy news show: we're equal-opportunity offenders with new videos every week on current events, politics, and culture. You might call us a safe space for satire. Or you might call us something else in the comments section. We make fun of everyone—especially you—so don't say we didn't warn you!

sireat 7y ago

If I see Cato economist talking for the first 5 minutes I immediately suspect I am not getting a very balanced view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute Continuing with wikipedia: Sweden is a competitive and highly liberalized, open market economy. The vast majority of Swedish enterprises are privately owned and market-oriented, combined with a strong welfare state involving transfer payments involving up to three-fifths of GDP.[27][28] In 2014 the percent of national wealth owned by the government was 24%.[29] So again this is not the Soviet type of socialism(which I've lived through) but strong welfare state is definitely part of Sweden.