TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @sfliberty

sfliberty
Posted - August 11, 2025 at 11:43 PM
Saved - August 14, 2025 at 2:42 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Many people admire Sweden as a model for their own countries, often citing its social policies. However, modern Sweden is not socialist; its reputation stems from a brief period of failed socialism in the 1970s and 1980s. Sweden's wealth was built on laissez-faire capitalism, and the socialist experiment led to economic decline. After reversing these policies in the 1990s, Sweden embraced free markets and reduced government spending. Today, the tax system is less progressive than in the U.S., and the story of Sweden illustrates the success of free markets over socialism.

@sfliberty - Students For Liberty

Everyone says their own country should be more like Sweden. Bernie Sanders built his campaign around it. AOC points to it constantly. But if you really want to "be like Sweden," you'd have to abolish property, inheritance, and wealth taxes, cut corporate rates, and privatize Social Security with individual accounts. 🧵

@sfliberty - Students For Liberty

Here's what they don't tell you: Modern Sweden isn't socialist at all. Sweden's "socialist" reputation comes from one brief, disastrous period in the 1970s and early 1980s. Before that, Sweden became the world's fourth-richest country through laissez-faire capitalism.

@sfliberty - Students For Liberty

Between 1850 and 1950, Sweden transformed from a desperately poor backwater into one of the world's richest nations. How? Classical liberals led by finance minister Johan August Gripenstedt abolished guilds, tore down trade barriers, and deregulated markets. Public spending never exceeded 10% of GDP during this golden age.

@sfliberty - Students For Liberty

The socialist experiment nearly destroyed everything Sweden had built. Between 1970 and 1995, Sweden fell from 4th to 14th in global wealth rankings. For two entire decades, not a single net job was created in the private sector. IKEA, Tetra Pak, and Sweden's biggest companies fled to escape the crushing taxes and regulation.

@sfliberty - Students For Liberty

By 1992, Sweden's brief romance with socialism had collapsed so spectacularly that for a few days their central bank was forced to defend the currency with a 500% interest rate. Even Kjell-Olof Feldt, the Social Democratic finance minister, admitted their policies were "unsustainable," "absurd," and "perverse."

@sfliberty - Students For Liberty

So Sweden did what any rational country would do: they reversed course completely. They cut government spending by a third, privatized state-owned companies, deregulated entire industries, and joined the European Union for free trade access. They even reformed their pension system from socialist promises to capitalist reality.

@sfliberty - Students For Liberty

Today's Sweden proves exactly the opposite of what Bernie Sanders claims. Sweden's tax system is actually less progressive than America's. The top 10% of earners pay only 27% of total income taxes, compared to 45% in the United States. Sweden squeezes its middle class and poor instead of soaking the rich.

@sfliberty - Students For Liberty

Swedish socialists learned the lesson that many statists still refuse to accept: you can have a big government, or you can make the rich pay for it all, but you cannot have both. Perhaps that's why only 9% of Swedes call themselves socialists today—while 15% of American Republicans have a positive view of socialism.

@sfliberty - Students For Liberty

The real Sweden story isn't about socialism working. It's the story of free markets creating extraordinary wealth, socialism nearly destroying it all, and market reforms saving the country from economic collapse. Sweden succeeded despite socialism, not because of it. Want to learn more? Watch @johanknorberg documentary for @FreeToChooseNet: https://www.freetochoosenetwork.org/programs/sweden/

Sweden: Lessons for America? The arguments for Socialism often use Sweden and their economic model as an argument for change. Find out if those points hold up, in Sweden: Lessons for America? freetochoosenetwork.org

@sfliberty - Students For Liberty

🔥 Ready to challenge these myths on your campus and bring real economic education to students who've been fed lies about Sweden? Applications for Students For Liberty's Local Coordinator Program close August 16th for the US and Canada. This is your LAST WEEK if you're in North America to join the 2025-26 cohort and become part of a global network fighting for liberty with facts, not feelings. Apply now: http://join.studentsforliberty.org

Join SFL's Local Coordinator Program - SFL join.studentsforliberty.org
sfliberty
Posted - July 18, 2025 at 8:16 PM
Saved - August 8, 2025 at 2:05 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The FDA is hindering Americans from accessing effective sunscreens, with no new ingredient approved since 1999. This outdated regulation contrasts sharply with international products that offer advanced protection against skin damage and cancer. The lengthy approval process, rooted in a 1938 law, creates a disparity where only the wealthy can afford superior options abroad. The ongoing delays mean more preventable cancer cases, and the true impact of these bureaucratic barriers remains unknown. The system prioritizes procedure over public health, leaving many vulnerable.

@sfliberty - Students For Liberty

The FDA is literally preventing Americans from protecting themselves from cancer. While people in the US burn with decades-old sunscreen formulas, Europeans and Australians enjoy superior protection that the American government won't let its citizens buy. The bureaucracy is so broken that one company has spent 20 years and $18 million trying to get FDA approval for a single sunscreen ingredient. 🧵

@sfliberty - Students For Liberty

The FDA hasn't approved a new sunscreen ingredient since 1999. Let that sink in. Your smartphone has been updated thousands of times since then, but your cancer protection is stuck in the Clinton administration. Meanwhile, dermatologists routinely recommend sunscreens from Australia, Europe, and Asia that Americans can't legally access.

@sfliberty - Students For Liberty

International sunscreens contain newer UVA filters like bemotrizinol that offer stronger, broader protection. US sunscreens focus mainly on preventing sunburn but provide weaker coverage against the deeper skin damage that causes cancer and aging. Europeans got bemotrizinol in 2000. Australians in 2004. Even Canadians got it in 2023.

@sfliberty - Students For Liberty

Why the delay? Because a 1938 law classifies sunscreen as an over-the-counter drug requiring lengthy clinical trials, while most countries treat it as a cosmetic product. Think about this: you can walk into any store and buy ibuprofen, which can cause stomach ulcers, kidney damage, and heart problems. But sunscreen gets stuck in an 86-year-old regulatory framework that nobody bothered to update.

@sfliberty - Students For Liberty

The absurdity gets worse. Americans literally stock up on superior sunscreens when traveling abroad because they know the difference. But not everyone can afford international travel to protect their family from cancer. The FDA is creating a two-tiered system: good protection for the wealthy, inferior protection for everyone else.

@sfliberty - Students For Liberty

This is "drug lag" in action, the additional time FDA requirements force consumers to wait before accessing better products. As @dr4liberty noticed in his article published by CATO Institute (https://www.cato.org/blog/bureaucratic-sunburn-what-fda-wont-let-you-prevent): "Drug lag is cruelest to terminally ill patients, to whom it denies the right to try to save their lives by using drugs that have already been proven safe but are awaiting efficacy approval. Many seriously ill Americans die waiting for the FDA to approve drugs that regulators in other countries have already approved." People are literally dying waiting for treatments available elsewhere.

@sfliberty - Students For Liberty

Even if bemotrizinol gets approved tomorrow, there are several other proven sun filters Americans still can't access: Tinosorb M, Mexoryl SX, Mexoryl XL, and Uvinal A Plus. Each one requires the same bureaucratic marathon. Each delay means more cancer cases that could have been prevented.

@sfliberty - Students For Liberty

The real tragedy? We'll never know how many people got skin cancer because they couldn't access better sunscreen. The FDA can point to their "rigorous safety standards." But they can't point to the families who never had to deal with preventable cancer diagnoses. Bureaucrats measure their success by procedures followed, not lives improved.

@sfliberty - Students For Liberty

How many cases of skin cancer could have been prevented if Americans had access to the world's best sunscreens? We'll never know—but the delay is indefensible. Want to learn how to spot these kinds of government failures before they become obvious? Check out our free 5-day course: How to Not Be An NPC—Think Like Thomas Sowell 👉 https://go.studentsforliberty.org/npc-sowell/

How to Not Be An NPC A Free 5-Day Email Course That Will Change How You See Politics, Economics, and Culture. go.studentsforliberty.org
sfliberty
Posted - June 20, 2025 at 9:19 PM
Saved - June 21, 2025 at 1:10 PM

@sfliberty - Students For Liberty

When you hear Milton Friedman say, “I know, but that’s fundamentally wrong,” you know he’s about to take you apart. https://t.co/T036tx2pwa

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker argues that comparing 19th and 20th century America is valid, despite resource differences. They claim John D. Rockefeller benefited the country by developing the oil industry and lowering costs without coercion, contrasting this with his grandson Nelson Rockefeller's negative impact through politics. The speaker refutes the idea that 19th-century America had unlimited resources, stating that technology has increased available resources. They use oil and nuclear power as examples of resources that were non-existent or unusable in the 19th century but are now abundant. They assert that government regulation of resources leads to waste and misuse. They conclude that current wealth is built upon the economic progress of the 19th century, acknowledging a debt to those who came before.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yes, sir. Speaker 1: I I was interested before you had mentioned a comparison between nineteenth century and twentieth century America. I'd like to know if you think that that's, you know, I don't see how that could be considered a legitimate comparison in terms of in terms of the fact that, you know, there were unlimited resources essentially in the nineteenth century, and and now we have a kind of very limited resource and and allocation situation. At least this seems to be the thrust of a lot of I know. That's wrong. And well, just Let let me Before before before I'm Yeah. Sure. Speaker 0: You go ahead. Speaker 1: Sure. Let me finish the question. In the nineteenth century, when you had a completely free economy, you seem to have situations developing where tycoons would come along like Rockefeller or the railroad barons essentially, and they'd come to dominate society. So is is it not a choice Do we not have a choice between developing that kind of situation where John D. Rockefeller and that crowd will decide what's good for our society or whether the government officials will. Speaker 0: Well, let's take the Rockefellers and just stick with them. Speaker 1: D. Rockefeller University of Chicago, incidentally. I know. He founded the Speaker 0: he founded the University of Chicago. Tell me, John D. Rockefeller did a great deal of good for this country. He developed and promoted I'm not talking about his charitable activities, that was separate, not even about the founding of the University of Chicago. But he developed into a major industry, the oil industry of refining, discovering and making oil available. He reduced its cost. He never got a dollar from anybody with a gun. He got his money by selling people products at a lower cost than other people could provide it. His grandson, Nelson Rockefeller, did enormous harm to the country by operating through the political channel. Speaker 1: If Speaker 0: Rockefeller had If we had the nineteenth century version, and Nelson Rockefeller with all his accumulated wealth had tried his hardest to spend that in such a way as to reduce the freedom and the affluence of other people, could not have come close to achieving what he did achieve in that direction as a political figure. He couldn't even have afforded to put up the Albany Mall, let alone to have undertaken the measures which made New York State a basket case, which changed the educational structure of New York State in my opinion in a very adverse direction. But let me go back to your first question. First place, it is simply not true resources now whereas we had unlimited resources in the nineteenth century. On the contrary, from every important economic point of view we have a greater volume of resources now than we had then. Tell me, in 1850, how much oil did we have? It hadn't been discovered, it was useless. We had no oil. The first oil well was drilled in Titusville in 1858. We have more oil now than we had in a meaningful economic sense. Before nuclear power was discovered, how much nuclear power and energy did we have? The progress technology has had the effect of increasing the effective volume of resources available to us, so that we have far greater resources available now than we had in the nineteenth century as a result of the technological and business developments that were produced. Speaker 1: Is government regulation of the resources necessary? Speaker 0: Not at all. Government regulation of resources of the kind we've had has led to waste and misuse of resources. Really, go back, look at your analysis. What matters are the resources that are available to be used, not those that will be discovered later on. Of course one more thing needs to be said. We are of course wealthier and better off than were the people in the nineteenth century, but we are their heirs. We could not be where we are if they had not done what they did. And I think it's a false comparison not to take into account the debt which we owe to the enormous economic progress and development of the nineteenth century, to the fact that our ancestors came here with empty hands and have made it possible for us to have a decent life. I hate to use the old cliche about standing on their shoulders, but that's what we do.
sfliberty
Posted - March 20, 2023 at 3:53 PM
Saved - September 11, 2024 at 8:51 AM

@sfliberty - Students For Liberty

On this day 20 years ago, the United States launched an all-out bombing on Baghdad in the middle of the night. Nearly 10K civilians were killed in the early days of the war, and at least 275K civilians were killed during the war that would follow. Never again. https://t.co/BXlaKzqjrH

View Full Interactive Feed