219 karma · joined February 14, 2021
That's not a serious way to argue at all. That is just emotional dogma that criticism can ultimately be traced to envy.
> The amount that people toil has decreased largely as a result of the ruleset I mentioned, that is associated with capitalism.
No, it hasn't.
1. Milk as much taxpayer money as possible, while providing as little as possible through profit-driven social services etc. that require increasingly larger budgets to not collapse entirely.
2. Tax us? Look at all the money the government isn't getting any value out of!
3. Rinse & repeat.
No you haven't. Just a figure and your own interpretation of it.
> which shows, indisputably, a massive shift to a more social democratic economic model.
No, it doesn't. It's exactly this interpretation that need to be backed up, not the figure.
You are making a claim, an interpretation, that no one else makes. So the burden of evidence is on you. This is common sense. Stop delaying and start providing.
> There is no "large political camp" that stands to gain from aggressively advocating a reduction in government power
Of course they are large political camp that would love to blame the recent increases in inequality and more on an "embrace of social democracy". Stop lying to save face.
> What difference would it make if I dig up one source? Would it lead to you agreeing with me? If not, this is just an exercise in deflection from you.
Are you seriously asking why it makes difference to provide sources for unique claims that runs contrary to the established consensus?
> If you tell me how many sources it will take, for you to agree with me, then I might take the time to dig them up.
This has nothing to do with a certain quantity of sources. What an absurdly anti-intellectual thing to say.
> This characterizes an outcome, not a govermment policy.
Stop cherry-picking. That article is very clear that it doesn't agree with your assertion. It asked what happened to social democracy and very clearly implying that it has gotten off its original path in recent times. That doesn't square with your claim that social democracy has instead been embraced during that time.
I can provide even more non-academic and academic sources into the decline of social democracy if you'd like, there's loads of them. But somehow you can't even provide a single one supporting your exact opposite claim? This is what makes it extra-ordinary.
Here's another one:
"The rightward shift and electoral decline of social democratic parties under increasing inequality" https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402382.2021.1...
"Recent electoral results reveal a pronounced decline in the fortunes of Social Democratic parties. Much of the decline debate has revolved around their rightward policy shifts, which have turned Social Democrats away from their founding principle of equality in an age of increasing inequality. Thus, this article examines the interconnections of these major changes in the Western political economy. In doing so, it contributes to the identification of income inequality as a key mechanism moderating Social Democratic policy offerings and their support. It does so through aggregate-level election results and individual-level survey responses on a sample of 22 advanced democracies, over 336 elections, from 1965–2019. Results reveal that rightward economic movements of Social Democrats significantly reduce their vote share under higher levels of income inequality or when they are combined with rightward socio-cultural movements. The findings provide an important explanation for the pronounced electoral decline of Social Democratic parties."
> which are appeals to emotion that are without substance
No, they are repeated appeals for source to an extraordinary claim which obviously would be more commonplace if it was true since large political camps would have a lot to gain from it. But the lack thereof says a lot, that's why I keep requesting a reputable source to back up your claim that goes deeper than a superficial glance at a social spending figure.
> How many examples would I need to dig up of academic authorities concurring on what the statistics clearly show, before you concede I am right?
You can start with providing a single one?
As much as I dislike linking to this article it's relevant to this because it shows how not even a right-wing pseudo-intellectual media-outfit that certainly can't be dismissed as having a "union-led left-wing bias" agrees with your claim:
https://quillette.com/2021/04/07/what-happened-to-social-dem...
"Starting in the 1970s, such things as foreign competition, mass immigration from developing countries, automation, and the growing financialization of economic power undermined this progress. In the United States, data from the Census Bureau show that the share of national income going to the middle 60 percent of households has fallen to a record low since the 1970s. Wealth gains in recent decades have gone overwhelmingly to the top one percent of households, and especially to the top 0.5 percent. Social mobility has declined in over two-thirds of European Union countries, including Sweden. Across the 36 wealthier countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the richest citizens have taken an ever-greater share of national GDP while the middle class has shrunk. Much of the global middle class is heavily in debt—mainly because of high housing costs—and “looks increasingly like a boat in rocky waters,” suggests the OECD."
When will you concede that you're are practicing dogmatism because of your ideological bias?
To reiterate: If it's undeniable, you shouldn't be the only one claiming this. Not even conservatives (in Europe at least) are saying this, even though it would be manna from heaven for them if it was true.
> It's undeniable that the West has massively moved toward a more social democratic economic model.
If it's undeniable, you shouldn't be the only one claiming this. Not even conservatives (in Europe at least) are saying this, even though it would be mana from heaven for them if it was true.
No, it's not. That's a superficial and biased interpretation. There's a minimum threshold to be met if one is to spend energy on a reply, hence the need for something more than just your hot take, especially since your credibility is already very low because of your union conspiracy ramblings.
One more time:
If that is such an obviously correct interpretation as you suggest, please provide reputable sources that agree with your claim, after that we can dive deeper into other possible causes to an increased social spending without that being "an embrace of social democracy".
Where's the reputable source that can back up your claims with more than just an outlandishly superficial and biased interpretation of a single figure?
> extremely revealing macro-economic statistic, as evidence of the rise of social democracy
No, it just isn't. If it was true, you wouldn't have any problem at all providing a reputable source agreeing with your claim. But you clearly do.
> Any think tank worth its salt is pro-free-market. Non-free-market think tanks are ideologically-motivated crank organizations, and usually on the payroll of the direct beneficiaries of social democracy - public sector unions.
That's not based in reality whatsoever.
Not sure what your point is. All who qualifies is paid for? If you don't qualify you can take classes to make you qualify, also at no cost.
No, they haven't. Stop peddling this obvious bullshit based on a single figure stretched all the way to the moon. Social spending != social democracy. Social spending != welfare state.
As I've asked for previously, and what you always - unsurprisingly - fail to provide: please present a single reputable, non-free-market think-tank, source that agrees that the "Western states" have been embracing social democracy the last few decades.
The only thing this had to do with is what incentive structure each set up and what the expected outcomes of those are.
Leninism:
Concentrate the power into professional revolutionaries, a vanguard, to lead the people into making the "correct" choices.
Incentive: Keep this new and unprecedented amount of power indefinitely.
Outcome: Corruption of whatever ideals they might have had.
Capitalism:
Concentrate the wealth and thus power into businessmen/corporations with the purpose of keep accumulating wealth indefinitely.
Incentive: Use the power and influence of wealth to do just that, accumulate more wealth.
Outcome: Manipulation of rules, regulations, and the market.
This is what they are. This is what we've seen for more than a 100 years for both. This is what they are accountable for.
Why? You haven't really answered anything with regards to the incentive structure of Capitalism to manipulate the market ASAP. What good "free markets" segments of society even exists today? Restaurants? No, the big chains lobby intensely there as well - less profits if employees earn a living wage.
> I think that very little of your hypothetical US$100 would benefit the patient, precisely the opposite of giving US$100 to every consumer in a capitalist market.
You're missing the point entirely. The comparison if ofc with what would happen if e.g. a Nordic government would do the same thing under a system of universal healthcare.
I mean, just look at the jungle of regulations and the vast inefficient bureaucracy of the US healthcare system. Those 15k layers of shite can only happen with just as many corps doing everything to either save their profits or trying to get as large a piece of the cake as possible. Public good be damned.
Say if the US gov planned to add $100 per patient in some grant for whatever reason. How much do you think would actually trickle down to the patient? I'd be like nervously donating $100 to a dodgy charity in a corrupt developing nation in the 1960s.
What do you mean by can't go? People "can't" go to high-school either if they don't get the minimum grades required in elementary school. How does this even relate to the money angle that I'm criticizing?
> So, should we tell them "no" up front?
What do you mean by telling who no up-front? By requiring that you actually have finished high-school math before being accepted for a 4-year math program in uni? That's just common sense.
> You already said that you/your country won't pay much, so why is it wrong for me to express the same sentiment?
Uhm, no? In what way?
Well, yes, of course? Why wouldn't both the uni and students want a threshold to ensure that no one's time is being wasted? But this doesn't mean that people are barred by tuition or crippled by debt when/if they graduate.
> Or it's mostly a problem for people who find it easy to get press coverage.
Since I'm not from the US I had to google the distinction and from what I can tell a community college main PR is that one may be "transferred" to more prestigious institutions. So it definitely doesn't sound as equivalent as you present it.
> I've nothing against non-STEM education, but I do object to paying a lot for it.
Luckily any decent society consists of more than smug tech folks like this place.
> Authoritarian Socialist "Great Reset" proposed by the authoritarians on the US Political left.
This sounded interesting though, care to explain what - and who? - this is referring to?
You also skipped the answering the main part, a "Great Reset" that surely must be a logical first step to avoid undue advantage jumping over from the flawed past?
Why would you say that?
> And yes, there are free and/or very low-cost colleges in the US. (https://www.sjcc.edu/ is under $1,500/year.)
Clearly seem to be a problem of either US-ranking of universities or their general availability. Otherwise this wouldn't be a problem?
> It is interesting to look at what many of the people complaining about not being able to pay choose to study.
That sounds just like the reactionary whine about non-STEM education.
All who qualifies through grades or tests.
> And who chooses which majors are available?
The universities.
> If you have a pulse, you can get into a US college/university.
That doesn't seem to be the case, and certainly not without significant student debt.
* Universal healthcare.
* 4 or more weeks of paid vacation per year for all full-time employees (and some proportional setup for part-time).
* ~6 months of paid (albeit not 100% of ones salary) parental leave per parent, per child.
* Subsidized child care to make it affordable for everyone.
* Government funded university tuition (student debt is only in the form of upkeep).
* Employer/Government funded sick pay (at least 6 months).
Because these things and more are what you're missing out on in the US. Year by year.
Is it really worth it? What's the point of having a higher salary if it's just consumed by higher rents, healthcare fees etc and no time to actually enjoy the money (vacation)?