3 ms·

There is nothing unfounded about the claim that people are driven by self-interest. What data is he/she supposed to produce for a new policy that is only going

There is nothing unfounded about the claim that people are driven by self-interest. What data is he/she supposed to produce for a new policy that is only going to show the full scope of its impact over 50 years? EDIT, I'm being rate-limited, so I'll respond to the below here: No, there is very clear negative correlation between economic growth and government spending levels: https://web.archive.org/web/20170821004405/http://ime.bg/uploads/335309_OptimalSizeOfGovernment.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20170821004405/http://ime.bg/upl... Calling it "wild speculation" is disingenuous given social welfare spending's well documented negative impact on economic efficiency, and the basic economic theory that predicts this outcome. >>there are overwhelming examples of entitlement systems that are solvent and functional despite a level of free ridership. The most commonly cited example, Scandinavia, shows the opposite of what's popularly believed: https://iea.org.uk/publications/research/scandinavian-unexceptionalism-culture-markets-and-the-failure-of-third-way-soc https://iea.org.uk/publications/research/scandinavian-unexce... >>Stop holding back progress with unconstructive and uneducated critiques of iterative improvements to the social safety net apparatus. Stop taking it as a priori that any move toward your preferred economic system; social democracy, is progress, and any one who questions it is being "unconstructive and uneducated". It's a very emotional/unconstructive attitude to bring to a discussion of such importance.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
Wild speculation masquerading as an educated opinion holds negative value. If you make the assertion, provide facts to back it. People are self interested and yet there are overwhelming examples of entitlement systems that are solvent and functional despite a level of free ridership (which is unavoidable). We provide food assistance to people, some of whom might be able to work a bit more to not need it, but the benefit is overwhelmingly positive. Everyone will not immediately become reckless if universal healthcare is provided. This is no different. Everyone will not quit their jobs tomorrow to get a free home, just as everyone has not quit their jobs to live off of food stamps (or your country's equivalent benefit). The worst that happens is its an experiment that fails, and there is still value in the data point. If you're not in Finland, and you're not contributing financially to this, I'd like you share why you feel so revolted by this idea, as we have to get to the heart of the core belief or value system being challenged by this effort. (removed last sentence quoted in comment I replied to because it felt unhelpful and unkind to the discussion)
bufferoverflow 5y ago
How is it unfounded? They created a crazy incentive to do so.
cloudfifty 5y ago
as usual you're just using your market fundamentalist links to prove your market fundamentalist ideas despite overwhelming on-the-ground evidence that e.g. Scandinavia has been a remarkable success.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  If you dismiss any evidence that shows that social democracy doesn't work, including the evidence I provided about Scandinavia, which clearly shows how unsuccessful social democracy has been there, then of course you're only going to see the evidence supporting your pre-conceived notions. It would be impossible for any amount of evidence to cause you to change your mind when you take it as a priori that such evidence is from "market fundamentalists" and thus not credible. "as usual", the only thing "usual" is how reluctant those conforming to the mainstream ideology are to examine evidence that contradicts their narrative.
  - jahaja 5y ago
    As the saying goes; Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. A couple of free market think tank links don't meet that standard. There has to be some kind of a bar that must be met to warrant the effort of a response. Please provide a link to a single respectable [economic] historian that support your claim that social democracy is a proven failure compared to others. No free market think tanks or figures please. > as usual Yes, you are always using the same ~3 think tank links and have obviously never ever even tried to refute your own ideas because you otherwise wouldn't say thinks like "we've moved increasingly towards soc dem the last 60 years". Third-way soc dem that actually happened is exactly the opposite? It's just so blatantly wrong it's pathetic, why should one spend efforts refuting that when you've clearly haven't put in any effort in yourself. Government spending is not synonymous with Social Democracy ffs. Here's an actual paper from this year explaining what actually have happened: "The rightward shift and electoral decline of social democratic parties under increasing inequality" https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402382.2021.1916294 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402382.2021.1... Key quote: "As equality was a founding principle of social democracy and protection of the welfare state has historically been a strong means of mobilisation for Social Democrats, the party family’s turn away from these traditions, while inequality rises across the West, has been detrimental to their fortunes." They adopted more and more market principles, and with that rising inequality, and has as such declined all over Europe.

toomuchtodo 5y ago

Wild speculation masquerading as an educated opinion holds negative value. If you make the assertion, provide facts to back it. People are self interested and yet there are overwhelming examples of entitlement systems that are solvent and functional despite a level of free ridership (which is unavoidable). We provide food assistance to people, some of whom might be able to work a bit more to not need it, but the benefit is overwhelmingly positive. Everyone will not immediately become reckless if universal healthcare is provided. This is no different. Everyone will not quit their jobs tomorrow to get a free home, just as everyone has not quit their jobs to live off of food stamps (or your country's equivalent benefit). The worst that happens is its an experiment that fails, and there is still value in the data point. If you're not in Finland, and you're not contributing financially to this, I'd like you share why you feel so revolted by this idea, as we have to get to the heart of the core belief or value system being challenged by this effort. (removed last sentence quoted in comment I replied to because it felt unhelpful and unkind to the discussion)

bufferoverflow 5y ago

How is it unfounded? They created a crazy incentive to do so.

cloudfifty 5y ago

as usual you're just using your market fundamentalist links to prove your market fundamentalist ideas despite overwhelming on-the-ground evidence that e.g. Scandinavia has been a remarkable success.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
If you dismiss any evidence that shows that social democracy doesn't work, including the evidence I provided about Scandinavia, which clearly shows how unsuccessful social democracy has been there, then of course you're only going to see the evidence supporting your pre-conceived notions. It would be impossible for any amount of evidence to cause you to change your mind when you take it as a priori that such evidence is from "market fundamentalists" and thus not credible. "as usual", the only thing "usual" is how reluctant those conforming to the mainstream ideology are to examine evidence that contradicts their narrative.
- jahaja 5y ago
  As the saying goes; Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. A couple of free market think tank links don't meet that standard. There has to be some kind of a bar that must be met to warrant the effort of a response. Please provide a link to a single respectable [economic] historian that support your claim that social democracy is a proven failure compared to others. No free market think tanks or figures please. > as usual Yes, you are always using the same ~3 think tank links and have obviously never ever even tried to refute your own ideas because you otherwise wouldn't say thinks like "we've moved increasingly towards soc dem the last 60 years". Third-way soc dem that actually happened is exactly the opposite? It's just so blatantly wrong it's pathetic, why should one spend efforts refuting that when you've clearly haven't put in any effort in yourself. Government spending is not synonymous with Social Democracy ffs. Here's an actual paper from this year explaining what actually have happened: "The rightward shift and electoral decline of social democratic parties under increasing inequality" https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402382.2021.1916294 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402382.2021.1... Key quote: "As equality was a founding principle of social democracy and protection of the welfare state has historically been a strong means of mobilisation for Social Democrats, the party family’s turn away from these traditions, while inequality rises across the West, has been detrimental to their fortunes." They adopted more and more market principles, and with that rising inequality, and has as such declined all over Europe.