3 ms·

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. Scan

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.

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.