8 ms·

High levels of social spending is indeed a hallmark of social democracy. The creation of major new social welfare programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and

High levels of social spending is indeed a hallmark of social democracy. The creation of major new social welfare programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF, since 1960, corresponds with a massive increase in the share of economic output expropriated by the state for the purpose of expending it on social programs. Claiming Western states did not experience a transition to a more social democratic economic model, amidst the creation of major social welfare programs, and a massive increase in social welfare spending, is insane gaslighting. >>a single figure What an incredibly disingenuous way to characterize the share of GDP spent on government social welfare programs. This is an all-encompassing figure that encapsulates every major type of social democratic spending. Claiming that me using this extremely revealing macro-economic statistic, as evidence of the rise of social democracy, as: "peddling this obvious bullshit based on a single figure stretched all the way to the moon" is a desperate attempt to gaslight the public to hide reality from it. >>non-free-market think-tank 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. Whether social democracy ideologues/apologists will admit that Western states experienced a massive transition to a more social democratic economic model over the last 60 years, doesn't change what the evidence, and any remotely sane analysis of it, shows.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cloudfifty 5y ago
Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence. You have provided none. 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.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence. You have provided none. You have yet to explain what is extraordinary about my claim, besides your baseless claim that the intellectual authorities you defer to haven't concurred with the assertion. The statistics speak for themselves, and don't need confirmation from the state apparatus' amen corner to be believed. >>outlandishly superficial and biased interpretation of a single figure? Again with your absurdly disingenuous characterization of the share of GDP spent on government social welfare programs. One more time: This is an all-encompassing figure that is constituted solely by different types of social democratic spending, and encapsulates every major type of social democratic spending. Claiming that me using this extremely revealing macro-economic statistic, as evidence of the rise of social democracy, as: "an outlandishly superficial and biased interpretation" is a desperate attempt to gaslight the public to hide reality from it.
  - cloudfifty 5y ago
    > This is an all-encompassing figure that is constituted solely by different types of social democratic spending, and encapsulates every major type of social democratic spending. 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".
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      >>No, it's not. That's a superficial and biased interpretation. Your characterization is absolute nonsense, and I've already explained exactly why. >>especially since your credibility is already very low because of your union conspiracy ramblings. I've addressed this disingenuous criticism before: Your pithy response to my argument that unionized news staff have an economic interest in promoting left wing political ideas - when I've elaborated at length as to why I believe this is the case - suggests you're approaching this issue very emotionally, and not in a good faith attempt to open-mindedly explore what I'm saying to see if it's true. You realize that name-calling and sophistry is not debate, right? You can't just bully people into adopting your interpretation of the world. Asserting that a claim is "a superficial and biased interpretation" or "conspiracy ramblings", is not evidence. It's just a baseless opinion, and in terms of substance, the equivalent of name-calling - an attempt to appeal to people's emotions to manipulate them into believing something, instead of convincing them by presenting a logical argument. >>we can dive deeper into other possible causes to an increased social spending without that being "an embrace of social democracy". We can dive deeper in your mental gymnastics, as you try to maintain "neoliberalism" has been ascendant, whilst the economy has become more social democratically structured? It's undeniable that the West has massively moved toward a more social democratic economic model.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

cloudfifty 5y ago

Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence. You have provided none. 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.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence. You have provided none. You have yet to explain what is extraordinary about my claim, besides your baseless claim that the intellectual authorities you defer to haven't concurred with the assertion. The statistics speak for themselves, and don't need confirmation from the state apparatus' amen corner to be believed. >>outlandishly superficial and biased interpretation of a single figure? Again with your absurdly disingenuous characterization of the share of GDP spent on government social welfare programs. One more time: This is an all-encompassing figure that is constituted solely by different types of social democratic spending, and encapsulates every major type of social democratic spending. Claiming that me using this extremely revealing macro-economic statistic, as evidence of the rise of social democracy, as: "an outlandishly superficial and biased interpretation" is a desperate attempt to gaslight the public to hide reality from it.
- cloudfifty 5y ago
  > This is an all-encompassing figure that is constituted solely by different types of social democratic spending, and encapsulates every major type of social democratic spending. 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".
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    >>No, it's not. That's a superficial and biased interpretation. Your characterization is absolute nonsense, and I've already explained exactly why. >>especially since your credibility is already very low because of your union conspiracy ramblings. I've addressed this disingenuous criticism before: Your pithy response to my argument that unionized news staff have an economic interest in promoting left wing political ideas - when I've elaborated at length as to why I believe this is the case - suggests you're approaching this issue very emotionally, and not in a good faith attempt to open-mindedly explore what I'm saying to see if it's true. You realize that name-calling and sophistry is not debate, right? You can't just bully people into adopting your interpretation of the world. Asserting that a claim is "a superficial and biased interpretation" or "conspiracy ramblings", is not evidence. It's just a baseless opinion, and in terms of substance, the equivalent of name-calling - an attempt to appeal to people's emotions to manipulate them into believing something, instead of convincing them by presenting a logical argument. >>we can dive deeper into other possible causes to an increased social spending without that being "an embrace of social democracy". We can dive deeper in your mental gymnastics, as you try to maintain "neoliberalism" has been ascendant, whilst the economy has become more social democratically structured? It's undeniable that the West has massively moved toward a more social democratic economic model.