4 ms·

That entire reply is totally devoid of any substance whatsoever. I assume you're not planning to provide any reputable source, just keep repeating your own auth

That entire reply is totally devoid of any substance whatsoever. I assume you're not planning to provide any reputable source, just keep repeating your own authoritative assertion like your last sentence? > 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.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
I've already provided the substance. Now I'm just explaining that your grandiose denunciations are without substance. Once more: 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.
- cloudfifty 5y ago
  Please focus on providing those sources rather than trying to derail with tone policing. 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.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    I am not policing your tone. I am policing the content of your comments, which are appeals to emotion that are without substance. They belie disingenuity. What is the point of me digging up a source when you've completely dismissed clear macroeconomic evidence of a shift to a more social democratic economic structure? 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?
    - cloudfifty 5y ago
      Still no sources. Just talk and repeating your own interpretation as authoritative. > 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-democracy/ 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?
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>Just talk and repeating your own interpretation as authoritative. I provided a source to the data. People are free to draw their own interpretations from the macroeconomic data I presented, which shows, indisputably, a massive shift to a more social democratic economic model. >>they are repeated appeals for source to an extraordinary claim I provided a source for the data that verifies my claim. You have not explained at all what is extraordinary about characterizing the creation of sweeping social welfare programs, and an associated massive rise in the share of GDP expropriated by the state for social welfare spending, as "a dramatic shift to a more social democratic economic model". >>which obviously would be more commonplace if it was true since large political camps would have a lot to gain from it. There is no "large political camp" that stands to gain from aggressively advocating a reduction in government power, including so-called right-wing parties, under whom the share of GDP expended on social welfare programs has rapidly increased, as major new expansions of the social welfare system has been implemented (e.g. Medicare D under Bush). All embarking on any genuine campaign to reduce government spending would do is draw the ire of the very powerful public sector unions, whose agendas you aggressively champion in our discussion, and ensure a massive election defeat. >>You can start with providing a single one? 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. 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. >>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 This characterizes an outcome, not a govermment policy. The government policy of expending economic output on social welfare programs was expanded all through the last 60 years. Your dogmatic and ideologically motivated insistence that social democracy will reduce income inequality is completely unsubstantiated, and therefore a rise in income inequality in no way contradicts the assertion that the economy transitioned to a more social democratic model.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

I've already provided the substance. Now I'm just explaining that your grandiose denunciations are without substance. Once more: 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.

cloudfifty 5y ago
Please focus on providing those sources rather than trying to derail with tone policing. 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.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  I am not policing your tone. I am policing the content of your comments, which are appeals to emotion that are without substance. They belie disingenuity. What is the point of me digging up a source when you've completely dismissed clear macroeconomic evidence of a shift to a more social democratic economic structure? 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?
  - cloudfifty 5y ago
    Still no sources. Just talk and repeating your own interpretation as authoritative. > 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-democracy/ 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?
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      >>Just talk and repeating your own interpretation as authoritative. I provided a source to the data. People are free to draw their own interpretations from the macroeconomic data I presented, which shows, indisputably, a massive shift to a more social democratic economic model. >>they are repeated appeals for source to an extraordinary claim I provided a source for the data that verifies my claim. You have not explained at all what is extraordinary about characterizing the creation of sweeping social welfare programs, and an associated massive rise in the share of GDP expropriated by the state for social welfare spending, as "a dramatic shift to a more social democratic economic model". >>which obviously would be more commonplace if it was true since large political camps would have a lot to gain from it. There is no "large political camp" that stands to gain from aggressively advocating a reduction in government power, including so-called right-wing parties, under whom the share of GDP expended on social welfare programs has rapidly increased, as major new expansions of the social welfare system has been implemented (e.g. Medicare D under Bush). All embarking on any genuine campaign to reduce government spending would do is draw the ire of the very powerful public sector unions, whose agendas you aggressively champion in our discussion, and ensure a massive election defeat. >>You can start with providing a single one? 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. 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. >>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 This characterizes an outcome, not a govermment policy. The government policy of expending economic output on social welfare programs was expanded all through the last 60 years. Your dogmatic and ideologically motivated insistence that social democracy will reduce income inequality is completely unsubstantiated, and therefore a rise in income inequality in no way contradicts the assertion that the economy transitioned to a more social democratic model.