3 ms·

Social welfare spending only goes up as percentage of GDP. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-longrun https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/so

by sershe 11mo ago

Social welfare spending only goes up as percentage of GDP. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-longrun https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long.... What data do you use to distinguish the "current economic system"? Notably of course, assuming the variations of the US system even mattered, the USSR collapsed after the 80ies (deregulation and liberalization having started even earlier under Carter, not after post war US economy stagnated in the 60ies-70ies.

littlestymaar 11mo ago
> Social welfare spending only goes up as percentage of GDP. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long.... Not everything that count can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. Metrics like these are meaningless when the working class' living condition keeps deteriorating. > What data do you use to distinguish the "current economic system"? Pick your favorite: - wealth concentration (what share of wealth does the top, say 0.1% for instance but pick whatever you like best, of wealth distribution) - media concentration - number of years of average income spent in a political campaign - effective tax rates on the wealthiest people > Notably of course, assuming the variations of the US system even mattered, the USSR collapsed after the 80ies The soviet union collapsed from their own issues (which were numerous, and growing), that doesn't change anything to my argument comparing today's West with peak USSR.
- sershe 11mo ago
  "Metrics like these are meaningless when the working class' living condition keeps deteriorating." 1) what is working class? 2) what proof do you have that its "living condition keeps deteriorating"? By all metrics - including disposable income after housing etc - its living conditions keep improving. And problems like housing are caused by parts of the "current system" that are the most non capitalist - zoning and other local regulation, in particular, the result of the 70ies revolution towards safetyism and more direct democracy. When Moseses and Leavitts made all the decisions with their concentrated government OR commercial power, housing was plentiful. When FDA was approve-by-default medicine was cheap (although obviously that is not the only factor). Etc. The things on the list either just have nothing to do with living conditions or welfare state, or if they do to an extent have little to do with the "current system" EDIt: or just plain wrong; https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/top-1-percent-tax-rate/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/top-1-percent-tax...
  - littlestymaar 11mo ago
    > 1) what is working class? Thanks, now I have no need to give you the benefit of the doubt because I know for sure that you aren't arguing in good faith. Hence I'm not going to waste any more time in this discussion.
    - sershe 11mo ago
      Why is that? Definition of working class can range from near everyone with a job to a lower stratum under the middle class to even more narrowly manufacturing and similar. Nice cope out though. At least I provided some data and not just fact free vibes.
      - littlestymaar 11mo ago
        > At least I provided some data and not just fact free vibes Without realizing that the “data” contradicts your point despite only starting in the second Reagan term (hence entirely missing the point). If you want to get actual data, see Saez and Zucman.
        sershe 11mo ago
        You didn't originally claim above the inequality is increasing. The above posts make claims - about the post war welfare state versus the current system. I provided the data going back well before Reagan to show this is simply false. Unless of course by current system you mean 3x bloated welfare state. - that working class living standards are deteriorating. You provided no data for that. That's by the way why I'm confused as to what you mean by working class, if there was some proof perhaps I could have inferred by there isn't any. Inequality apriory has nothing to do with living standards. It does have a lot to do with vibes... But still, for taxes, here's data back to 79, before Reagan. Do you have better? If not how do you know? https://www.concordcoalition.org/deep-dives/issue-brief/historical-tax-rates-the-rhetoric-and-reality-of-taxing-the-rich/ https://www.concordcoalition.org/deep-dives/issue-brief/hist... I agree wealth inequality is increasing but I don't think it's a real problem and disagree with all the rest. I wonder what percentage of wealth differential are productive or artificially scarce assets going up in price due to the money printing, eg like housing after covid binge
Retz4o4 11mo ago
https://www.wealtheconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Stevenson-2019.pdf https://www.wealtheconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/S...
- sershe 11mo ago
  "in reality welfare state with its massive redistribution and limits on concentration of power that won" The welfare state increased 3x since post war time so that one is plain wrong. It was not clear if the 2nd part was "its" or separate . What is the metric for concentration of /power/? Rather than wealth. If anything the recent developments are the result of more direct democracy. Candidates like trump would have never been allowed by concentrated media and party machines mid century

by sershe 11mo ago

littlestymaar 11mo ago

> Social welfare spending only goes up as percentage of GDP. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long.... Not everything that count can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. Metrics like these are meaningless when the working class' living condition keeps deteriorating. > What data do you use to distinguish the "current economic system"? Pick your favorite: - wealth concentration (what share of wealth does the top, say 0.1% for instance but pick whatever you like best, of wealth distribution) - media concentration - number of years of average income spent in a political campaign - effective tax rates on the wealthiest people > Notably of course, assuming the variations of the US system even mattered, the USSR collapsed after the 80ies The soviet union collapsed from their own issues (which were numerous, and growing), that doesn't change anything to my argument comparing today's West with peak USSR.

sershe 11mo ago
"Metrics like these are meaningless when the working class' living condition keeps deteriorating." 1) what is working class? 2) what proof do you have that its "living condition keeps deteriorating"? By all metrics - including disposable income after housing etc - its living conditions keep improving. And problems like housing are caused by parts of the "current system" that are the most non capitalist - zoning and other local regulation, in particular, the result of the 70ies revolution towards safetyism and more direct democracy. When Moseses and Leavitts made all the decisions with their concentrated government OR commercial power, housing was plentiful. When FDA was approve-by-default medicine was cheap (although obviously that is not the only factor). Etc. The things on the list either just have nothing to do with living conditions or welfare state, or if they do to an extent have little to do with the "current system" EDIt: or just plain wrong; https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/top-1-percent-tax-rate/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/top-1-percent-tax...
- littlestymaar 11mo ago
  > 1) what is working class? Thanks, now I have no need to give you the benefit of the doubt because I know for sure that you aren't arguing in good faith. Hence I'm not going to waste any more time in this discussion.
  - sershe 11mo ago
    Why is that? Definition of working class can range from near everyone with a job to a lower stratum under the middle class to even more narrowly manufacturing and similar. Nice cope out though. At least I provided some data and not just fact free vibes.
    - littlestymaar 11mo ago
      > At least I provided some data and not just fact free vibes Without realizing that the “data” contradicts your point despite only starting in the second Reagan term (hence entirely missing the point). If you want to get actual data, see Saez and Zucman.
      - sershe 11mo ago
        You didn't originally claim above the inequality is increasing. The above posts make claims - about the post war welfare state versus the current system. I provided the data going back well before Reagan to show this is simply false. Unless of course by current system you mean 3x bloated welfare state. - that working class living standards are deteriorating. You provided no data for that. That's by the way why I'm confused as to what you mean by working class, if there was some proof perhaps I could have inferred by there isn't any. Inequality apriory has nothing to do with living standards. It does have a lot to do with vibes... But still, for taxes, here's data back to 79, before Reagan. Do you have better? If not how do you know? https://www.concordcoalition.org/deep-dives/issue-brief/historical-tax-rates-the-rhetoric-and-reality-of-taxing-the-rich/ https://www.concordcoalition.org/deep-dives/issue-brief/hist... I agree wealth inequality is increasing but I don't think it's a real problem and disagree with all the rest. I wonder what percentage of wealth differential are productive or artificially scarce assets going up in price due to the money printing, eg like housing after covid binge

Retz4o4 11mo ago

https://www.wealtheconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Stevenson-2019.pdf https://www.wealtheconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/S...

sershe 11mo ago
"in reality welfare state with its massive redistribution and limits on concentration of power that won" The welfare state increased 3x since post war time so that one is plain wrong. It was not clear if the 2nd part was "its" or separate . What is the metric for concentration of /power/? Rather than wealth. If anything the recent developments are the result of more direct democracy. Candidates like trump would have never been allowed by concentrated media and party machines mid century