How come neoliberalism removed all welfare?

trickle down reaganomics based on Ayn Rand has shrunk the public sector to 1/10th the size it used to be, friedman and hayek dominate economics profession for eternity, i read ha-joon chang and steve keen trust me I know everything

Other urls found in this thread:, R_Neoliberalism as concept_Venugopal_Neoliberalism as concept_2015.pdf

I can't tell if this is some sort of smugness or trying to hold back the tears against the hellhole that is neoliberalism

If you read carefully you'd realize that they're counting subsidizing a private company to provide a service as 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧government expenditure🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 on these graphs. Gee it's almost like there's been a massive shift away from state led investment into privatization. Really makes you think.

Also I live in Canada and for my province welfare rates had been frozen for 10 consecutive years and it was only recently that it got raised by a paltry $100. That's not even enough to counteract the 10 years of inflation. Most of the money sure as hell isn't going to welfare.

government expenditure is government expenditure. all expenditure is good expenditure according to socialdemocratic fundamentalism, R_Neoliberalism as concept_Venugopal_Neoliberalism as concept_2015.pdf

neoliberalism is all about profit motive first

capital = power
ergo more capital = more power and control

it is in their interest to pay workers low wages and lobby for lower social spending so their taxes can get cut. in the US bribery is basically legal through campaign finance and super pacs so hypercapitalists can just buy politicians to enact their agenda and any goal they want. the people with the most capital can now hold all power in the political process of american """democracy"""" rather than the majority.

even if the policies clearly don't benefit the working man and greatly favor the wealthy at the expense of the poor they can hire marketers, strategists, tv talking heads to spin things to the rubes. they can spin like trickle down economics and stripping the welfare state into some vague bullshit using a hot button issue like "family values", "welfare is le socialism boogeyman", race baiting ("welfare queens"), "america first, immigrants are using welfare, tax cuts will bring back jobs from china", "we need to cut the deficit".

it's all bullshit but petit bourgeois and poor whites in particular will support oppressive policies fucking them over because they hear these talking points and slogans on fox or cnn or whatever that it'll push some vague social issue but they vote for these policies time and time again convinced it'll be good for them. even if they're ON FUCKING WELFARE in many cases people will still go on about how only freeloaders use government programs and how it's socialism and the blacks/mexicans are abusing it.

spending stays same, only takes slight INCREASE during crises 2008

grows from 13 to 17

I provided 3 sources that prove state spending is growing from early 20th century, I provided 3 papers proving your terminology is made up.

leftypol will never answer me with facts or data, only marxist gibberish

I just explained to you why the way "government expenditure" is defined in this study is problematic as it counts public private partnerships in the mix.

No they don't. Have you ever talked to a social democrat in your entire life?

Notice how Greece has one of the highest proportions of """government spending""" despite it being documented facts that they have privatized literally everything for the EU Troika and shredded their social safety net. You are choosing to utilize erroneously calculated data for your political agenda.

And I'm not a marxist dumbass.

bernie sanders and corbyn have no economic basis to stand on, they are populists even krugman acknowledges this.

"i dont like your factual data" is not an argument. You still haven't provided any data, or arguments. Still no response to the 3 papers debunking your "terminology".

You probably think picrelated is """neoliberal"" too lmao, get lost

Pretty nice thread tbh.

Yeah, only if you count "giving welfare to capitalists" as spending money on the public.

As a marxist, what do you think about john rawls? im genuinely curious, pls no bully

You are being extraordinarily disingenuous. I have brought at least three counterpoints, none of which you have addressed as you cannot swallow your pride to acknowledge that the route you have taken to arrive to your conclusion is wrong.

A) The government expenditure being included includes public/private partnerships. This inflates costs dramatically, you only need to look at the UK and Carillon for example, and is furthermore not evidence against neoliberalism, it is evidence for it as state-led investment has shifted to "socialized losses + privatized profit".

B) The vast majority of the spending is not going to welfare, as evidenced by my home country's province having frozen welfare rates for a decade (and yes even with the 08 crash it still remained frozen). Yet I see in the table that social expenditure for my country shows a rise anyways, suggesting taking the measurement as a gauge in how big the welfare state is is wrong.

C) Greece has one of the highest proportions of """government spending""" despite it being documented facts that it has severely cut back on social expenditure, for example for pensions, by firing public sector workers, etc. From the data you would presume to tell me that Greece has a massive welfare state but that is simply not the case.

Again, retard, my point is government spending goes up since early 20th century, and my 3 official data sources prove that. It does not matter how it is spent - it is state activity.
About "welfare 404" meme, lets factcheck I mean debunk that

BOOM gone. You are wrong.

Greece had a loan, you realize that? It only makes my point stronger, that governments are irresponsible with budgets when unconstrained.

Still haven't refuted any of my arguments, no data, no papers, nothing, all pure ideology *sniff*.

where dem data at fam

You're pretty stupid tbh if you still refuse to understand what I'm trying to tell you but I'll continue.

That's not what we're arguing over otherwise I wouldn't have cared to step in. We're arguing over whether the welfare state has been dismantled by neoliberalism or if, as you implied in your opening post, it is as robust as ever. If you want to move the goalposts that's your choice.

Since you're too lazy to google I'll do it for you.

It was only recently raised by $100 with a new government which is not enough to counteract 10 decades of inflation.

As for Greece:, if you think the bailout money went to social expenditure think again.

As for Greece's """social expenditure"""

Literally all you need is a little brains smh. If massive cuts to social expenditure are happening yet overall """government spending""" is going up that means that the measurement of "government spending" isn't a useful or valid tool to be used in an argument over how big the welfare state is.

yeah, I sure do miss the 19th century, back when the standard of living was higher.

You post ONE ARTICLE and you think that proves claims about A CENTURY OF SPENDING hahaha retard.

Who cares what the money goes to? The point is that the State controls it, and in certain cases mishandles it, varying in scope per situation.

You still haven't refuted my points, no data, no nothing. You are using made up buzzwords to describe anything you don't like, instead of using neutral terms like "social democracy", "mixed economy" etc

I showed 3 sources tracing rising spending back to about 60-100 years back, showing how the spending rose since early 20th century.

This disproves any populist whining about "budget cuts", probably because you don't understand countercyclical business cycle too.
Your only example is anecdotal at best, Greece being incompetent doesn't say anything about global government spending trends.

Seriously pick up a economics textbook you will learn a lot, and will disprove your conspiracy theories about evil corporate banksters or whatever.

not him but
clearly you care where "the money goes to." since you're upset that the state "controls it" (not really how that shit works btw, look up MMT)
but it doesn't. you can complain about the weather despite the fact that the climate overall is going in a favorable direction.
is that still what you're calling total economic collapse?
you're a thinly veiled libertarian who's peddling poorly-supported axioms to back up your fanatic conspiracy that the government is controlling "the money" at gunpoint. a commodity which literally doesn't have a limited supply.

and there you go
a libertarian shithead

t. got a B- in microecon 101

It's spelt Keynes you sophistic little spastic



So this is the right's fabled debating ability.

user, this is because of a shift towards contracting and private-public partnershits where you get less bang for your buck. Government spending goes up while public services are in stagnation cause porky is filling his pockets with government bux.
The policies you support are what has lead to this. Right-wingers have jacked up public spending and government inefficiency.