Let's discuss the sustainability of the welfare state

[ghoti]

Typical bleeding hearts. Living off handouts

Actually... thats false. CONSERVATIVE Red states complain more about welfare, pay the least in welfare, but receive the most federal welfare dollars! Classic conservatives Blue liberal states, pay more of the welfare, spend less of the welfare federal dollars and support welfare.

Just goes to show you. Them liberals know whats better for conservatives than what conservatives do. Its simple, if conservatives want less "handouts", them red states need to get off their asses, get educated and get working. The liberals are paying for you guys to get smarter, so the least you could do is take that hard earned money the liberals are sending you.. to do just that. If the conservatives sort themselves out, the country wont have to spend so much on "handouts"

[ghoti]

[TheHiveMind]

Actually... thats false. CONSERVATIVE Red states complain more about welfare, pay the least in welfare, but receive the most federal welfare dollars! Classic conservatives Blue liberal states, pay more of the welfare, spend less of the welfare federal dollars and support welfare.

Just goes to show you. Them liberals know whats better for conservatives than what conservatives do

Liberal states generally have a much lower immigrant/minority population.

[ghoti]

Liberal states generally have a much lower immigrant/minority population.

I guess Alaska has major migration problems I mean, Sarah Palin can see Russia from her home (or so she says), so they must be swamped.... or not Either that or those Canadians are tired of their GREAT welfare state, are tired of the free education, are tired of the free health services and are tired of their high quality lives, so decided to migrate to become illegal Alaskans

Lol, can you show the percentage of federal welfare dollars being spent on dealing with that so your point has some validity?

Lets get real here. The real reason why conservative states need so much welfare is because of their under developed rural populations (the bible belt Republican supporters).

[Nerfherder]

We need a welfare state purely because its impossible to just live off the land.

We don't have a waywhere you can just exist outside of the economic system, like mentioned before you need to have a variable economic state and you need to have a high employment rate.

[Alan]

Liberal states generally have a much lower immigrant/minority population.

Debunked the whole Blue state/ Reds state thing before. Gets rather tiresome.

One only needs to say one word.

PIGS

[ghoti]

Debunked the whole Blue state/ Reds state thing before. Gets rather tiresome.

One only needs to say one word.

PIGS

Yes, those are example of badly run welfare states....

With the help of corrupt private companies like Goldman Sachs (the same people who lead the world into its depression so the rich could coin it) ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17108367

Here`s another blue/red state thing for you to "debunk"



Those green states, the ones with character, used to be Republican... and the ****ty backwards slave people used to be Democrats. So funny how its completely reversed over time...

Personally to me, Lincoln was the last great president the Republicans produced.

[Nanfeishen]

South Africa can never be a welfare state, it cannot work, and wont work.
The gap between wealth and poverty is too great, the poor outnumber the wealthy, and our society is not homogenous enough.

There are many reasons that the welfare state works in places like Scandinavia, and because it works there people have the false impression that it can, or will work everywhere.

Norway is a huge oil exporting nation, with a rather small population of mainly well educated people. Although they have reached a point where taxes are now slowly beginning to cripple the average citizen to such a point that people are beginning to feel the impact of the "welfare state" more and more.
Sweden was the perfect place for the "welfare state" experiment to be implemented, for many different social and economic reason at the time, that why it was chosen.
Denmark is slowly moving away from it , and looking more and more towards the way Holland does things , rather than at the other 2 countries.

Long the paragon of social democracy, the Swedish model is rotting from within. Ironically, the unique social and economic foundation that first allowed Sweden to construct its political edifice--and which makes it such a difficult model for other countries to emulate--has been critically weakened by the system it helped create.
...............
TO SAY that other countries should emulate the Swedish social model is about as helpful as telling an average-looking person to look like a Swedish supermodel. There are special circumstances and a certain background that limit the ability to imitate. In the case of the supermodel, it is about genetics. In the context of economical and political models, it is about the historical and cultural background.

Bigger and more diverse countries with a weaker faith in government and more suspicion towards other groups would likely see an even stronger tendency to exploit the system, work less and abuse social assistance

http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=ar...&articleid=151

Judging from the experiences in Scandinavia, the welfare state worked to some extent because it was based in small and ethnically homogenous nations, with a strong cultural and religious (Protestant) work ethic which had just experienced several generations of a booming capitalist economy. These traits kept the system afloat for decades, but the work ethic and the sense of duty slowly got eroded and replaced by a sense of rights, while the high taxation and the passivity bred by the system eroded initiative and the will to take risks. Again, these flaws are inherent to the model. They make time to develop, but they will, eventually.

The welfare state will also be subject to external pressures. International competition will make a welfare state economy less competitive because the high tax rates will stifle economic growth.
..............
Another factor is immigration, and welfare states tend to attract the “wrong” kind of immigrants, those who would be likely to piggyback on the system, while the most dynamic immigrants tend naturally to travel to countries where they pay less tax and thus receive more in return for their work and efforts.
..................
“If government becomes too paternalistic it deprives us of the need to be responsible for ourselves,” he says. “Then two things happen. We don’t get those challenges that seem to make us happier. And after a while we might even lose our capacity to make choices, which in terms of happiness is the worst thing that can happen to a person.”

“People seem unable to enjoy life without responsibility for one’s actions and choices, and it is impossible to feel pride and independence without having the means to control one’s life. The welfare state has created a dependent people utterly incapable of finding value in life; instead, they find themselves incapable of typical human feelings such as pride, honor, and empathy. These feelings, along with the means to create meaning to life, have been taken over by the welfare state. [...] Perhaps this explains why such a large part of the young population now consumes antidepressant medication, without which they are unable to function normally in social situations.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1234

How the Welfare State Corrupted Sweden
http://mises.org/daily/2190

The Myth of the Scandinavian Model

Politicians must realize that economic growth is not brought about by fiscally punishing productive citizens, nor by collective impoverishment and social welfare cuts, but by cutting taxes and bureaucracy.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

[ghoti]

South Africa can never be a welfare state, it cannot work, and wont work.

Hate to burst your bubble, but we are one.... sure a badly run one, but even badly run, its slowly getting somewhere.
http://www.google.co.za/publicdata/e...hl=en_US&dl=en

The gap between wealth and poverty is too great, the poor outnumber the wealthy, and our society is not homogenous enough.

"the goal of welfare programs is to reduce poverty"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare...ect_on_poverty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare...d_post_welfare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare...d_post_welfare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare...d_post_welfare

Do yourself a favor before you say silly things like you just did. Go and actually read up on what a welfare state is. Go and compare the countries, their poverty and unemployment rates pre and post welfare (in the link I provide above). At least get an understanding of the basics please.

Thats why you go welfare to grow the middle class. France adopted the welfare model when its unemployment was in the 40`s percentage wise and was paying off the destruction of two world wars. Sweden had a similar transition. One where they had great poverty. Welfare states have been show to reduce poverty hence the single biggest reason they are adopted. You shoulda read up on the poverty and riots in Sweden before they managed to wrest back some control from the 1%. Sweden went welfare because CHARITIES FAILED.

there are many reasons that the welfare state works in places like Scandinavia, and because it works there people have the false impression that it can,

Countries that are under the false impression that its working:
Sweden
Norway
Netherlands
Finland
Denmark
Germany
Switzerland
Canada
France
Belgium
Australia
UK
USA

So let me get this right... none of those countries know what they are doing even though going welfare has empirically improved their countries? Really? You believe that crap?

Sorry, totally dont agree with your understanding of what a welfare state even is or how they work.

Posting stuff from Mises is like posting stuff from creationist websites when discussing evolution. It makes me take you less seriously. I dont have time to debate with fundamentalists. Be they religious or market fundamentalists. I dont have time for play-play fantasy ideologies. I live and work in the real world. Show me a better working example with a track record that exceeds that of welfare states and I will honestly readjust my opinion. The thing is you cant, because your best example of a libertarian country is Somalia.

[zippy]

Although SA could probably afford some levels of welfare, there is no experience in managing it. Also the high levels of corruption mean that it will probably be a dismal failure and complete waste of money.

Doesnt SA already offer free health care to mothers and children where the child is under 6 ? That does make SA a welfare state, but not that much of a welfare state.

It would be a disaster if SA tried to implement an unemployment benefit program similar to some EU countries. Simply not affordable.

Note that the cost of welfare has to be continuosly evaluated and the benefits provided. Currently, due to high debt levels sustained as result of the recent recession, most EU countries and the UK are cutting welfare benefits to brink them in line with the economy. The system works in these countries because it keeps people above the poverty line. This has the added effect of reducing crime. It isnt a perfect system. There is no perfect system. SA has a serious problem, because introducing an advanced welfare system now will fail. These other countries have the benefit of having worked out any major problems out of their society so that their welfare systems are not overburdened as one in SA would be.

[ghoti]

Although SA could probably afford some levels of welfare, there is no experience in managing it. Also the high levels of corruption mean that it will probably be a dismal failure and complete waste of money.

Doesnt SA already offer free health care to mothers and children where the child is under 6 ? That does make SA a welfare state, but not that much of a welfare state.

It would be a disaster if SA tried to implement an unemployment benefit program similar to some EU countries. Simply not affordable.

Note that the cost of welfare has to be continuosly evaluated and the benefits provided. Currently, due to high debt levels sustained as result of the recent recession, most EU countries and the UK are cutting welfare benefits to brink them in line with the economy. The system works in these countries because it keeps people above the poverty line. This has the added effect of reducing crime. It isnt a perfect system. There is no perfect system. SA has a serious problem, because introducing an advanced welfare system now will fail. These other countries have the benefit of having worked out any major problems out of their society so that their welfare systems are not overburdened as one in SA would be.

We are welfare already. However, welfare generally takes generations to show results :/

We have plently of social grants, welfare housing. Public hospitals are either free or close enough to free and afaik our education is welfare as well.

Education and health are the single two biggest area`s welfare should be focusing on.

You bring up some incredibly important points.

1) Its badly managed
2) The ANC are corrupt
3) The right balance between welfare and sustainability needs to be met (as the PIGS countries showed us)

Those are the issues we need to work on. Not all this libertarian fluff we get in the forum... but on the real issues and how to address them. I cant give you more rep right now or I would.

These other countries have the benefit of having worked out any major problems out of their society so that their welfare systems are not overburdened as one in SA would be.

Disagree with this. Sweden had to have food riots before they went welfare, and France had 36% unemployment and was paying off two world wars when they went welfare. None of these countries have the massive amount of natural resources SA has.The only way they could recover as well as they did was by going welfare. You dont have to be doing well to go welfare. You go welfare so you can do well... but as mentioned earlier. A balance needs to be met, it needs to be run well and it is complex.

What we see in SA today is a badly run corrupt welfare country. When its well run and way less corrupt its going to rock our socks.

[zippy]

We are welfare already. However, welfare generally takes generations to show results :/

We have plently of social grants, welfare housing. Public hospitals are either free or close enough to free and afaik our education is welfare as well.

Education and health are the single two biggest area`s welfare should be focusing on.

You bring up some incredibly important points.

1) Its badly managed
2) The ANC are corrupt
3) The right balance between welfare and sustainability needs to be met (as the PIGS countries showed us)

Those are the issues we need to work on. Not all this libertarian fluff we get in the forum... but on the real issues and how to address them. I cant give you more rep right now or I would.


Disagree with this. Sweden had to have food riots before they went welfare, and France had 36% unemployment and was paying off two world wars when they went welfare. None of these countries have the massive amount of natural resources SA has.The only way they could recover as well as they did was by going welfare. You dont have to be doing well to go welfare. You go welfare so you can do well... but as mentioned earlier. A balance needs to be met, it needs to be run well and it is complex.

What we see in SA today is a badly run corrupt welfare country. When its well run and way less corrupt its going to rock our socks.

you forget the US Marshall Plan which essentially funded the rebuilding of Europe after the war. I love the irony that the US basically enabled the EU to build their welfare states.

[ghoti]

you forget the US Marshall Plan which essentially funded the rebuilding of Europe after the war. I love the irony that the US basically enabled the EU to build their welfare states.

I wont lie, that did help significantly.... all that welfare Cause in essence... it was a welfare plan, but on a bigger scale. Worked out in the end huh? Oh yeah, USA is a welfare country as well and has been for a while. I think it was Roosevelt that did some of the biggest welfare pushes.

[WilD_CaT]

Do you expect the poor, aged, and disabled alone to pay for the police, courts, national defence, roads, refuse collection etc. ?

No. But unlike you I'm not assuming those functions are public goods that must be performed by the state. The reason being there is no objective rational criteria to distinguish public goods from private and hence make the argument or assumption that these functions must be provided by the state alone.

E.G. The courts and police system. The rational behind them is that when 2 people are in conflict with one another, they need a third "neutral" party who can objectively provide a solution to the conflict. (Hobbes' argument).

I'm fine with this statement. However the third party in this case is the state and the state court/police system. But by the same rational used above to justify the introduction of the third party (state), when an individual comes into conflict with the state, there must be another third party (private courts/police) to objectively provide a solution between conflict between the state and the individual. In practice this never happens.

The state and its courts/police, a party to the conflict, appoints itself to resolve said conflict.

Hence logically the introduction of a state system of courts and police does not provide a solution to the problems it attempts to solve.

Nevermind the fact that the greatest fear of people is that individuals can accumulate power then abuse it, and hence to prevent this they want to create an even more powerful institution (the state). However, that creates the problem that people fear in the first place.

Logically, one cannot justify a state system of courts and police, the only alternative is a private system (de-collectavised system)

Another justification for public goods, is that there are some goods that are paramount to the survival of society (human beings) in general. Such as water, and they feel the importance of a good, should determine whether or not it is state provided (public good) or not.

There are 3 logical refutations of such a statement.

1. There is no objective criteria for determining what is necessary for human survival given the natural state of the real world. (Scarcity is a natural phenomenon, when there is not enough water, the criteria used cannot determine who lives or dies. Nor should it)
2. Food is also necessary for human survival. When Communist China nationalised their agricultural industry it resulted in the deaths of 30 million Chinese. When Russia did so, they left 3% of agricultural land in the hand of private individuals, which resulted in private owners (3% of land) producing more than 33% of all food production.
It is a fact that nationalising such an important resource necessary for survival such as food, will only result in a lack of food and death. This is due to the nature of man and economics.

The above facts, the nature of man and economics (humans acting and inter-acting) do not change for water. Hence you cannot objectively decide water provision should be nationalised and food shouldn't.

3. Telecommunications in South Africa. Since the industry has been denationalised and liberalised, we have had more people connected, with a better quality service at ever lower prices. Again this is a result of the nature of man and economics, the fact that incentives matter to humans and their actions.

You are the one contradicting yourself when you argue water, or healthcare is so important it must be nationalised to provide a good quality to service at ever lower prices to people, but at the same time arguing that telecommunications, another thing people consider VERY important, must be liberalised.

And finally, all those things you mentioned, so called public goods. Again these goods are provided by the mafia, who force you to pay them, in order to provide "protection" and other goods. As this is not a voluntary transacation (There is an element of coercion) you cannot prove that nationalising these sectors is benificial to society (Only voluntary exchanges can be demonstrated to be benificial to society).

So when arguing our position, you cannot prove yours, and yet you are willing to force this system on others (Through violence and coercion, the threat of harm or jail if you don't comply), where as I am not.

The default position giving any argument is to reject it until it can be proven. The onus is one you to prove your claim.

[WilD_CaT]

Personally to me, Lincoln was the last great president the Republicans produced.

He was also a racist who didn't believe that black people should have the same rights as whites and believed they were a lower being.

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

by:

Abraham Lincoln
(1809-1865) 16th US President
Source:

Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
(The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)