Debate over the claim "the welfare state got substantially bigger during this period," with posts calling that statement potentially controversial and one post phrasing an alternative as "the second derivative of the welfare state was negative."
Created 1 days ago • 16 documents • Range: 3/30 7:43pm – 3/31 12:05am
"On questions of neoliberalism and the welfare state I think you are always going to have some alternative state of the world in mind to compare to. It’s difficult for me to know what to do with “line went up so there’s no neoliberalism”. What should the line have done?"
And, more importantly in my mind, neoliberalism’s real goal is to derisk banks & corporations Which we’ve certainly done
"I think "the welfare state got substantially bigger during this period" should make the claim at least a *little* controversial."
I did, this is what I’m describing in words above because you were objecting when I showed the data. Output per capita has increased more steeply and steadily than social spending per capita: bsky.app/profile/dkue...
Yes. The postwar Keynesian systems were designed and implemented by the generation who witnessed the rise of fascism and sought, explicitly, to prevent its return. Neoliberalism working to dismantle the Keynesian systems has led (I think, unsurprising) to the conditions in which fascism can return.
"I think "the welfare state got substantially bigger during this period" should make the claim at least a *little* controversial."
I would love to see plans from Democrats that involve simplifying the welfare system and consolidating existing programs. I suspect there are a lot of gains that could be made without substantially higher spending.
"I think "the welfare state got substantially bigger during this period" should make the claim at least a *little* controversial."
The “social contract” thing is important I don’t think post GFC bailing banks out and not bailing Main Street out was in accordance with the social contract. Nor the lack of prosecuting bank fraud.
"I think "the welfare state got substantially bigger during this period" should make the claim at least a *little* controversial."
I think there are numerous dissertations in the shape of those graphs, especially where the line plateaus or goes down. The anti-neoliberal explanation can maybe explain some of it(based on what they call neoliberal), but they'd fail to account for all
"I think "the welfare state got substantially bigger during this period" should make the claim at least a *little* controversial."
Well I’d call this the data series we’re interested in and we have periods of zero or negative first derivatives here. This doesn’t seem like a side show this is the main neoliberalism story, right? Especially if we think about the social insurance vs welfare distinction I bet.
