Effects on poverty section
Poverty rate has dropped a lot after the introduction of welfare state.
When Johnny was poor he had a bicycle.
Now Johnny is richer and he bought himself an expensive car.
Is Johnny richer because he bought an expensive car or is Johnny richer despite the purchase?
First: Always follow the statement with the question: At what cost? Any program can do what it sets out to do through violence or through the threat of violence. But what does the rest of the economy give up to get that social goal? Clearly the costs of the welfare systems in the Western World has pushed it to the brink of bankruptcy.
Second: You need to follow up with the moral question of forced wealth redistribution. That is by what moral authority does the state or other violent entity have to use violence to steal resources from one person and give them to another? Normally people who favor the welfare state, which is a mass majority will refuse to answer this question or if they are not very smart they will say the democratic process does which you reply with the question: Isn’t a democracy just two wolves and a sheep arguing over dinner? Or 5 million and 1 wolves arguing with 5 million sheep over what is for dinner?
Its not like these countries had unhampered free markets befor ethe socialist state. Sttate corporatism/mercantilism ~ feudalism < social democrats << free market
"When Johnny was poor he had a bicycle.
Now Johnny is richer and he bought himself an expensive car.
Is Johnny richer because he bought an expensive car or is Johnny richer despite the purchase?"
Not convincing. What I’m actually thinking is something like this:
Unemployment relief, welfare payments increase the purchasing power of the poor, raising consumption, and therefore boosting nominal GDP. But that doesn’t mean the economy as a whole is better(lower rate of investment, less social mobility)
Let’s admit it. Welfare can help the poor in the short run and superficially. Too bad a superficial criteria is what the statists trust.
What I’m saying is we have to be more methodical in our approach. Let’s not say, “government cannot reduce poverty”. Rather ‘government may reduce poverty in the short term but society as a whole is poorer than it was before, and welfare will backfire on those which it is intended to help the most’.
I notice that people here(talking about generalities) are too rash in just dismissing socialist arguments.
you are probably looking for things like this http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/95/poor-not-stupid.htm
There are people who are doing even worse in poorer countries, what makes your particular citizens so worthy? If you were logically consistent with welfare you would want to give it to the poorest people in the world not the poorest in your country, I really don’t think we can support the billions of people living in poverty.
Even the poorest people in the developed world live with a higher standard of living then most people for the vast majority of human history. For example being “poor” in the US means a family who owns 1 car and a color television.
I think the reason so many Europeans support the welfare state is because most people end up getting something from it.
Ask them to define poverty in absolute terms first. If they can’t, you’ve won the argument. Anyone arguing that there should only be X gap between rich and poor is a stooge. If they tell you an absolute number rest assured it will be met within a generation or two, free markets eliminate poverty on an absolute scale, only plunder can eliminate relative poverty.
Poverty is statistically determined as the bottom 10% or so earners. It is not an absolute measurement.
I hate to press my own “suggest as answer” button…
From what I’ve heard the poverty rate was already declining prior to the establishment of the welfare state, and the decline actually slowed down afterwards, and begun creeping back up later on. I can’t name any sources but I think it was Thomas Sowell that originally dug that up.
Even if it’s true that poverty is lower (and who knows how each country is calculating it), it often comes at the expense of innovation, progress and living standards.