Is the American left cherry-picking when arguing for a European-style welfare state?

[Humes fork]

Quote:

The American Left is far more interested in northern Europe than it is in southern Europe, despite the fact that southern Europe constitutes the majority of the population of the core 15 European Union members. Why?

A century or so ago, German sociologist Max Weber observed that Protestant countries in northern Europe tended to outperform the Catholic and Orthodox countries in the south of the continent. Weber believed that the northerners had a stronger work ethic, were thriftier, and possessed more of what is today called “social capital.” Though Weber attributed these differences to Protestantism itself, we should note that countries did not randomly convert to Protestantism. The roots for the cultural differences might very well go even deeper.

Economists have since largely abandoned Weber’s insights, and in general have turned against “cultural” explanations for economic outcomes. Yet Weber would not be surprised if shown a map of credit downgrades in Western Europe anno 2012. Western Europe can still roughly be divided into a northern, Germanic language, Protestant region, and a southern, Latin/Greek language, Catholic/Orthodox region.

CONTINUES

The author (a Swedish-Kurdish economist of a libertarian persuasion) argues that the American left is guilty of cherry-picking when arguing for the success of the welfare state, because they are only looking at northern Europe, ignoring southern Europe, which he argues is at least as welfare-statist as northern Europe.

The author argues that the success of the northern European countries is attributable to their cultures rather than their welfare states, and that if the US was to adopt a European-style welfare state, they can't know if the result will like northern Europe or southern Europe, or somewhere in-between.

I find the argument interesting and I think culture plays a big part in it. But I'm not convinced that a welfare state necessarily is a drag, which seems to be what the author implicitly assumes. I think government investment into research and infrastructure can benefit society as a whole, including businesses. I even think free university education is a benefit for businesses. After all, businesses need to get their programmers, accountants, marketers, researchers etc from somewhere, and a big pool of qualified people to draw from is obviously a benefit.

[daenku32]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

The author (a Swedish-Kurdish economist of a libertarian persuasion) argues that the American left is guilty of cherry-picking when arguing for the success of the welfare state, because they are only looking at northern Europe, ignoring southern Europe, which he argues is at least as welfare-statist as northern Europe.

The author argues that the success of the northern European countries is attributable to their cultures rather than their welfare states, and that if the US was to adopt a European-style welfare state, they can't know if the result will like northern Europe or southern Europe, or somewhere in-between.

I find the argument interesting and I think culture plays a big part in it. But I'm not convinced that a welfare state necessarily is a drag, which seems to be what the author implicitly assumes. I think government investment into research and infrastructure can benefit society as a whole, including businesses. I even think free university education is a benefit for businesses. After all, businesses need to get their programmers, accountants, marketers, researchers etc from somewhere, and a big pool of qualified people to draw from is obviously a benefit.

The southern states are no where near as "welfare-statist as northern Europe". You can look at portion of GDP in public vs private spending for one.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by daenku32

The southern states are no where near as "welfare-statist as northern Europe". You can look at portion of GDP in public vs private spending for one.

The article does have this graph:

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Welfare state"? You suggest cherry picking while you mislabel something with that phony buzz word?

We have socialized police and fire, they have socialized police, fire and health care. Big deal.

[psionl0]

The US has a much bigger military budget than the EU.

Trying to set up a welfare state while maintaining the military spending would cause the national debt to shoot through the stratosphere. (You don't think the government would fund this by raising taxes do you?)

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I am very dubious of cultural explanations. The author does have a point in that welfare spending alone will not lead to success. But the reason Liberals here cite Northern Europe so often is to show that welfare models can even be successful at all, so I don't think his criticism is especially compelling.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

The article does have this graph:

"Government spending as a share of GDP is the most commonly used and most straightforward measure of the size of the welfare state. "

That does not say anything about welfare at all. It only shows the percentage of government spending, not at all WHERE it is spent.

What makes a welfare state, is actually where it is spent, social securities, and so on. That GDP percentage says nothing of the like, and for all we know, the % of spending in social governmental program could be 10% , 90% or anywhere in between for the EXACT same GDP/spending ratio.

ETA: in fact the social expanditure graph is probably a much better indicator (the next graph) but not anywhere showing a correct picture, as that expanditure for social program does not show HOW it is spent. The reality is much more complicated than a north/south percentage. The article is guilty of reductionism.

[Eddie Dane]

Originally Posted by psionl0

The US has a much bigger military budget than the EU.

Trying to set up a welfare state while maintaining the military spending would cause the national debt to shoot through the stratosphere. (You don't think the government would fund this by raising taxes do you?)

Another perspective:
The US army is a welfare program.

Are you poor, but want an education, driving license, health care and a job?
Join the army.

The difference is that the US has welfare recipients with a crew cut, who get up early and can be put on a nuclear-powered ship to go and kick bottom.

European welfare recipients get up at ten to watch Oprah reruns.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

Another perspective:
The US army is a welfare program.

I would have to check out the stats on how much is paid directly on soldiers vs weapons and how much of a dent it makes in the poverty stricken ranks before I could intelligently comment on that.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

"Welfare state"? You suggest cherry picking while you mislabel something with that phony buzz word?

We have socialized police and fire, they have socialized police, fire and health care. Big deal.

This.

Could the OP please define 'wefare state' within the confines of the discussion.

[paiute]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

We have socialized police and fire...

Not for long, commie.

[paiute]

Originally Posted by psionl0

The US has a much bigger military budget than the EU.

Trying to set up a welfare state while maintaining the military spending would cause the national debt to shoot through the stratosphere. (You don't think the government would fund this by raising taxes do you?)

Or as I say to my Scandinavian friends, "My universal health care is launching F18s in the Persian Gulf right about now.:

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by psionl0

I would have to check out the stats on how much is paid directly on soldiers

Then add in all the other jobs where the paycheck comes from the government. Unless there's some reason a non-military government job is less welfare than a military job.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

"Welfare state"? You suggest cherry picking while you mislabel something with that phony buzz word?

We have socialized police and fire, they have socialized police, fire and health care. Big deal.

This is cherry-picking to the extreme.

I admit the term "welfare state" is vague, but European countries have not only UHC, they have also heavily subsidized (or free, in some cases) university education.

[3point14]

could the OP please define 'welfare state' as it is to be used in the discussion. Otherwise we're just all going to be talking at cross purposes. Again.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by paiute

Not for long, commie.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

This is cherry-picking to the extreme.

I admit the term "welfare state" is vague, but European countries have not only UHC, they have also heavily subsidized (or free, in some cases) university education.

I could have listed everything to compare, but I didn't think it was necessary to make my point.

As long as you cherry picked "education" instead of "the dole" you give me an opportunity to vent. I'm thinking about a new thread on the hypocrisy of the right wing in the US self righteously crying about not wanting to leave the burden of the oppressive national debt to their children and grandchildren at the same time the news is reporting the collective student debt has recently exceeded the collective credit card dept.

Subsidizing education used to be something the US cared about. That was at least until the political system slid past the democracy line into the plutocracy area of the continuum.

[daenku32]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

The article does have this graph:

Doesn't sound right.

This is what Krugman used from OECD source. Now it's public social expenditure, so it's less than total government spending.


Then there is graphs from Yglesias from '10:
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/20...ing-revisited/


The Nordic countries are way on the top of that list.

Also this from OECD library:


So I would have to question the graph in the article.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I could have listed everything to compare, but I didn't think it was necessary to make my point.

Fair enough, education was just another point. But consider this article. Would you say there is really no difference, and the author is comparing two too vague categories?

I'd agree that at basis, the US and Europe have the same system (i.e capitalist democracy), but they still have different philosophies in their arrangements.