by Summary:
Why are socialist programs do unpopular today? In Europe we are fairly well integrated, so we are less inclined to believe that other people getting benefit, or welfare, don't deserve it. We see the social security system as something like a national insurance scheme, which we all pay into and hope we never have to draw on. It's just for in case things go wrong. This is why I believe there will never be a libertarian society, because even most conservatives want a back up system in case they fall onto hard times and can't afford to pay the insurance anymore. The aristocracy sell welfare all wrong - because they don't need it - and through their media they make it look like just a free handout to the 'undeserving poor' rather than a national insurance scheme which we all pay into
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Why are socialist programs do unpopular today? In Europe we are fairly well integrated, so we are less inclined to believe that other people getting benefit, or welfare, don't deserve it. We see the social security system as something like a national insurance scheme, which we all pay into and hope we never have to draw on. It's just for in case things go wrong. This is why I believe there will never be a libertarian society, because even most conservatives want a back up system in case they fall onto hard times and can't afford to pay the insurance anymore. The aristocracy sell welfare all wrong - because they don't need it - and through their media they make it look like just a free handout to the 'undeserving poor' rather than a national insurance scheme which we all pay into
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Matias Vernengo writes Esteban Pérez Caldentey on the Ideas of Raúl Prebisch
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Traum eines gemeinsamen Staates
Michael Hudson writes The Black & White of Elite Imperialism with Jill Stein
Lars Pålsson Syll writes DSGE models — a total waste of time
Why are socialist programs do unpopular today?
In Europe we are fairly well integrated, so we are less inclined to believe that other people getting benefit, or welfare, don't deserve it. We see the social security system as something like a national insurance scheme, which we all pay into and hope we never have to draw on. It's just for in case things go wrong. This is why I believe there will never be a libertarian society, because even most conservatives want a back up system in case they fall onto hard times and can't afford to pay the insurance anymore.
The aristocracy sell welfare all wrong - because they don't need it - and through their media they make it look like just a free handout to the 'undeserving poor' rather than a national insurance scheme which we all pay into to help us if something goes wrong. KV.
Is socialism bad? From the sweeping success of many existing social programs (dealing with a wide range of concerns including retirement, healthcare, food, housing, energy, education, childcare, farming, and others), the answer, apparently, is no for most Americans. But why are new social programs unpopular today?
A major, yet hidden, answer lies in social trust in America. New social programs such as Obamacare compete for tax revenue. Taxes are common-pool resources, and their use must be fair. If trust is low in a society, people will be inclined to suspect others’ motives and avoid being cheated by freeloaders. So, any social program paid with tax dollars won’t be popular. That’s how, for instance, a fictional story told by Ronald Reagan about a Chicago welfare queen could turn many Americans against the welfare system in the 1980s.
A major, yet hidden, answer lies in social trust in America. New social programs such as Obamacare compete for tax revenue. Taxes are common-pool resources, and their use must be fair. If trust is low in a society, people will be inclined to suspect others’ motives and avoid being cheated by freeloaders. So, any social program paid with tax dollars won’t be popular. That’s how, for instance, a fictional story told by Ronald Reagan about a Chicago welfare queen could turn many Americans against the welfare system in the 1980s.
Fighting corruption can promote social trust and reduce the influence of lobbying from special interests. A rising level of trust will help progressive taxation, which can harness economic inequality, which in turn can promote trust. So fighting corruption, controlling economic inequality, and raising social trust can feed one another, leading to a much healthier democracy, stronger economy, and happier society, as the Nordic countries have shown us.
As our democracy becomes more and more tangled in money, fighting soft corruption is hugely popular. For instance, 85% of Americans desire an overhaul of the current campaign finance system. Obviously, our nation is overdue for a new Teddy Roosevelt who can reaffirm his vow that “we hold it to be prime duty of the people to free our government from the control of money.” Sanders would have gathered much more support had he run his campaign on fighting political corruption rather than on the stigmatized and misunderstood socialist platform.
Economics