Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence. You have provided none.
Where's the reputable source that can back up your claims with more than just an outlandishly superficial and biased interpretation of a single figure?
> extremely revealing macro-economic statistic, as evidence of the rise of social democracy
No, it just isn't. If it was true, you wouldn't have any problem at all providing a reputable source agreeing with your claim. But you clearly do.
> Any think tank worth its salt is pro-free-market. Non-free-market think tanks are ideologically-motivated crank organizations, and usually on the payroll of the direct beneficiaries of social democracy - public sector unions.
>>Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence. You have provided none.
You have yet to explain what is extraordinary about my claim, besides your baseless claim that the intellectual authorities you defer to haven't concurred with the assertion.
The statistics speak for themselves, and don't need confirmation from the state apparatus' amen corner to be believed.
>>outlandishly superficial and biased interpretation of a single figure?
Again with your absurdly disingenuous characterization of the share of GDP spent on government social welfare programs.
One more time:
This is an all-encompassing figure that is constituted solely by different types of social democratic spending, and encapsulates every major type of social democratic spending.
Claiming that me using this extremely revealing macro-economic statistic, as evidence of the rise of social democracy, as:
"an outlandishly superficial and biased interpretation"
is a desperate attempt to gaslight the public to hide reality from it.
> This is an all-encompassing figure that is constituted solely by different types of social democratic spending, and encapsulates every major type of social democratic spending.
No, it's not. That's a superficial and biased interpretation. There's a minimum threshold to be met if one is to spend energy on a reply, hence the need for something more than just your hot take, especially since your credibility is already very low because of your union conspiracy ramblings.
One more time:
If that is such an obviously correct interpretation as you suggest, please provide reputable sources that agree with your claim, after that we can dive deeper into other possible causes to an increased social spending without that being "an embrace of social democracy".
>>No, it's not. That's a superficial and biased interpretation.
Your characterization is absolute nonsense, and I've already explained exactly why.
>>especially since your credibility is already very low because of your union conspiracy ramblings.
I've addressed this disingenuous criticism before:
Your pithy response to my argument that unionized news staff have an economic interest in promoting left wing political ideas - when I've elaborated at length as to why I believe this is the case - suggests you're approaching this issue very emotionally, and not in a good faith attempt to open-mindedly explore what I'm saying to see if it's true.
You realize that name-calling and sophistry is not debate, right? You can't just bully people into adopting your interpretation of the world.
Asserting that a claim is "a superficial and biased interpretation" or "conspiracy ramblings", is not evidence. It's just a baseless opinion, and in terms of substance, the equivalent of name-calling - an attempt to appeal to people's emotions to manipulate them into believing something, instead of convincing them by presenting a logical argument.
>>we can dive deeper into other possible causes to an increased social spending without that being "an embrace of social democracy".
We can dive deeper in your mental gymnastics, as you try to maintain "neoliberalism" has been ascendant, whilst the economy has become more social democratically structured? It's undeniable that the West has massively moved toward a more social democratic economic model.
That entire reply is totally devoid of any substance whatsoever. I assume you're not planning to provide any reputable source, just keep repeating your own authoritative assertion like your last sentence?
> It's undeniable that the West has massively moved toward a more social democratic economic model.
If it's undeniable, you shouldn't be the only one claiming this. Not even conservatives (in Europe at least) are saying this, even though it would be mana from heaven for them if it was true.
I've already provided the substance. Now I'm just explaining that your grandiose denunciations are without substance.
Once more:
Asserting that a claim is "a superficial and biased interpretation" or "conspiracy ramblings", is not evidence. It's just a baseless opinion, and in terms of substance, the equivalent of name-calling - an attempt to appeal to people's emotions to manipulate them into believing something, instead of convincing them by presenting a logical argument.
Please focus on providing those sources rather than trying to derail with tone policing.
To reiterate:
If it's undeniable, you shouldn't be the only one claiming this. Not even conservatives (in Europe at least) are saying this, even though it would be manna from heaven for them if it was true.
I am not policing your tone. I am policing the content of your comments, which are appeals to emotion that are without substance. They belie disingenuity.
What is the point of me digging up a source when you've completely dismissed clear macroeconomic evidence of a shift to a more social democratic economic structure?
How many examples would I need to dig up of academic authorities concurring on what the statistics clearly show, before you concede I am right?
Still no sources. Just talk and repeating your own interpretation as authoritative.
> which are appeals to emotion that are without substance
No, they are repeated appeals for source to an extraordinary claim which obviously would be more commonplace if it was true since large political camps would have a lot to gain from it. But the lack thereof says a lot, that's why I keep requesting a reputable source to back up your claim that goes deeper than a superficial glance at a social spending figure.
> How many examples would I need to dig up of academic authorities concurring on what the statistics clearly show, before you concede I am right?
You can start with providing a single one?
As much as I dislike linking to this article it's relevant to this because it shows how not even a right-wing pseudo-intellectual media-outfit that certainly can't be dismissed as having a "union-led left-wing bias" agrees with your claim:
"Starting in the 1970s, such things as foreign competition, mass immigration from developing countries, automation, and the growing financialization of economic power undermined this progress. In the United States, data from the Census Bureau show that the share of national income going to the middle 60 percent of households has fallen to a record low since the 1970s. Wealth gains in recent decades have gone overwhelmingly to the top one percent of households, and especially to the top 0.5 percent. Social mobility has declined in over two-thirds of European Union countries, including Sweden. Across the 36 wealthier countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the richest citizens have taken an ever-greater share of national GDP while the middle class has shrunk. Much of the global middle class is heavily in debt—mainly because of high housing costs—and “looks increasingly like a boat in rocky waters,” suggests the OECD."
When will you concede that you're are practicing dogmatism because of your ideological bias?
>>Just talk and repeating your own interpretation as authoritative.
I provided a source to the data.
People are free to draw their own interpretations from the macroeconomic data I presented, which shows, indisputably, a massive shift to a more social democratic economic model.
>>they are repeated appeals for source to an extraordinary claim
I provided a source for the data that verifies my claim.
You have not explained at all what is extraordinary about characterizing the creation of sweeping social welfare programs, and an associated massive rise in the share of GDP expropriated by the state for social welfare spending, as "a dramatic shift to a more social democratic economic model".
>>which obviously would be more commonplace if it was true since large political camps would have a lot to gain from it.
There is no "large political camp" that stands to gain from aggressively advocating a reduction in government power, including so-called right-wing parties, under whom the share of GDP expended on social welfare programs has rapidly increased, as major new expansions of the social welfare system has been implemented (e.g. Medicare D under Bush).
All embarking on any genuine campaign to reduce government spending would do is draw the ire of the very powerful public sector unions, whose agendas you aggressively champion in our discussion, and ensure a massive election defeat.
>>You can start with providing a single one?
What difference would it make if I dig up one source? Would it lead to you agreeing with me? If not, this is just an exercise in deflection from you.
If you tell me how many sources it will take, for you to agree with me, then I might take the time to dig them up.
>>In the United States, data from the Census Bureau show that the share of national income going to the middle 60 percent of households has fallen to a record low since the 1970s
This characterizes an outcome, not a govermment policy. The government policy of expending economic output on social welfare programs was expanded all through the last 60 years.
Your dogmatic and ideologically motivated insistence that social democracy will reduce income inequality is completely unsubstantiated, and therefore a rise in income inequality in no way contradicts the assertion that the economy transitioned to a more social democratic model.
No you haven't. Just a figure and your own interpretation of it.
> which shows, indisputably, a massive shift to a more social democratic economic model.
No, it doesn't. It's exactly this interpretation that need to be backed up, not the figure.
You are making a claim, an interpretation, that no one else makes. So the burden of evidence is on you. This is common sense. Stop delaying and start providing.
> There is no "large political camp" that stands to gain from aggressively advocating a reduction in government power
Of course they are large political camp that would love to blame the recent increases in inequality and more on an "embrace of social democracy". Stop lying to save face.
> What difference would it make if I dig up one source? Would it lead to you agreeing with me? If not, this is just an exercise in deflection from you.
Are you seriously asking why it makes difference to provide sources for unique claims that runs contrary to the established consensus?
> If you tell me how many sources it will take, for you to agree with me, then I might take the time to dig them up.
This has nothing to do with a certain quantity of sources. What an absurdly anti-intellectual thing to say.
> This characterizes an outcome, not a govermment policy.
Stop cherry-picking. That article is very clear that it doesn't agree with your assertion. It asked what happened to social democracy and very clearly implying that it has gotten off its original path in recent times. That doesn't square with your claim that social democracy has instead been embraced during that time.
I can provide even more non-academic and academic sources into the decline of social democracy if you'd like, there's loads of them. But somehow you can't even provide a single one supporting your exact opposite claim? This is what makes it extra-ordinary.
"Recent electoral results reveal a pronounced decline in the fortunes of Social Democratic parties. Much of the decline debate has revolved around their rightward policy shifts, which have turned Social Democrats away from their founding principle of equality in an age of increasing inequality. Thus, this article examines the interconnections of these major changes in the Western political economy. In doing so, it contributes to the identification of income inequality as a key mechanism moderating Social Democratic policy offerings and their support. It does so through aggregate-level election results and individual-level survey responses on a sample of 22 advanced democracies, over 336 elections, from 1965–2019. Results reveal that rightward economic movements of Social Democrats significantly reduce their vote share under higher levels of income inequality or when they are combined with rightward socio-cultural movements. The findings provide an important explanation for the pronounced electoral decline of Social Democratic parties."
Where's the reputable source that can back up your claims with more than just an outlandishly superficial and biased interpretation of a single figure?
> extremely revealing macro-economic statistic, as evidence of the rise of social democracy
No, it just isn't. If it was true, you wouldn't have any problem at all providing a reputable source agreeing with your claim. But you clearly do.
> Any think tank worth its salt is pro-free-market. Non-free-market think tanks are ideologically-motivated crank organizations, and usually on the payroll of the direct beneficiaries of social democracy - public sector unions.
That's not based in reality whatsoever.