Can the progressive viewpoint coexist with the teachings of Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman...

[Progressive Lawyer]

...regarding the so-called "Welfare State"?

[2naSalit]

1. No.

[MutantAndProud]

2. Oh a Hoover Institute fellow and his mentor?

It would take some time to do an analysis and find an acceptable midpoint but Sowell’s book on economics was published in 2007… right before those principles almost caused a second Great Depression, so…

Count me skeptical but ready to read and research

[Progressive Lawyer]

3. On the theory that a well intentioned system, such as welfare in the US, can havedevastating effects

...on that recipient's will or drive to succeed...is that a premises a progressive must necessarily reject?

[edhopper]

4. Yes

Mainly because it is right wing ideological bullshit.

[Progressive Lawyer]

7. So the veracity of a theory is entirely dependent upon which group(s) adopts that theory?

[MutantAndProud]

11. It has nothing to do with theory, but...

The underlying reality that the progressive movement’s support system is constantly undermined and surrounded by cliffs dug out by the machinery of the right wing and economists that you mentioned. If you add guardrails and enforce them, then the crashes won’t occur and the environment will have enough ramps and accommodations so that everyone has access to communities that will help them maintain access to goods and services while contributing

If you add in aggressors violently suppressing this constructive path, then you get the clashes you see today, and the blame game against welfare queens (who can’t necessarily progress because they’re shunned as nonbelievers or as deviants, effectively trapping them in ghettos (or the gilded ghettos of disconnected suburbs and coercive inaccessible expensive healthcare leading to real or de facto community conservatorships))

[Progressive Lawyer]

13. I do not disagree, but my understanding of Friedman's theory is that the current welfare system has

...the unintended consequence of suppressing a person's sprit or will to succeed,...because when that person takes the first steps to self-support, they place themselves in a worse financial position since their benefits are diminished. Should he fact that right wingers have latched on to Friedman's position invalidate the position itself?

[jmbar2]

16. That's not reducing their will to succeed

It's knocking them to the ground when they try to better themselves. Blame the system, not the person.

[Progressive Lawyer]

18. That's what Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman have done...knock the system...

...in this case, the US welfare system.

[MutantAndProud]

20. How they knock it is critical

Their focus is not on reform but deconstruction and replacement

[MutantAndProud]

17. That theory...

(Thank you for reminding me of the content critical to the discussion you want to have)

Is based on other economic aspects, such as the steep ‘shelves’ of tax burdens in our current tax system, and the cliffs places upon resource limits with socal security’s SSI (I am specifically looking at the American system here). SSDI is much more generous with longevity of healthcare access with the Ticket to Work program, and does not have resource limitations, and can be resumed much more easily if needed. But, it requires a prior work record ‘building it up’ *or* access to the work record of a parents’ of this has not occurred *and* being grandfathered in under a certain age.

Add to that the complexity of the Ticket to Work program with their many ‘non-endorsed’ links to outside programs which are themselves often very targeted and limited. And the knowledge required to learn *about* training programs to get on board with them (to say nothing about the longevity of those positions during economic upheaval).

So… when you talk about putting yourself in a worse position by *using* the benefits… I would say that’s not the case. I believe there needs to be a ramp program, much like middle or high school where you have specific courses which link into specific criteria granting access to labor pools that will not push you off a cliff or leave you totally without advice unless you have the well-being to figure it all out yourself and ‘pull yourself up by your bootstraps’

[Progressive Lawyer]

21. When I referenced "benefits", I meant things like food stamps, cash aid, Section 8 housing...

..in that as a person starts to succeed at self-support, that person starts to lose these benefits. One might then wonder of the system itself traps people into not succeeding and thereby protecting their continued receipt of these benefits.

[MutantAndProud]

23. In many cases these benefits are made scarce

The scarcity in the psychological model is critical to understanding reticence to join new social circles that may not be fully accepting of these individuals and ready to offer help rising above subsistence. The reality is that prison is more expensive to the system than that subsistence, but instead of, say, making more Section 8 available, there are more private for-profit prisons and catch-and-indenture programs.

So it’s not the welfare state that traps them. It’s other people, and the lack of tools to rehabilitate themselves without getting forced into obscene degrading conditions.

Welfare is not an island in and of itself.

[Progressive Lawyer]

24. Perhaps there are several systems trapping people...the welfare system being just one of many.

[MutantAndProud]

27. I don't know if you can isolate it, I would continue to say

The entire economic model has reached its permitted limitations and has begun to degrade or melt down. But, welfare cannot be done away with or you adopt cruel inhumanity.

There must be simultaneous reform of the other systems that are applying pressure and adding severe attrition to the designers, implementers, and recipients of welfare.

It does need reform, badly. Many systems are corroded and worn down. The members of our military (and in many cases law enforcement) are also forced to live in horrific conditions as well for example despite the way they are supposedly championed.

Certain aspects of modern capitalism will likely never be done away with or die do the usefulness of certain economic tools, but it’s ready for an overhaul, and their method has been a demonstrable failure with leaking duct tape and cracked joint welds.

[Progressive Lawyer]

29. Milton Friedman proposed a "negative income tax", or in other words a guaranteed minimum income..

..to slowly ween people of welfare. It's my understanding that cities like Stockton California and perhaps some others have adopted this idea...using baby steps at least.

[MutantAndProud]

31. That is one aspect

That I would recommend salvaging from the old prototype

[jmbar2]

28. Welfare systems have been under attack by the right since FDR

Sounds like in your argument, you are blaming the recipient. From my perspective, decades of attempts to destroy welfare systems have layered in these penalties to try to discourage people from going on the dole.

What the critics don't take into account is that there is, was, and will always be a certain percentage of the population that is unemployable due to age, illness, disability, personality, etc. Some of these people are unpleasant, so it would be galling to some to give them benefits.

Unreformed alcoholics, addicts, petty criminals, sexual offenders, and the large number of folks who just aren't very bright, or have terrible judgment. Many, if not most are unemployable. No one wants to employ them. No incentives or disincentives to try to force them to work will succeed.

I have never seen a workable proposal or theory from the right, or from the libertarian side that fully addresses what to do with these people. It has been a dilemma since the English poor laws.

[Progressive Lawyer]

30. Does the minimum guaranteed income not address the issue for those that are unable to work?

[MutantAndProud]

32. Aka UBI (universal basic income)

That is still technically part of a necessary wellfare system which cannot be done away with; you need both

[Progressive Lawyer]

34. Perhaps the issue is the definition of welfare...

...if the UBI is adopted in place of the current cash aid / food stamp model, then the anti-Friedman camp may be closer to the pro-Friedman camp then one might realize...in terms of a model that covers those who cannot work at least.

[MutantAndProud]

36. Welfare is an expansive concept

Covering workplace and public accommodations for the disabled, work training and other access programs and so on. Those cannot be replaced by plain dollars in UBI.

So, if the term welfare if poisoned too much for the right to not go full Friedman, and only UBI is too brutalist for progressives, we’re going to need a hybrid program and perhaps a hybrid noun. I think many would accept such a bridge, but it cannot discard all elements of either. So in that respect, for the ones who *cannot work* only, yes, my previous stipulations remain nevertheless. (Technically UBI and NIT are welfare by definition)

Social Security was FDR’s crowning achievement and did not make us communist or ‘national socialist’ or UK socialists.

So, branding is definitely very important.

Commonwealth is still a term not objectionable. Perhaps we could start brainstorming there? Not sure.

In any case. My personal model would be a hybrid UBI foundation, an NIT ladder, and a social security safety net.

[MutantAndProud]

37. GFC model

Governing foundational commonwealth to include all three aspects?

Work in progress, and about to hop in the shower.

Governing: drawn from good governance and, in electrical power supply software terms, a rate regulator model termed a governor. Ensures burdens do not drag the system into a crash or crush ‘undesirables’.

Foundational: you can’t fall beneath the social safety net or be deprived of accommodations for disabilities.

Commonwealth: literally common wealth, accessible to all, benefiting all levels of society, includes the term ‘wealth’.

Also, it must include a dynamic adjustable floor and funding tied to inflation with an income ceiling of some kind (similar to Bernie’s, the exact thresholds for a cap plus the cap’s accounting for corporate governance and asset management/distribution through llcs or other fractured pools and shared assets needs adjustment).

Housing guarantees like section 8 and/or a pool with a rent restriction tied to inflation and the GFC can’t be left out.

The model would be close to a stretched bendable lightning bolt with a net beneath it. Or if you want to get whimsical, a lightning bolt wielding kangaroo be-pouched mother. And if anyone suggests we have to cram it all into one single algebraic line… they’re wrong, people can handle a multidimensional math and charts for getting the point across.

[brooklynite]

44. The U stands for "Universal"...

Bill Gates gets a share as well.

[Progressive Lawyer]

45. Well the guaranteed income model that Stockton Ca implemented limits it to poor neighborhoods.

https://www.stocktondemonstration.org/

[brooklynite]

50. It which case its not "universal"...its a different version of welfare.

[Progressive Lawyer]

54. I never said guaranteed minimum income was "universal'"

[haele]

49. Who cares if Bill Gates gets a share, too?

He's either going to spend it or invest it. Just as everyone else does.
I will say, though, due to the spending of money multiplier principle, there should be a rule that UBI goes to basic family expenses, such as housing rent and household/personal taxed.purchases or medical care, so that the taxpayer return on each dollar spent almost doubles as it comes back around.

Investments are great for an individual, UBI can free them to start making investments, or start businesses, or go into a career more suited to them.

[brooklynite]

5. I don't understand what you mean by "coexist"...

Can there be different viewpoints on an issue? Of course.

[Progressive Lawyer]

8. Perhaps "accept" is the more appropriate word.

[brooklynite]

9. Of course progressives won't accept the position of RW economists, and VV

Still not really clear what the point of the question is.

[Progressive Lawyer]

10. Any position? My understanding is that Thomas Sowell is an ardent 1st Amendment supporter...

...I don't think there is any question that a progressive would hold the same view.

[MutantAndProud]

12. Those are not two positions you can equivocate

A full detailed analysis with reconcilable ‘nodes’ would have to be done, but the wholesale acceptance of their economic model blinded to other realities or ‘externalities’ is well known to cause clear cases of widespread chaos, exclusion, and suffering

[Progressive Lawyer]

15. I was questioning the acceptance of the teachings of Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman in regards...

...to the so-called Welfare State...not their entire economic model.

[MutantAndProud]

19. Understood, see post #17

.

[Mopar151]

14. Ever read his newspaper column?

James Earl Jones played his part in Mandingo. He wants the massa back, to restore his place in life.

I can t imagine how execrable the book is.

[Sympthsical]

39. That ship sailed quite some time ago

There are plenty of people who are all in on censorship as long as it's for the "right" reasons, and as long as they are the ones who get to control it.

Even the ACLU isn't what it used to be when it comes to free expression. I saw an interview with the former president of the organization who was basically like, "I dunno wtf happened."

[ismnotwasm]

6. Absolutely not

[The Magistrate]

22. People Believe To Some Purpose, Sir

The idea people are victimized by a 'welfare state' intending to aid them serves several.

If that is the case, then the proper policy is to adopt 'cruel but kind' policies of withholding aid, inflicting real present harm to avoid some theoretical future one, and all in the best interests of the sufferer, in the long run and for everybody. It's a comforting doctrine for apostles of property and lower taxes. Policies based on it produce a good many desperate people, who will either accept work for wages at bare subsistence level, or resort to crime. In the first instance, they serve to depress wages for all, and in the second, they serve to justify greater severity by law enforcement, with the two things together encouraging people to keep heads down and eyes front.

Where an idea is so useful in maintaining present iniquities, there is no need to consider it one derived from observed fact.


"They believed nothing they couldn't prove, and could prove everything they believed."

[MutantAndProud]

25. Well said.

You wrote it much more eloquently than I in my equivalent post.

[Progressive Lawyer]

26. Why would that be the only proper policy?

If one accepts that there is a problem with a system, it doesn't not necessarily mean that the only solution is to abandon the system.

[The Magistrate]

33. Support Of The Policy, Sir, Is The Reason For The Belief

People who subscribe to the views of the pair you cited do so because those views justify a policy they desire enacted. People do not come to those views because they observe a problem in how aid is rendered and seek to fix it, the problem they think needs fixing is that aid is rendered at all.

[Progressive Lawyer]

35. That still does not address whether a theory can be viable regardless of which group adopts it.

[Mopar151]

38. No, as progressives have generally heard of Herbert Hoover..

Though others are far more responsible for the Depression.,,,,, FDR hired Hoover, and he did a good job!

The "moneyed interests" despised Roosevelt, for "stealing THEIR money" thru taxes, Ang "giving it away" to those unwilling to work for starvation wages. Their apologists and lackeys have been pushing back for a solid 90 years.

IMHO,,I figure a decent safety net, maybe a guaranteed minimum income, is actually acheiveing a decent, cost effective quality of life for society at large. Cheap, mean, and stupid are expensive habits over time.

[Progressive Lawyer]

42. Milton Friedman proposes a guaranteed minimum income. Seems like you agree with him on that point.

[Mopar151]

46. I .was going on the installed versions configuration.

Which is notorious for crashing the machinery of the economic engine, i.e. working people. I suppose you've proven, once again, that a broken clock is, theoretically correct twice a day. Unless it's A stopwatch, or a day date.......

[Progressive Lawyer]

55. So you would endorse Friedman's position in regards to the guaranteed minimum income?

[The Magistrate]

40. In Reply To Your No. 35, Sir

I'm finding some glitch in 'reply tp this post' tonight, but the reply thread button does work.

A theory is a proposal for making sense of facts, such that it can predict other facts will be observed, or certain events will ensue. When the appropriate conditions are met, the theory may be taken as proved.

The idea that assistance from a 'welfare state' harms rather than helps its recipients is not based on observed facts, it is rooted in the predispositions of people proposing it. It cannot be tested, since it weighs a hypothetical harm in future, a necessarily unknown and unknowable thing, against an actual harm to a person unaided or inadequately aided which is concrete and observable. The believer can, and does, always heighten the degree of future hypothetical harm sufficiently to 'outweigh' whatever harm withholding aid actually does.

It is not a theory. It is an ideological position, sprung from a conviction that people are shiftless and must be driven to work by threat of privation. For the threat to be effective, there must be readily observable suffering by people without employment. This idea is not brought forth in an attempt to give meaning to any observed facts, but simply to give some pretense of intellectual scaffolding to a magnate's desire to see wages depressed and profits increased. It gains emotional traction in the believer's heart by his or her appreciation of the cruelty attending execution of policies based on this belief.

[Progressive Lawyer]

41. "The idea that assistance from a 'welfare state' harms rather than helps its recipients..."

That is not the idea that I posted about. I never advanced the idea that welfare harms more rather than helps. It is entirely possible that a system can harm and help at the same time.

[The Magistrate]

52. Such Crawfishing Does Not Become You, Sir

I am familiar with the views of the the two fellas you cited in kicking this off. You asked if their 'theories' were compatible with a progressive outlook. Strictly speaking, they have no theories, and the ideas they profess originate in a view of human depravity, derived from dogmas of original sin, which is wholly incompatible with any progressive outlook regarding social, cultural, or economic policy.

[Progressive Lawyer]

53. That is inaccurate. I specifically limited the their teachings on the "welfare state"....

...not their entire economic position. I further narrowed the inquire in post #3

[The Magistrate]

57. Enjoy Yourself, Sir

But you'll have to do it without me, I've other matters to tend to.


'There's an old joke about a farmer, a traveling salesman, and a pig with a wooden leg. I'll spare you, but the punch line is "a pig THAT smart, you can't eat him all at once".'









"

[Mopar151]

58. Well said, and on point!

"A conviction that people are shiftless, and must be driven to work". Poor people work their asses off! Most who call them lazy have never put in a hard week at a dirty job for short money.

[Hortensis]

43. "The" progressive viewpoint? :) "Progressive" is like "snowflake" --

it means whatever its current user means to him. then whatever it means to the recipient. Some LW anti-progressive groups call themselves progressive because that works for them far better than the truth.

I use the traditional old definition of progressivism in government (and organizations too) -- that liberal democratic government is meant to be used by the people to accomplish worthy goals that individuals and/or private organizations can't or won't do. Often the goals are just too big to accomplish other ways.

These days the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-regulation Republican Party is strongly opposed to progressivism in government, "believing" the proper role of government is much more limited and that those actions should be left to private efforts. It didn't used to be that way.

In the modern world, conservatives CAN be progressive but many are not. But to be liberal is effectively to be progressive. They don't mean the same thing, but a Venn diagram would show almost complete overlap.

The huge, extremely diverse, egalitarian Democratic Party is America's liberal, progressive party. 81 MILLION voters stood up for it in 2020.

[Mopar151]

47. And we love us some FDR! nt

[Hortensis]

48. Yes, and love us some founders. :)

As President Lincoln described it, government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And we like it serving us.

[Xolodno]

51. The only reason Milton Friedman's theory took off...

...was a newspaper article he published and got picked up by right wing sources. And his theory wasn't even really a theory, he had virtually no data to back up his assumptions. Granted economists make a lot of assumptions, but its to simplify a complex problem so they can apply statistical and mathematical techniques to it. And despite that, they are willing to admit sometimes assumptions, even with the math can lead to the wrong conclusion.

And we don't even have that for Friedman. Top that off, we never actually fully embraced the theories of Keynes, we kind of half assed it. Then abandoned it (except when we get a massive recession) in the 1980's. But corporations, wealthy, etc. fully embraced Friedman's views and thus were in the mess we have today.

[malaise]

56. No

That is all

[edhopper]

59. You only have to lookat countries

That have a vibrant safety net compared to those that don't to see what utter, vacuous, hollow, mean spirited bullshit this is.

It is as credible as Trickle down economics.