Welfare has never worked, why is it still being tried?

What else can we throw out of helicopters to make the world a better place?

I need source on that graph. Every social """""scientists"""""" thinks clicking linreg on excel is proper work.

It's almost always worked tho.

hmmm

Cultural Marxism.

SIPRI

You can tell it's good, because Sweden is the best, according to that graph made by Sweden.

>implying that the standard of living on countries that have taken on some socialist policies is due to socialism

There's no point in even trying. Let's take Sweden as an example from that list. Sweden is not socialist, in fact, Sweden is, and has been for decades a very liberal country. Low company taxes, few regulations which created a pretty free market which allowed for capital to flow freely, only after the fact that Sweden became very rich due to these policies have they adopted socialist policies and it has turned out awful. Feel free to take a look at any data really, Sweden is doing terribly economically due to all these stupid socialist policies that was implemented and it now turns out, they aren't economically feasible at all.

Again, I repeat, the reason Sweden is rich is not due to socialism, it is indeed capitalism who allowed Sweden to even try these ridiculous and self-destructing policies.

Marxists.

False.

>Total percentage of poverty reduced
>poverty reduced
>not at least "total poverty"
also
>"poverty"

K Y S
Y
S

Not that guy but it looks like it's based on data from this: www2.hawaii.edu/~noy/300texts/poverty-comparative.pdf

Why must you lie?

www2.hawaii.edu/~noy/300texts/poverty-comparative.pdf

I'm the one who posted it though.

I guess I got it confused with something else.

>Because letting people starve has worked so well in the past.
Remember that the poor are the majority.

Most of Rome's history was a welfare state and it worked pretty well for hundreds of years.

>without welfare people starve

[citation needed]

>welfare is good because it lets the elite do what it wants while keeping people in check

>Welfare created a stable system of governance that lasted hundreds of years
>it never worked

That is objectively wrong.

Because it works for politicians achieving their aims which is getting more votes than the competition. Politicians are rational agents in the market of votes, trying to maximize their income using their (actually other people's) resources. In other words democracy was a mistake.

>Welfare is a terrible investment. It robs people of their earned money and it enables poverty traps.

Did you read what I wrote? UBI gives people money that they can use to contribute to the economy as a consumer or even possible a vendor. And the money people earned is off the societal framework, upheld by (yep, you guessed it) the working class.

>welfare
>stable
>lasted hundreds of years

Yeah, if you had a country today that could run rampant and pillage nations all over the world while forcing them to pay you then yeah, probably it would work.

Is it feasible? No. Stable? No.

Sounds like a retarded marxist idea.

Read basic economy please.

>Marxist

It's based on the premise of Keynesian Economics. It's an investment that increases demand. You can't just call anyone who cares about the livelihood of the lower classes a commie.

>keynesia economics

Explains everything.

Except that wasn't what OP stated now is it? The OP clearly states that welfare has never worked. Which is false. It had.

Rome was effectively a welfare state from the 200's BC up until the 400's AD. That's roughly 600 years. I'd call that working.

Now fuck off and stop trying to move the posts.

Any more recent data other than 200 BC data?

Say, the last 200 years?

Yeah, got a problem? Consumers are the foundation of society.

>[citation needed]
Because if people don't have money to feed their children, and the government doesn't give them money to feed their children, then they can't buy food, and their children starve. Their only hope is non-profit, which is not a guarantee.
>it enables poverty traps
One of the main purposes of the UBI is that it doesn't enable poverty traps because everyone gets it.
>UBI from tax money?
Did you really think it just got printed out? I have to repeat the question, do you have autism? Have you read about the things you are talking about at all?
>Are you going to double the taxes to pay for UBI?
Well you're going to raise them a lot, duh. Highly progressive income taxes and wealth taxes have been proposed, among others.
>Who will pay taxes when everyone's on UBI?
So when a person gets the money that pays for their cost of living, they stop seeking more money? That's an interesting economic law that I've never heard of before. I have to wonder why people pay for medical school and law school and the costs of starting businesses, when, after all, they could be waiters and pay for their cost of living.

If your definition of not being in poverty excludes people that live in [sic] government handouts, then it's no wonder you don't think welfare works. According to you, you are by definition in poverty if you didn't earn the money sustaining you yourself (or I suppose by a trust fund or inheritance, unless you want to argue that the children of billionaires live in poverty). So you can't really argue against that if that's your definition of not being in poverty. It's true by analytic a priori logic. If not being in poverty necessarily means not living on government handouts, saying that "welfare doesn't work" then you're not saying anything thing about the world, you're just extrapolating the logical conclusions of your own definition.

Keynesian economics doesn't work, or perhaps it does work but at terrible costs as it is very inefficient.

>it's a keynes raid

abort mission

Dude, how is Keynesian economics ever going to recover?

>keynes cucks

It never will, been in shambles to decades. Sadly, the middle and lower class always pays the price.

Keep up these amazing arguments against Keynesian economics (as if schools of economics existed in a vacuum and the principles of one school are necessarily excluded from the others).

False. The other end of the spectrum (monetarism, Austrian Economics, etc.) inevitably slows the economy because of extreme differentiation in wealth and decrease of transactions. And there's no crony capitalism in Keynes' theories, what the hell?

>People who have contributed nothing to society

But that's false though, those people are the consumers of your products whose money pays for your capital and continued success.

>Just for being nice enough to grace is with their presence
They grace you with their money, and will continue to do so as long as they have it. That's the entire point of entitlements. The less they have to spend on necessities, the more they can spend on luxuries.

Yeah, you're right. Reagan was a total failure. The economy really so awful sucked when he was president, and the budget deficit he created was never balanced! It's been in a shambles for decades.

>Keynes theory

And look what happens when a shit theory is applied to reality.

And I'm glad for it. They should keep on working so that they can buy my products, not force the government to steal my money only to give it to them so that they can buy my products.

...

My 3-year old asked me to feed her, but I was like, what? Why do you feel like I owe you something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace me with your presence. I told her to get a job and that human beings are only means and not ends.

Except what happens when the purchasing power of the dollar continues to drop but wages don't increase?

>who cares about plebs lel
They make up the majority of the country and do the jobs that need doing, regardless of pay. Not everybody can be an ebin millionaire or business owner.

Sounds like you shouldn't have kids.

Perhaps there shouldn't be a privately owned central bank that fucks with the dollar :thinking:

Why not? I just wanted to have sex? Why is my daughter entitled for me to abort her instead starving her to death? Simply for gracing me with her presence?

You're responsible for your child until she becomes 18. I am not responsible for everyone living in my country.

Welfare does not work at doing what

Perhaps money should grow on trees. Alas that doesn't answer the question.

That's a good point, you aren't responsible for everyone living in your country. After all, you couldn't possibly pay for all of them, I don't think you have that kind of money! The good thing is that the government doesn't just tax you, it taxes several other people.

But I still have a whole bunch of other questions. Why am I responsible for them? Merely because they exist? They haven't contributed anything to me. Where did this concept of entitlement come from?

That's your family though. It's easier to argue for socialism when you have a sense of kinship with the people around you. In the new multicultural societies no one trusts or cares for each other, it's dog eat dog (this is why the US is traditionally capitalist, different groups came here not to help others but to get rich off others).

"Welfare" now is basically the native white population being forced to give a percentage of wealth to other groups who wouldn't even think about doing the same for them. No wonder it pisses people off, they just take the middle-class's money and continue sitting in their free housing doing nothing to contribute to society. You simply can't have willful socialism without a sense of kinship and cultural identity, nationalist-socialism if you will.

My fucking daughter cam into this world just to take my money, I have no sense of kinship with her. She doesn't do shit for me.

I mean, I agree that people only exist as means and not as ends except for when I have an arbitrary sense of kinship with them. And you're right that white people never use welfare. But my daughter is a total cunt, she doesn't contribute ANYTHING to me. Why should I care about her?

Sure, cherrypick one embarrassing quote from one economist that hardly represents the school of thought's fundamental concepts.

>Hates his own daughter
>Thinks sense of kinship is arbitrary

Proving a point I haven't even made yet, the breakdown of traditional family structure leads to the breakdown of the people/nation.

I'm sorry you're a total psychopath and can't feel love for your own blood, but if you can't understand why you should have love for her you'll never understand why you should work for the betterment of your society. You see, the modern system does this. You can't see any logical reason to care for your children, in the past the logical reason was that they would care for you when you get old and can no longer work to feed yourself or defend yourself. The same concept applies to your nation and people, it's your neighbor who would be standing next to you if an enemy ever tried to invade your lands and destroy what you've built. We once lived in a society where people knew their neighbors, socialized with them, maybe even cared about their well being to an extent. Those times are over, we've imported a bunch of people that no matter what we do seem to hate us, and are even encouraged to. It's led to a highly distrusting society in which a sense of kinship is impossible. Maybe that's why your emotions are fucked and you're suspicious of the intentions of your own daughter...

>it's your neighbor who would be standing next to you if an enemy ever tried to invade your lands and destroy what you've built
Why on earth would I want to fight a war alongside my neighbour?
I mean, if he buys the farm, I gotta watch him do it, don't I? Wouldn't it be better to be with some nobody next to me?

Actively feeding birds is the same ecological impact as planting berry bushes in your backyard. Should we cease to garden? Both spread zoonosis, impact the wildlife patterns etc and neither hold a candle to the impact cats have.

The real reason it's discouraged is to keep morons from feeding white bread.

Alright buddy, I'm gonna pull away the curtain: I was being sarcastic. I'll even tell you the point I was making: that people have value outside of whether they make my life better. I used my daughter as an example to dramatize the example of the danger of the logic that people who don't make my life better aren't entitled to anything from me and the rest of society.

But I have to say, I don't really feel a sense of kinship with people I have never met simply because they are my skin color and come from the same country. How do I know if they have that sense of kinship with me? After all, I've never met them. And yet, I do feel some responsibility towards them, and that they should be helped out to survive when they fail to manage that themselves. Why? For a few reasons: one, welfare forms a minuscule amount of the government budget, and therefore makes up very little how much I spend. But, more importantly, I recognize that they're human beings, just like me, and therefore when I imagine them hungry, it makes me feel bad. But unlike you, I don't stop feeling that feeling for people I don't know as soon as those people happened to be born outside of the borders of my country and then came in. I really don't know most of them, so to tell you the truth, I can't tell if they're mostly bad or good people. I know a few immigrants, whom I like, about as many as I dislike. I don't feel like they hate me know matter what. A couple of them are friends with me, in fact. I'd say my experiences with them are about as good as with white people.
But I'm sorry you've had such bad experiences with immigrants. It must be bad.

It is bad. You must live somewhere sheltered where there aren't very many immigrants. If you live in a heavily intermixed city, you'll start to hate everyone around you and not even realize why, but if you pay attention to the obvious you'll see it. Your Mexican neighbor blasts his mariachi music at midnight, your other Mexican neighbor invites all his druggie friends over and blasts bass music all night until literally 2pm the next day every weekend, your other Mexican neighbor's kids ganged up on your 6 year old cousin when he came over, beat him up and took his scooter. You're going to notice eventually that it's usually them causing the problems while all the white people stay inside and don't cause a ruckus. Then you'll ask why the fuck there has to be so many of them, what are they contributing? Why am I paying money for their housing and for them to have kids? They literally get a stipend just to fucking breed. Is it really worth making pockets of our cities literal hell just to raise the GDP and make the rich can get richer? (this is the purpose of mass third world immigration, too long to go into detail)

I can't even imagine how bad blacks are. I know I'm generalizing but generalizations are formed based on rationality. I don't even consider myself a racist (pls no name calling, I'm being very candid here). I'm a first responder and would save anyone of any culture's life no matter what the cost, but for fucks fucking sake, I can't stand living around these people. If they were more like me, if people were less afraid to come outside and we socialized more, if we had our own community and cultural events, maybe I wouldn't have such a negative outlook on society.

That agape love you're talking about, you need to have good experiences in life to develop it. We're not bringing about the conditions that will lead to positive life experiences. We're importing third world people and thus third world problems, such as low standards and savagery.

What are you insane?
>(moments before this post was made.jpg)
Welfare always works.
Here is what a country without welfare looks like. Now compare that to any welfare state.

user they receive aid...

Welfare is what developed countries do.
Non welfare is what undeveloped countries do.

Get with the program.

Sweden is a social democracy which is like socialism lite or v0.5

>that image

We eat cows, so we should also eat humans.

user aid programs are welfare...

>Welfare:
>statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in "need"

>Canada spends less than we do
>by all accounts delivers better welfare

The US health care and welfare systems need to be nuked and rebuilt from scratch.

Aid is what's given when the state doesn't provide for the welfare of it's people.

>Welfare has never worked
proof?

Welfare state is good, but ONLY if white people are eligible for the welfare. Offer it to blacks and muslims and the social system will go tits up.

Aids related.

youtu.be/Sam7O1JbmBM

Too much states and your shitter states deliberately put people on either it or disability.

then educate their children to prevent them from being savages, besides what the fuck did you expect about globalization
shit is going to get worse and trump won't do shit
>m-m-muh wall
nigga gangs and cartel operate outside, as long people wants drugs, they will enter no matter what
my advise as a thirdworld habitant is just get used to it and live your life, you never know if you are going to get shot tomorrow

>Constant civil wars and a steady decline culminating in the complete collapse of the Imperium = worked pretty well

>A state has lasted forever.

>A state can't last forever because i said so.

That also includes a lot of non welfare states.

Basic social safety nets aren't charity, they are so the mob doesn't get riled up by some agitator. They are a necessary element of social cohesion and order that comes at a relatively small price.

>but they could just be smart hurrr

Don't base your politics on wishing for the impossible.

how does japan BTFO everyone?

The cultic suicide factory?
youtu.be/QH-kNnq7mFM

They don't, they behead the ruling elite.

>Get with the program

>welfare
>communism
>Otto von Bismarck was a communist

Welfare is one of those things that keep people insulated from communist agitation.

Lets be honest here, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" implies the existence of welfare.

But the existence of welfare does not necessarily lead to the communist slogan.

Not unless you are literally unable to make any contribution at all it doesn't. Even a retard can dig holes for example.

Not even remotely close.

t. communist

Take this crappy thread to /pol/ it has nothing to do with history or humanities.

...