Has the welfare state ever being successful at what its trying to achieve?

Has the welfare state ever being successful at what its trying to achieve?

Yeah, it's been hugely successful at not getting people to die needlessly.

Yes if you live in any first-world country.

False.

The welfare state has been detrimental to everyone. It has done damage that will not be undone in our lifetimes.

If it's successful it will go down because of its own success.

It's very hard to measure "success" of a single thing when you have thousands of others parameters of the same importance to take into account.
I would say welfare state is efficient at reducing social inequalities since you can now notice how inequalities has exploded since the dismantlement of the welfare state.
I'm talking from a North-Atlantic perspective, not about the rest of the world

>social inequalities are bad

In terms of creating a large voting bloc trapped in intergenerational poverty that is loyal to the political party that promises to preserve the benefit programs they live off of, then the welfare state is a massive success.

before it got destroyed by neoliberals yes
I like how rightist cucks idolize the 50s while not realizing that that short period of middle class prosperity was bought by actually taxing rich people and strong organized labor
check pic related, if a presidential candidate would propose to return to the tax rate under reagan they'd be labelled a communist

also, all high HDI countries are welfare states, all low HDI shitholes aren't

>implying you're the ubermensch you perceive yourself as and not at the bottom of the social ladder

>just privatize everything, small gubbermand, the market will fix it lmao
when will you neolib cucks learn?

With the exception of the US, Turkey and Mexico, every member country of the OECD is a welfare state.

But the market really will fix it.

The difference is that our definition of "fixing it" doesn't correspond with the left's vision of a good society, and generally involves some small portion of the population being exposed to extreme deprivation and even death, because society's resources are limited and the overall cost of preserving these people far outweighs any benefit that could come from doing so.

You're right, that sounds like a pretty shit society.

The tax receipts have actually been the same since the 50s. Liberals like to point out that back then the tax rates were at 90% but fail to realise that nobody actually paid that much

>he unironically advocates for social inequalities and express his disdain for plebs with a picture of Caracalla
>the most egalitarian roman emperor
>this guy imposed the Constitutio Antoniniana and gave Roman citizenship to all the free-men of the empire
>All foreign women were given the same rights as Roman women
>respected local customs from other parts of the Empire
>Raised the taxes on inheritance from 5% to 10%
>used 2000 years later by far-right extremists on a japanese cartoon forum as an advocate for neo-liberalism

>inb4 "muh inequalities are natural and biologically rooted"
>"muh humane nature"
You're not on /pol/, here your ignorance shows

>But the market will really fix it.
30 years of globalism later...
>WAAAAH! WAAAH! GOVERNMENT DEFEND MY JOBS! WAAAAAH

>"free market has never been tried, I swear"

>corporations lobbying for corrupt politicians so they can pass laws that favour said corporations
>capitalism

In keeping the socialists from taking power like Bismark wanted? Yes.

>killing people that dont have job and starve will fix society
this is your brain on Jewish philosophies

>implying capital accumulation by wealthy individuals and corporations does not immediately translate into strong political lobbying and monopolies

The memes are writing themselves.

>not real capitalism

You have no idea how bad it used to be. People would literally just abandon infants on the streets. It wasn't uncommon to go through a poor area and see an infant corpse in the gutter. If you want a good look at poor areas of the past, go to slums in India or Brazil. The quality of life of the poorest people in the Developed nations is significantly improved, adn the Welfare state is largely to thank for that.

>monopolies
Monopolies only exist because the state allows them to exist. In a free market a natural monopoly is extremely hard to exist because it would mean a single company managed to offer the best quality product at the best price to consumers.
>strong political lobbying
And that's exactly why the government needs to be limited

You can't actually think this. Not really. ...Right?

>consequences of capitalism is not real capitalism

>inequality isn't natural
So before this Roman women were seen as superior, and people are biologically (I.e. Naturally) racist so?

>memes have to be serious
Let me guess you're too busy researching your next one

>Singapore

>If you want a good look at poor areas of the past, go to slums in India or Brazil
They're poor because they had socialistic governments that thought could run the economy
>The quality of life of the poorest people in the Developed nations is significantly improved, adn the Welfare state is largely to thank for that.
That's incorrect, what the welfare state does is to keep them poor. Foreign companies that set up their factories there and employ the locals are a large part of what gets them out of poverty

>hide rebates in every stupid government programs
>literally gives cash at any occasion
It is a quietest welfare state around. Read Liberalism Disavowed

You're mixing things up
The state is the only institution able to break monopolies
Monopolies exist because corporations and wealthy individuals have access to political lobbying and corruption
It looks like you've taken classic economy theories a bit too seriously, you should try to read more about how theory articulates with reality and be critical of the postulates of these theories.
>/pol/ trying to damage control

It could actually break a monopoly but the state is also the one that created it
>Monopolies exist because corporations and wealthy individuals have access to political lobbying and corruption
Yes and a solution to that is to limit government.

As I said in a free market monopolies wouldn't exist because of competition. The rich corporations can't lobby anymore because the government doesn't intervene in the economy anymore.

The point of a welfare state from the perspective of the upper class is to kill support for radical groups like communists or fascists by making sure that nobody ever gets desperate enough that they'd throw their hat in with the radicals. The most dangerous thing for any government is to allow people to starve. The lower classes can endure all sorts of depravity and humiliation, but if you take away their food they will revolt, as Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas both learned during WW1. The pharaohs of ancient Egypt understood this and so they would store up huge amounts of surplus food during good times so that they'd have a supply of food to placate the lower classes during times of famine.

>States create monopolies
you sometimes have state-instituted monopolies to produce non-merchant and public goods & services the market has no incentive to produce (like public healthcare, infrastructures...)
and to secure key sectors of the national economy for sovereignty (nuclear arsenal production, police and law enforcement...)
But market-created monopolies are so common that states have dedicated institutions to control and break cartel and monopolies...
In a free market society you would have only monopolies because of capital accumulation and corporation collusion. That's what tell every experimental economy experiment and the reality of our world.
Do you realise life and societies are not ruled by classical economy?
People don't maximise their individual profits in every occasion, people don't act like "economic rationality" would.
when you engage in an exchange, you also engage in a social relation, in which cultural values, identities, politics and so much more parameters are interlaced to guide your choices.
You may want to read more and educate yourself on economic anthropology and behaviours in human exchanges before engaging in internets wars with people smarter than you.

This doesn’t change the fact that the effective marginal tax rate has declined dramatically and that this decline is one of the primary causes of the extreme level of income inequality in the US.

Income inequality translates into political inequality

>But market-created monopolies are so common that states have dedicated institutions to control and break cartel and monopolies...
I like how you give no examples of monopolies created solely by the market and no government intervention.
>In a free market society you would have only monopolies because of capital accumulation and corporation collusion. That's what tell every experimental economy experiment and the reality of our world.
Competition is what's going to prevent these corporations from creating monopolies. If some companies decide to exploit the working class and raise the prices of their products in a town, then some other company will come up with the bright idea of opening a store in that town that offers good working conditions and affordable prices. The other corporations will either get bankrupt or try to compete and since the government is small they can't lobby for corrupt politicians to pass laws and regulations that favour them. Bribing that company to stay out of town won't work either because it's not going to be one company that tries to compete but many, essentially they would have to bribe dozens of different companies to stay out and that simply isn't profitable.
>economic rationality
What? I never said anything like that. Value is subjective and people are going to make decisions on what they value more and that works fine with the free market.

>I like how you give no examples of monopolies created solely by the market and no government intervention

It's hard to give examples of monopolies that exist without government intervention specifically because the government always breaks them up. The problem doesn't really exist anymore because the government already fixed that issue with anti-monopoly legislation.

>I like how you give no examples of monopolies created solely by the market and no government intervention.
Monsanto? De Beers? Standard Oil and US Steel in the past?

>quality of life significantly improved
>welfare state is largely thank for that

Veeky Forums has to be the most historically inaccurate board on this god forsaken website

Rome reached its peak and maintained supremacy for hundreds of years as a welfare state.

>Not real capitalism.
We have come full circle.

>Monopolies only exist because the state allows them to exist

This is the dumbest fucking thing I've heard on this board in quite some time. Even Greenspan has admitted the market's ability to self regulate is total bullshit.

>Has the welfare state ever being successful at what its trying to achieve?

keeping the lower classes pacified?

Yes.