Capitalism Forever?

Justin Schwartz jkschw at hotmail.com
Mon Feb 25 11:28:46 PST 2002



>>I don't think so. There is considerable evidence that relatively
>>generous social provisions in the Fordist era were due to three
>>things: (a) competition with the Soviet bloc, (b) the threat of
>>social unrest at home, and (c) the long boom from 1945 through 1973.
>
>Doesn't the fact that left-of-center parties got more votes play a
>role? This isn't elite politicians like Bismarck or even Disraeli
>deciding how much to grant. This is mass politicians trying to
>assemble winning electoral coalitions...

Well, depends on where you are talking about whether left of center parties get more votes. Not here, not Britain. And I didn't suggest that the welafre state was a matter of capitalsit noblesse oblige, on the contrary.


>
>And there is a certain... bizarreness... in the belief that social
>provisions became less "generous" after 1973... The average OECD
>government collected 30% of GDP in taxes in 1965 and spent about 7%
>of that on the military, leaving government civilian spending at 23%
>of GDP. The average OECD government collects about 43% of GDP in
>taxes today, and spends about 3% of that on the military.


>There have been important changes in surveillance by the state, in
>the generational distribution of benefit programs, in economic
>regulation, and other areas. But the fact that the typical OECD
>government spent 23% of GDP on domestic programs in 1965 and 40%
>today should not be forgotten.
>
>\

There is a certain bizarreness in these figures. It shows the old joke about figures lying and liars figuring. First of all, the issue is not DOMESTIC spending, but SOCIAL WELFARE spending. Thus handouts to tobacco companies is domestic spending, but not welfare spending. Second, I want to knwo about per capita spending, and about the availability and security of the expenses. I do not believe that thirty years of Nixon-Reagan-Bush-Clinton here, 20 of Thatcherism in Britain, however many of the CDU in Germany, etc. had the net efferct of expanding the welfare state by 16%. I don't believe it. If I did, I might start voting Republican. You too, Brad!

jks

jks


>Brad DeLong
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list