If you look at the welfare programs in Europe, they clearly reduce poverty (in the short-term). In the US, they haven't worked as well, but this is unusual. I think there's a simple reason for this: the US doesn't spend very much money on welfare programs compared to Europe. I'm merely pointing out something that may trip you up when debating liberals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare%27s_effect_on_poverty
Most arguments against welfare programs focus on morality, tearing the social fabric, the dependency cycle and the opportunity cost (more growth). I think these are very good arguments, but the debate should also focus on:
a) the long-term unsustainability of welfare programs, due to borrowing to pay for extra privileges to welfare recipients and public sector unions.
b) entitlements eliminate the possibility of open borders, which greatly improve the living standards of immigrants - and natives.
Actually I completely agree with what Michael Moore said there around 1:30. Thats practically an Austrian conclusion, he is just wrong about the why. The conservative host concedes the money equals wealth fallacy, which is why I never liked that argument.
EmperorNero:Actually I completely agree with what Michael Moore said there around 1:30.
I thought it was clear I was talking about what he said directly before that.
"America is not broke. Not by a longshot. It is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands."
Does any of that sound Austrian to you? Because I see a stated fallacy, a subjective statement, and an fallacy implied.
I would argue that the reason we have less poverty is not due to government welfare but due to the general success of capitalism. Of course government welfare contributes to the reduction of poverty. But we can thank capitalism for the increases in the standard of living. More goods of a higher quality for a cheaper price, allowed for the same amount of money to purchase better goods, in spite of inflation. Even poor people in the uk have large screen tv's and fridge's and other material goods that alleviate poverty and increase the standard of living.
I would also point out the problems with welfare and immigration. Welfare creates an incentive for Immigrants to immigrate and this increase in demand causes increases in the cost for the welfare system and ultimately more government debt. In high density areas this can be a problem because it can increase demand on public sector services and this will decrease the quality and availability.
I personally think it's wrong to conclude that the welfare state in Europe creates equality. I think that because the fact that the Swedes are a homogeneous population is what creates equality there. The poor also have to pay more for it anyway because their tax system is more "regressive".
The reasons there is more inequality here than in Europe are due to the fact that there are more regulations and more corporate spending here and the fact that America is a very heterogeneous population. Income is correlated with IQ and the standard deviation in European countries is lower than it is in America . I realize that high IQ does not cause high income, but low IQ usually does not allow for high earned income.
All of this is why we have to look at ethics, rather than utility. Government can't change human nature, but the free market is ethical for sure.
John James: EmperorNero:Actually I completely agree with what Michael Moore said there around 1:30. I thought it was clear I was talking about what he said directly before that. "America is not broke. Not by a longshot. It is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands." Does any of that sound Austrian to you? Because I see a stated fallacy, a subjective statement, and an fallacy implied.
I meant the entire Michael Moore clip. He is correct that America is currently awash in cash, and that this is largely in the hands of the super wealthy. All that printed money goes somewhere. He's just wrong to confuse this with real wealth. But here's the thing, Bill Whittle isn't any better on this. He doesn't point out the difference between money and real wealth. Instead, his argument is that there isn't enough money wealth to pay for all the goodies socialists want. Since both men assume that money equals wealth, which of the two positions sounds more Austrian to you, that we are awash in cash or that there isn't enough money to go around?