BREAKING: Social Welfare Programs Actually Don’t Destroy Economy

BREAKING: Social Welfare Programs Actually Don’t Destroy Economy


i’m joined once again by Richard both he
is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts also a
visiting professor at The New School University in New York City professor or professor of last time
you were on we talked about whether terms like capitalist and socialist were relevant
when applied broadly to American economic policy and 22 kinda
shorten that interview into one sentence we determined they weren’t particularly
relevant in having meaningful discussions about modern economics in the US we recently talked
about an article which outlined that Sweden in spite above the may be superficial assumption
that is socialistic communistic in terms of the amount of social programs that
are provided Business Regulation et cetera has still
managed to have more billionaires per capita than the US now I made clear when I talked about
that that in my mind billionaires per capita are not the
barometer by which an economy should be judged but putting that aside very often we hear from the American
right that a condom use like Sweden simply do
not allow for such accumulation of wealth particularly with social programs like
health care for all let’s start there is there anything
specific about social programs that prevents bass to wealth from accumulating
basically not all because the question is really what the connection might be between providing a social safety net or
social welfare on the one hand and individual well it is possible that our society could decide that the way to pay for social welfare and so on is to tax people who are very
wealthy I i make that the source of the money needed to provide a safety net in that
situation and by the way no major society has done
that but it is possible to do it in that way in you who’s on the money from the wealthy at the personal came closest to that in
modern history may surprise you %uh was franklin delano
roosevelt in 1943 in ninety 44 when he proposed in his State of the
Union message and sent to congress an income tax rate the highest the highest level for the richest
Americans a 100 percent what that meant was in those years every
dollar over twenty five thousand dollars which be roughly three hundred and
seventy-five thousand dollars today but anyone learn over twenty five
thousand dollars president roosevelt said should be tight but 100 percent in other
words they could learn more than 25,000 no
matter what technical salary or up payments might
appear and that was a very serious proposition
about president other Republicans went predictably
ballistic when it was delivered to the congress when all the hoopla I’m posturing was
over the Republicans and Democrats agreed to
wait top income tax bracket in the United States
in those years %uh ninety-four percent right so that would be a way of taxing the rich
to provide among other things social welfare but most societies
happened on that they have provided social welfare by taxing all the different parts of
society and that has enabled up people to become
millionaires and billionaires in Sweden for that
matter today in China in France in Germany and saw there’s kind of another layer to
this discussion about social programs in the effect on the economy which is we can look at kind of them the more
micro level which is individually food stamp dollars are
highly stimulative relative to a tax cut for the rich
that’s one area that we’ve talked about a lot but I’m curious whether you think
there’s another level which is if you have a strong social programs
like in Sweden for example there are very strong social programs if you’re simply
poor not only do you have access to health care but you actually have a sort of subsidy
your stipend the idea is that nobody be too too low on the socio-economic ladder so to speak
does that at the macro-level actually help the large or medium businesses because
the entire population has slightly more means with which to
partake in their products or services that it
can we look at that approach yes I think you should even take it
further been Hughes me if a firm Irish people who
have a national health service that firm does not have to do the amends
record-keeping our premium paying a personnel hiring to manage the medical benefits as we call them here up for these
individuals but the government basically does back and if they use a single air typeof
system this savings are astronomical are we
stand in this society I roughly 18 percent of our GDP on
medical care no other society comes anywhere near
that every other advanced industrial society pays am or less aback and gets better medical
outcomes that we have here in the United States so it is a perfect
example %uh how providing quality I chair to the people at the mass of the
people is directly beneficial businesses even separate from the fact
that they might have more money to spend on the products of those goods in order to believe in the american
system which tends to I cast aspersions on government
intervention you have to believe something remarkable
which is that every other advanced industrial country every
European country our neighbors to the north canada
Australia New Zealand I and many many countries in in Asia
Africa and Latin America have all opted or a social safety net
unlike United States not either all of them our
mistake in all of them are misguided and all of them have had some strange
results or else we’re good strange ones we’re the
outlying observation and I think the odds are the logic is
more towards the latter than before oftentimes when I have individual conversations like this with
some of the right-wingers on this program we’ll start with for example okay let’s
look at how well the stock market has done under President Obama often something they present as an
indicator of how well the economy is doing however when I mention that all the sudden that’s not the right
barometer when we look at millionaires and billionaires all of a sudden that becomes not the
right barometer when talking about Sweden when we talk about the middle class all
the sudden all of the countries you mentioned are
not the right barometer this seems to me kind of like an obvious
ad hoc moving the goalposts so to speak that debt that quite frankly
doesn’t really make any sense where do you think that this this moving
the goalposts comes from i thinkI moving up the goal almost or switching
the barometer is a kind of bomb defensiveness up dollars lawn two-point to an american
capitalism I’ll with the kind of pride and
confidence they once had but is now fast eluding
better I mean we have to face a reality which
they’re confronted with this capitalism crashed in December of
2007 I and it hasn’t recovered in any way
except for the super-rich in the last six years the vast majority
of americans are confronted every day with the rising decks they have to incur
to get their kids through college with the prospect of poor jobs in were
incomes for most of the people that graduate
these days for insecure jobs for jobs with fewer it any benefits for
a government that is towing with cutting back on the social security
at the same time that the private sector job situation is gramm up to defend capitalism has
become much much harder and so I think you’re seeing the
kind of shocking job I the dodging they’re trying to hold on just some metric that can be pointed to to continue to defend a system that is
becoming more and more difficult to defend DOMA think those are
the kinds up topics on one point about
billionaire’s just to make it more amusing but it’s
all true the biggest surgeon billionaires is not
Sweden or even your a the biggest surgeon billionaires is the
People’s Republic up tryna or billionaires have been
created there in the last three years then anywhere in the world
with the possible exception of the United States and even if the United States is ahead
the Chinese in on now neck-and-neck I’m not sure what you would conclude from this but
since that as a society one by the Communist Party about as a society that uses marks in
mind at all at as justifications and inspirations I it would seem that your social will
also be economically speaking a neat have all
necessary relationship to the billionaires you do or do not
generate RI Professor Richard wall visiting
professor at The New School University in New York City pleasure is always to speak with you
thank you David I appreciate your interest

4 thoughts on “BREAKING: Social Welfare Programs Actually Don’t Destroy Economy

  1. The wealth of the rich MUST be taken back or we are going to be tduly fucked – thjs isnt a game anymore your, your kids future and life are at risk. Their tears vs monumental death and colkapse – there is NO competition…. BTW beyond 75,000 a year even co sevatives cannot fibd evidence it makes you happy….

  2. Very good interview. And the professor is right about spreading the taxation out. A modest one or two percent tax on Wall Street Trading would rake in trillions.

  3. Strange that neither of these two mentioned the elephant in the room which is – CORPORATISM [LOBBYING = POLITICAL HACKING = WALL STREET BAILOUTS] the reason why the exclusivity of the 1% remains and the precise explanation for why true CAPITALISM does not exist in America. Also… SUBSIDY or GUARANTEED DEBT PAYMENT is the reason why cost of college tuition and healthcare for example are skyrocketing. This is just more propaganda to support NATIONAL SOCIALISM.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *