[emodendroket]

https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/economy/us-middle-clas...

> Almost half of US families can't afford basics like rent and food

> Nearly 51 million households don't earn enough to afford a monthly budget that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell phone, according to a study released Thursday by the United Way ALICE Project. That's 43% of households in the United States.

[throwaway37585]

How is this relevant to my question?

This is a classic case of "I'm going to cite bad statistics and blame X without explaining its causal relevance or why not-X would be better."

[emodendroket]

For instance, in a social democracy you could have supports in place such that people unable to afford housing, food, or healthcare could be provided with those things, whereas in our system the amount of assistance available is quite small and often gated by onerous or humiliating procedures, meaning a high level of precarity for the 43% of households which can't really afford those things (let alone deal with a large, unexpected expense).

[throwaway37585]

One of the most important lessons of economics is that “good intent” does not always mean “good results”. Do you have any reason to believe that higher taxes and spending will lead to better outcomes, or higher net societal welfare?

Consider how U.S. education spending per student has ballooned over the last few decades, while outcomes have stayed flat (and in some cases deteriorated).

[knuththetruth]

>Do you have any reason to believe that higher taxes and spending will lead to better outcomes, or higher net societal welfare?

Not the parent, but how about all of Western Europe?

As much as economics wants to tout itself as a science, when confronted with real world examples of what works, tested in real countries over the past 75 years, it just retreats into some dressed-up version of American Exceptionalism to explain the failing of its own prescriptions.

[throwaway37585]

> Not the parent, but how about all of Western Europe?

You're going to have to be more specific. What about "all of Western Europe"?

> As much as economics wants to tout itself as a science

Is this going to be a game of definitions? What qualifies as a "science", in your view? Do you consider sociology to be a science? Psychology? Ecology? Geology? Anthropology? Archaeology? History? Linguistics?

> tested in real countries over the past 75 years

Which 75-year-old policies are you referring to, exactly?

> it just retreats into some dressed-up version of American Exceptionalism

What you could possibly mean by economics being a "dressed-up version of American Exceptionalism" is honestly a complete mystery to me.

> to explain the failing of its own prescriptions.

Which prescriptions are you referring to?

[knuththetruth]

You said:

“Do you have any reason to believe that higher taxes and spending will lead to better outcomes, or higher net societal welfare?”

...And the historical example of Western European social democracies like France, Germany, and the Scandinavian states prove this.

>Which 75-year-old policies are you referring to, exactly?

Nationalized healthcare, massive investments in public transportation and education, higher welfare floors and labor protections.