[gfiorav]

This is one of my pet peeves. If you believe in the welfare state concept, you should never refer to anything that’s subsidized as “free.” It’s a recipe for disaster. As a European who was uprooted and settled in the US, I’ve become painfully aware of how little we Europeans comprehend the workings of the economy. I believe this is partly due to the propaganda surrounding the welfare state as “free.”

Of course, nothing is truly “free.” It comes at a significant cost that must be carefully understood and balanced for the future. It hinders market dynamism and credit flow, which can easily stifle innovation over time. Calling it “free” is a mere emotional appeal, not a rational justification for its long-term sustainability. It’s no wonder that business in Europe, despite being more regulated and restrained than any other part of the world, is so vilified by the youth. We must stop conflating prosperity with corporate misgivings if we are to progress at all.

[jack_h]

As I’ve grown older I’ve come to realize that there are no solutions, merely tradeoffs. Saying something is “free” is selling a solution which rhetorically works well with a voting populace that has little, if any, knowledge of economics. Describing the n-th order economic consequences and how you are trading one set of issues for a different set of issues — which may be acceptable on balance but is not without consequence — is a very difficult thing to communicate. In reality the attack ads basically write themselves. Or to put it more bluntly utopia sells a lot better than reality.

The second aspect to this is that specifically when it comes to economics the timescales needed to understand the impact of a policy are generally longer than the collective memory of the people. Politicians inevitably sell and enact good intentions, but by the time the reality of the consequences from those intentions becomes manifest it will be years or decades later and the causal relationship is masked and the politician will generally be long gone. At that point it just looks like a new problem that similarly needs a “solution”.

[gfiorav]

Agreed. Many in this thread appear confident that “everyone” comprehends that anything labeled “free” actually implies “subsidized.” However, I still believe they are mistaken.

People fail to realize that increased social programs inevitably result in reduced income for everyone. If they understood this, you would observe the polls on this issue, which already reflect the fact that most individuals are willing to assist those in need but do not support most social programs.

[rtuulik]

Its free at the endpoint for user. That's what the "free" means here. No one is pretending that resources for things like roads, police, firefighting, primary schooling and others come out of nothingness and don´t have any cost.

[crazygringo]

Exactly. What else are you going to call it, but free? That's literally the word for it.

Everybody understands that anything which is free is ultimately paid for by someone. And everybody understands that things provided for by the government come from taxes.

We don't need new words for basic concepts everyone already understands.

[gfiorav]

I hope you were right, but I strongly suspect you are mistaken.

Most people fail to understand:

- Social welfare programs come at the expense of reducing everyone’s income.

- The extent of the social welfare overspending is significant; we have long surpassed the point of helping those in dire need and are now funding numerous programs that, if fully understood in its long-term cost, would likely not be supported.

- The top 5% of income earners contribute 90% of the welfare programs and are not “the greedy rich.”

- The actual greedy rich do not have income and fund political campaigns, which is why politicians often conflate high-earners with the rich (to obscure the influence of interest groups)

What would be a more accurate term than “free”? Subsidized. It may not be as catchy, but it provides a more precise description.

[crazygringo]

What's your source for saying that most people fail to understand that social welfare programs come from taxes? The concept of where government money comes from is such an obvious fact, I don't understand how you can claim most people don't understand it. People go to work for a paycheck, they pay taxes, and they understand money doesn't grow on trees. This is adulting 101.

And no, "subsidized" means a portion of something is covered by someone else, but not necessarily all of it. E.g. a subsidized cafeteria at work may mean all the food is 50% of cost. Subsidized can mean fully subsidized, but that's a special case.

So subsidized is not more precise, it's actually much less precise. "Free" continues to be the accurate and correct term.

You're taking a right-wing political stance against current levels of social spending, which is your prerogative, but there's no need to change perfectly fine language to do so. Even if we called it the mouthful of "fully subsidized childchare", that's not going to make it any less popular.

[gfiorav]

What could possibly be my source for such a claim? Who is funding studies on this topic?

My source is my upbringing in Europe and my subsequent long-term residence in two other countries, which provided me with a unique perspective on people’s feelings and beliefs.

My source is my diverse life experiences, during which I actively engaged with people from all walks of life as much as I could. I am not making any claims about science or indulging in conspiracies. For such claims, I would require concrete evidence.

What I am saying is that a majority of the Europeans, particularly the youth, has become disconnected from the fundamental principle that to distribute wealth, you must generate it first.

I hope that helps.

[crazygringo]

You're seriously saying that the majority of Europeans don't understand that social services come from the taxes they pay?

That honestly sounds as plausible to me as saying the majority of Europeans thinkg 2+2=5.

Forgive me if I have a hard time believing you. Because I can definitely tell you Americans understand where their government spending comes from, and I have a hard time believing that Europeans are somehow less educated on this.

[venturecruelty]

Fussing with language to make rightwing political points (i.e. lying) is the bread and butter of rightwing ideology. You don't say "I don't think governments should spend any money on social services or helping their citizens", because that makes you sound like a terrible person. So you look down your nose and say "Well, it's not really FREE, akshually! I am very smart." And then you prance around tooting your dog whistle.

[gfiorav]

Ah, yes, thank you. I was trying to hide my right-wing tendencies. That’s what right-wing people do... they’re very shy!

[rectang]

I agree with the concept of not labeling things which are subsidized as "free", while still considering the price worth it. Similarly, I think the framing of negative rights vs entitlements makes sense, while still believing that certain entitlements are worthwhile.

Unfortunately, I have found that such framings are mostly associated with a set of beliefs which I feel profoundly at odds with (e.g. unlimited wealth inequality is fine). So I find myself aligned with the "health care is a human right" crowd despite my discomfort with the ideological underpinnings.

[gfiorav]

Right. I believe every socialist should feel offended by the term “free healthcare.”

Building an economy capable of sustaining such a system requires immense effort and collective support. Describing it as “free” is a marketing tactic that assumes people are stupid.

[crazygringo]

> Describing it as “free” is a marketing tactic that assumes people are stupid.

No... it's a statemet of fact that means when I leave the doctor's, I don't have to pull out my checkbook or credit card or wait for a bill to arrive.

[fragmede]

But the doctor isn't working for free, the nurse isn't working for free, the receptionist isn't working for free, the machines in the office weren't free, the rent on the office isn't free. Yes, theres no bill that arrives that you pay for directly out of pocket, but the system very much isn’t actually free.

[crazygringo]

Who on earth thinks the doctor is working for free, or the nurse, or anyone else...?

This is the most strawman of strawmen I might ever have heard.

By your logic, the word "free" should be banished from the English language, because literally nothing could ever be free.

Except, for people who have common sense, "free" means you don't have to pay for the thing directly.

In this case, your taxes get aggregated with everyone else's and then some gets split up into health services. But since there's no direct connection between the two -- you don't get more healthcare if you pay more taxes individually, and you don't get to pay less taxes if you don't go to the doctor -- it's conceptualized as paying taxes on one end, and getting free health care on the other. This is just common sense. Everyone understands how this works. It's the same way we have free schools. Or you think schools aren't actually free either...?

[fragmede]

They're not? If you're the type of person to pay taxes, that money gets used to pay the teachers. The pizza restaurant that offers free delivery - that's also not free. They use the money from the customer buying pizza to pay the delivery driver. If you're in a country that allows businesses to get away with that, that might explain your confusion, but not all countries, eg Germany, allow businesses to get away with false advertising like that.

[gfiorav]

This is where you’re being naive. I meant this in other parts of the thread: Americans are more connected to the outcome of taxes because the government doesn’t control every aspect of life.

For Europeans, while they understand the concept of taxes, the government’s vastness and involvement in everything make it a black box that they fund without having a say. They can just hope it’s being used effectively (although many believe it isn’t).

Most European elections revolve around sentimental signaling and rarely present concrete plans that explain practical solutions to problems.

Americans assume the rest of the world is on the same page, but that’s not the case IMO

[Aurornis]

The narratives on this topic are hard to pierce through. Economic literacy is low among the public. Politicians take advantage of this to pretend that solving everything is as simple as taxing the people you don’t like (billionaires, corporations, or even completely incorrect narratives about how we’ll use tariffs to make other countries pay us, which we all know is false). These groups are all represented as infinite money wells that just need to be tapped by electing the right person.

This problem is most obvious in UBI discussions. Anyone could use Google to look up the US population and multiply it by their imagined UBI payment amount to see how much it would cost. Yet 9 times out of 10 when I hear someone talking about UBI they have some fanciful ideas about everyone getting $30-40K per year without realizing that the total cost of such a program would be far higher than even our total tax revenues currently. Even if you cut all other social programs and only offered UBI it wouldn’t make a difference. A UBI program that writes large checks to everyone would require tax increases that reached into the middle class.

[gfiorav]

Yes. Plus, taxing those with higher incomes is hardly “taxing the rich.” After all, the wealthy don’t have incomes; they borrow against their assets.

However, they do fund political campaigns, which is why politicians focus on the “work mules” of social welfare: the top 1% earners who contribute 90% of all welfare benefits. This distraction diverts attention from the “real rich” and the top earners can hardly do anything to address the issue... perfect scapegoat.

[doctorpangloss]

You shouldn’t be downvoted, kind of a lame part of HN lately.

I disagree that it’s a recipe for disaster - there are many valid kinds of holistic experiences of how a product is priced / sold, that don’t change the positivist economics of what is happening.

As long as childcare is economically positive, I think it is, it doesn’t really matter whatever you call it. And perhaps, it’s free in a way that matters most: redistribution from the very rich, that makes more customers with bigger budgets to spend on shit made by the firms they own.

[deburo]

It’s not just redistribution from the very rich. It’s redistribution from every tax payer, and you can bet your tax dollars aren’t used very efficiently.

[Workaccount2]

Because of the incessant focus on billionaires/1%/.1% people are totally unaware that most wealth is tied up in the 70-95% group.

Any kind of "funded by the rich" program will mostly come from that group. That's why it's hard to pass these thing.

[doctorpangloss]

by all means, it is a positive redistribution from the "70-95%"...

[trollbridge]

Which means even more wealth concentration in the 1% and 0.1%.

[gfiorav]

Thanks for your comments. I agree--HN has been quite disappointing lately. For a place that's supposed to be full of tech contrarians, it does sound like an answering machine around here sometimes :)

Regarding your retort, I believe it should possible to measure the economic return of every social benefit. I strongly suspect that there are social benefits that more than pay for their own cost.

However, the most effective way to prove this is by measuring it.

[watwut]

Looking at USA right now, I just do not see how is that superior.

[gfiorav]

I’m not sure. If we compare the US to Europe (and I say this with a heavy heart), I wouldn’t be confident that the EU has a positive balance. There hasn’t been any growth in the EU in the last 25 years.

What’s Europe’s future? What's its current relevance?

Sure, the US could eliminate all other expenditures and provide every American with the best subsidized healthcare in the world. But what would that achieve? A few decades of chess-thumping to the world? Then bankruptcy? Who will fund the next innovation in healthcare? Is this what Europe did only now those decades of runway are coming to an end?

When you look at the US, you should note that the poorest state here has about the same per-capita GDP as Germany. And the disposable income for people is 50% higher than even Germany. If you don't consider Germany, the poorest state is richer than every EU country and has a disposable income 80% higher.

You want to feel free? You need disposable income. You want to start a company and have clients? You better hope those clients have disposable income.

You want a welfare state? You better have a strong economy. EU isn't trending too hot in that department.

Many of the usual suspects that defend social welfare "just because" also say things like "face the data!" I suggest you do. Just my thoughts.

[id]

It works handsomely for the 1%. The rest, well, ...