Know any undecided voters read this and share!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ‘welfare state capitalism’ do you know what this is ? more knowledge that will help others to VOTE BLUE Decommodification to treat (something that can be owned or that not everyone has a right to -- like a product that can be bought and sold only by a limited population that has the means). This is a description of ‘welfare state capitalism’ and the consequence for social stratification or inequality. Example; tax structure benefits the upper elite threw investment (speculation of commodity exchange markets) and profit never returns to the producer eliminating the prospect that allows a culture to remove members from poverty and results in defamilialisation mostly recognized as gender and racial inequality. Example; voter registration or restriction, and a woman’s right to equal pay. Attached to the ‘neoliberal paradigm’ the capitalist welfare states primary means of distribution of resources is based on wealth accumulation not on the individuals contribution to social contract. Conservative control in which the state intervenes in market distribution processes favoring industry over population (subsidies, citizens united, suspension of fees or fines) reinforce social separation, education, gendered and race, all wage labor employment. Accomplished by a type of crony capitalism were elections are influenced by gerrymandering of voter districts and restricting voter access, enforcing gaps in the system of social protection that violate social contracts. Example; lower wage earners understand as their income increases so does the their responsibility to pay higher taxes, and contribute to community, but highest income earners do not share in that responsibility as social egalitarianism requires to prevent defeating ‘democracy ‘.Each round of political cronyism and investment weakened the employment situation for production workers and worsened environmental conditions, but it increased profits for shareholders along with political power. For workers, this treadmill implied that increasing investment was needed to employ each production worker, a false stamen exaggerated by corespective behavior (control of price and wage labor threw propaganda). For ecosystems, each level of resource extraction became, commodified into new-profits and new-investments, which led to still more rapid increases in demand for ecosystem elements. Example deregulation of EPA, and collective bargaining, reduced employee benefit and increased resource extraction like running in place not moving forward. If income inequality rises during a period of oppression resulting from ‘collateral population shifts’, the possible outcomes connected to social contracts and quality of life become jeopardized. The aim must be the abolition of private Monopoly ownership of the means of production and finance the reorganization society on the basis of social need, not private profit and privilege. Social policy with egalitarian agenda reduces market dependency of the ‘neoliberal paradigm’ and the consequence diminishes social stratification or inequality elevating community market and family to an equal status closing the gap between cultures regulating the market commodity exchange houses of speculation investment. When the systemic risk of not regulating markets leads to Deprivation Amplification or deprived communities do not have the mechanical industry of infrastructure nor socially constructed institutions to support or sustain properly the quality of life for its citizen’s ability to achieve adequate access to quality of life guaranteed by social contracts and rights legal or civil. Republican Neoliberal policy requires individuals to be dependent on the market and the best description resides in the ‘Quantity Theory of Money’. Economists’ argument that certain events are impossible to predict and failure in the market just needs to be accepted. But that is far from the truth; Money is a commodity like any other item consumers possess. The problem with the economist argument can be explained here. Think about the water in a can of vegetables, water is extruded from area were caning takes place. After shipping to new location of consumption the water in the can could never return to its origin (ACCEPTING LOSS). Now consider money as the water in the can a fee or robin hood tax on the transaction on monetary exchange will be returned to its place of origin by the distribution to the producers of commodity and improves the quality of life for community (PREVENTING LOSS). The Neoliberals believe corporate investment is the only paradigm (a theory or a group of ideas about how something should be done, made, or thought about) or all the power of governing a population should only belong to the elite or capitalist group. The emerging alternative paradigm is social investment or a return to the social contract were a balance between population, industry, and government are equal, but the power belongs to the civilian population, cultural habitus, controlling moral standards within social order. Put at its simplest, social investment through income support and tax-funded services is seen as a means of supporting economic growth and development rather than, as in the contrasting neo-liberal view, as a cost and a hindrance. There is a discussion on how a new political coalition could be mobilized to support and implement this new paradigm of social contract through cash transfers as opposed to the neoliberal separation of class by transfer of debit on to the general population. Social contracts belonging to a Democratic social arrangements, better and affordable housing, education, healthcare, child care, resource distribution, with-out exportation or alienation, supporting policies of dual breadwinner roles a model that reverses the crisis in industry cycles of boom and bust, promoting a work force of efficient, innovated, methods of competitive production. My thoughts are influenced by Alva and Gunnar Myrdal, two prominent Swedish Social Democrats who in the 1930s put forward an argument that economic support, through cash transfers are supported by fair tax distribution based on social contracts that benefits the total population as social investment. A cross-over between the social investment perspective and Keynesian economic theory. Social contracts originate as social capital, in a reference to Sociologist Pierre-Félix Bourdieu, a functioning of state social activity is in three parts. The embodied state, what is known and what can be done, directly linked to and incorporated within the individual belonging to private life. Embodied capital can be increased by investing time into self-improvement in the form of learning. As embodied capital becomes integrated into the individual, it takes the private life of the individual and combines it with the way public life is viewed it becomes a type of habitus and therefore cannot be transmitted instantaneously a person learns from experience a person’s true understanding of morally good behavior or character. The objectified state of cultural capital is represented by cultural goods, material objects such as property, books, paintings, instruments, or machines. They can be appropriated both materially with economic capital and symbolically via embodied capital. Finally, cultural capital in its institutionalized state provides academic credentials and qualifications which create a ‘certificate of cultural competence accountability which confers on its holder a conventional, constant, legally guaranteed value with respect to power’. Compared everyday human interaction to economics, by using categories such as social capital, symbolic capital and cultural capital to recognize social contracts as the institution that guarantees the concept well-being-of-all that neoliberalism cannot deliver on. The term ‘Neoliberal’, for many this term means different things, we can all look it up in the dictionary, but any can see it is only a word. Like everything else we must understand its meaning. Like many other terms neoliberal has a complexes meaning. Founders of Neoliberalism claim the-well-being-of-all and this is fine until the term is applied to an action. This is when we see the (neo) take on existential interpretation of ‘dialectic materialism’. Dialectical moment occurs when the abstractions of the understanding turn over into its opposites because of an action by agents ), becoming aware is a ‘cultural phenomenon’, and in this way psychological motivation can be introduced into the fabric of past, present and future meaning that change with cultural consequence of action. Economic Neoliberal Theory states ‘the-well-being-of-all’ a consequence of desired effect was included in the policy, known as ‘trickle-down-economics’ (all-will-benefit-from-top-down-policy), but the application of ‘capitalism’ over social contract was the action by agents of Milton Freidman and Ayn Rand economic theory and the introduction of the ‘dialectical moment’ of capitalism consequence. The real definition of capital is the use of resources in the creation of more capital for exchange value only. Capitalism supports the consequence of class separation and control of finance in the hands of the few. This cultural phenomenon supports capital accumulation, resource exploitation, and labor alienation by supporting monetary policies that invents new capital for exchange for profit not producer. This type capitalism limits competition simply stated by Joseph Schumpeter’s corespective behavior or conspired to control price and force exploration of citizens, environment, resources, labour alienation weak small government and the separation of population urban or rural identification of metabolic rift. Capitalism supports the deregulation of the labor market produces flexibilization and casualization of labor, greater informal employment, and a considerable increase in industrial accidents are just occupational diseases and ignores any personal protection of labor or safety of the citizens. Capitalism supports debt to force Trade-led, unregulated economic growth, increased pollution and other environmental impacts economic growth and inequality because of the distance of place between producer and investor, including legislator action that cannot compete with the rapid transfers of investment or information. Capitalism changes economic and government policies to increase the power of corporations and large business, and a shift to benefit the upper classes over the lower classes by an unfair tax institution that Neoliberals and Conservatives does not recognize lower incomes carry a high tax burden due to limiting spendable income. While wages and salaries as a percentage of the national income is near its lowest in history, corporate profits are soaring. Corporate profits did take a hit in 2008 but they are now back to their highest level in 40 years. During the same period the unemployment rate more than doubled, and has only recently fallen below 10 percent. Wen social investment has a high demand and social contract have an interesting ancestry going back to the 1930/s better housing, future retirement, education, and medical benefits from Government sponsored research, history we should still remember. Movement toward dual breadwinner and social movements like equal right, for minority and woman combined with social movements of cultural change within local population. Speed of exchanging ideas wireless radio to social networks all contribute to the need and understand of social contracts to be flexible as the world we live in changes that best supports the well-being-of-all. Neoliberals and Conservations both attempts to control social status with the preoccupation of eugenicist that a child’s status is determined by socioeconomics not by biology. In both groups socioeconomics determines social contract but violates all human rights natural or legal. This disregard to other cultures within population undermines the very foundation of any Democracy. Cultures must reorganize social policy not only a means to security and redistribution but also justice with the understanding of cultural relativism a sociology concept that cultural norms and values derive their meaning within a specific social context, supported by strong or weak principals, strong; a validity of rights or rules, weak; a secondary source of cultural relativism. It gets its power from the legitimate cultural divergence with in a population of combined cultures with equal procession of implementation of social contracts. The first development of a social contract is in the field of education, check for the highest pre-capita income spent on educating one student pre-K-12, all other educational institution receives funding equal to the highest based on 20 year’s experience in cost, additionally a 30% across the board bonus to school systems for each of the next 3 years above the experience cost. (pp. 367–370). Gunnar Myrdal coined the term ‘productive social policy’ to convey the idea that social policy was not only a means to security and redistribution, but also underpinned the efficient organisation of production. According to the authors, this understanding of the interaction between social policy and economic growth became a guiding principle for Swedish Social Democracy from the 1930s onwards. In further elaborations, income security is a seen as a means of assisting economic restructuring by allaying workers’ fear of change, family policies and investments in health and education support productivity, solidaristic wage policies and active labour market programmes spur modernisation, and income redistribution stimulates demand. The last of these is seen as a point of cross-over between the social investment perspective and Keynesian economic theory. The remainder of the book is divided into three parts. The first analyses the development of the social investment paradigm and attempts to distinguish it from alternative versions of social policy, mirrored in various welfare state configurations. In the second part, there is an analysis of the development of policies that correspond to the social investment paradigm, whether or not self-consciously. The third part deals with the form social investment policies have taken in different countries and attempts to account for the differences. There is also an assessment of how successful social investment policies have been in promoting more and better jobs and in reconciling efficiency with equity, including an assessment of the various forms of ALMPs. The fourth part examines the challenges facing welfare states, including the current fiscal austerity programmes and population ageing. The earlier sections demand some attention because this is where the claim that social investment constitutes a distinct, albeit emerging, paradigm is tested, in addition to what might be a too-good-to-betrue claim that social policy and economic progress can be mutually reinforcing. It is evident that there is some variation in how the paradigm is interpreted, although one common element is the periodisation of welfare state development from an immediate post-1945 Keynesian welfare state (from 1945 to about the mid-1970s), to the neoliberal welfare state (a period of retrenchment from roughly the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s), to what is described as a current period of disillusionment with neo-liberalism and the tentative emergence of the social investment paradigm. In order to distinguish the new paradigm, the Keynesian and neo-liberal models have first to be elucidated. Keynesian welfare states were based on the assumption of full employment guaranteed by countercyclical public spending in order to maintain employment through successive slumps and booms in the economic cycle. Governments generally accepted Keynesian demand management techniques even if they were not explicitly named as such. Social security spending in the Keynesian model can be understood as countercyclical compensatory spending 674 Local Economy 27(5–6) Downloaded during slumps (known as automatic stabilisers in finance ministry parlance), but social security transfers in the Keynesian era are seen here as essentially ‘passive’, designed to maintain income during periods of temporary unemployment, contrasting with the ‘activating’ social investment approach. The Swedish welfare state, with its emphasis on active labour market policy and female labour market participation departed early from these features of the Keynesian model. In the context of full employment, wage inflation acquired a new significance in macroeconomic management, and hence the Keynesian model became associated with tri-partite or corporatist structures to manage wage bargaining. The oil price shocks and a wage explosion apparently exhausted the capacity of corporatism to control inflation and opened the way to the acceptance of neo-liberal ideas that emphasised the primacy of the market in determining wages, with rigid corporatism seen an obstacle to the effective functioning of the labour market. In the neo-liberal view, high unemployment is the consequence of wage rigidity enforced by trade unions, whilst work incentives and the acceptance of wage offers are distorted by income protection. Neo-liberal ideology is accompanied by an especially hostile aversion to the State, seen as creating additional market distortions in the excessive taxation associated with the maintenance of selfinterested client groups and enforced redistribution. The emergence of the social investment paradigm, it is argued, has in part been enabled by the actual performance of neoliberalism. Although neo-liberal policy prescriptions, accompanied by economic theories stressing the importance of monetary control, have succeeded in bringing down inflation, the course of economic development since the 1980s has been punctuated by successive crises provoked by excessive market liberalisation. Economic growth has been accompanied by widening inequalities and deepening poverty. Contrary to the predictions of neoclassical economic theory, the facts of comparative analysis indicate no trade-off between economic performance and the size of the welfare state. The presence of a large public sector does not necessarily damage competitiveness. There is a positive relationship between fertility and high levels of female participation in most Scandinavian countries. Good educational performance coexists with equal opportunities (p. 51). The new social investment paradigm, however, incorporates elements of the earlier models. We have already seen how income transfers can perform the function of Keynesian countercyclical stabilisation. Social investment shares with neo-liberalism a concern with the supply-side, in its focus on investing for the future through human capital investment. But deep inequalities are not acceptable (tolerated in the neo-liberal view as a consequence of efficient labour market performance) because they transmit poverty from one generation to the next. Active labour market policies in periods of restructuring actually reinforce Schumpeterian processes of creative destruction by preparing workers to benefit from it, but this process is more effective through social partnership. As we have seen in the Dutch case, corporate arrangements can be responsive to new contingencies whilst maintaining a degree of protection for the workforce. In one chapter, the stylised characteristics of each model are set against a grid representing three dimensions of social citizenship: the responsibility mix, rights and duties, and access and governance (p. 66). The responsibility mix refers to the distribution of welfare responsibility between the State, the market, the family and community. In the Keynesian model, the responsibility mix principally involves market, State and family, but in the neo-liberal configuration, State disappears and is replaced by community, which serves as a cushion to spending cutbacks and market failure. In the social investment paradigm, all four actors reappear, with the community described as a partner in service provision, and a source of expert or local knowledge. The State in the Keynesian model is meant to protect against social risks; in the neo-liberal model, its activities should be curtailed because of the risk of dependency; in the social investment model, state spending should be investments aimed at human capital formation or to confront new social risks and poverty. In the rights and duties matrix, the key innovation of the social investment approach is described as shifting the orientation of social rights from protection to prevention, hence the emphasis on human capital formation from early years and through to lifelong learning following formal education. Contrasting approaches to labour market participation are set out in this matrix; the social investment paradigm allows for transfers in high-quality childcare which both assists child development and ameliorates child poverty by supporting female labour market participation. In the social investment approach, everyone has a duty to work, but also a right to adequate income if the market does not provide. In terms of governance, the social investment approach favours consultation, communication, local involvement and partnership forms of governance contrasting with the bureaucratic approach of the Keynesian regime and the obsession with privatisation in the neo-liberal regime. The social investment perspective acknowledges the necessity of industrial restructuring, and, throughout there is an accommodation to labour market flexibility. Accommodating to change is a precondition of ensuring a steady supply of jobs, but unlike the neo-liberal approach, there is an emphasis on ‘good jobs’ as opposed to ‘any jobs’. This implies a re-invigorated role for the state in the strategic direction of the economy, which in this context means a realignment of social policy to support the creation of ‘good’ jobs in the ‘knowledge economy’. Some space is devoted to analysing the economic outcomes of social investment, including an inquiry into whether social investment policies support, in the words of the Lisbon Agenda, more and better jobs (pp. 205–234). The analysis involved testing employment rates and the proportion of jobs in knowledge intensive services (KIS) against investment in education (including early years), and in ALMPs, long-term and short-term unemployment replacement rates, and sick pay. Whilst the connection between human capital investment, ALMPs and knowledgeintensive jobs might appear obvious, the hypothesis regarding unemployment replacement rates is that high replacement rates with short duration enable a period of job search of sufficient length to find a job appropriate to the unemployed worker’s skills set, whilst generous sick pay allows a worker to retain their position in the labour market during a period of sickness. Both of these income security measures are seen as ways of preserving human capital. Once again, country results are grouped according to Esping-Andersen’s typology, and mostly show predictable results: summing across all types of education spending, it appears that the Nordic countries spend more than the Liberal welfare regimes; the latter perform well in employment creation, but they have high levels of employment in low-wage service jobs, not quality employment. The Liberal regimes are similar to the Social- Democratic regimes (the Nordic countries) in terms of average years spent in education, but differ in terms of average literacy scores, with the Nordic countries doing much better. When the betrayal of humanity and humans began to emerge in recent history it becomes clear the evil side of supply side or trickledown economics belongs to ignoring hindsight. Reveal in the policy of Regan and Thatcher as time passed were to create a vast army of under and unemployed to maintain stagnant wages. Programs were also accompanied by a commitment to make radical reforms to reduce spending in areas such as welfare, higher education and healthcare and therefore reduce the levels of debt and protect its credit rating during a period of high borrowing. At the same time installing the most harmful consequence a policy of ‘austerity gained consent’ the transfer of private capital or industry debt by the neoliberal paradigm class of wealthy institutions, becoming the problem of the individual citizens structured by what was called the new world order and the changing role of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund from economic policy of Milton Freidman. Actions repeated in 2001-2008 or the consequence of action without the benefit of hindsight the controversial tax cuts 1980’s and again 2000’s . Controversial because the decisions of political reasoning in such a short period of time was unsound. and perhaps even extend the UK’s majoritarian image. We may be tempted to conclude that the current economic crisis is unprecedented and that the requirement for so many ‘tough choices’ will have a radical effect on public policy. Certainly, the appearance of economic and political turmoil tends to produce unusual levels of media and public attention to government decisions, with many commentators very quick to make judgements about the long-term consequences of short-term commitments. Yet, with the benefit of hindsight, we know that there is a large gap between the image of UK policy making and actual political behaviour and policy outcomes (indeed, the ‘Westminster model’ is used widely to describe what does not happen in British politics). The ‘muscular’ image reflects and reinforces a skewed and faulty understanding of the ‘British policy style’ (policy style is often defined simply as the way that governments make and implement policy; Richardson, 1982; Jordan and Richardson, 1982; Jordan, 2011; Cairney, 2011b). While examples of top-down policy making are important and deserving of considerable analysis, we should also consider the analytical consequences of focusing too much on limited examples of centralisation. If we confirm that core executives are important by focusing on what they are doing, and confirming their importance in a small number of high profile areas, we neglect to consider what they are not doing as a result; the opportunity costs of their action and the policy issues that they cannot influence (Cairney, 2011a: 209).
Posted on: Mon, 19 May 2014 02:22:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015