Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Constant Reader who wrote (15195)	6/21/2002 3:42:50 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 21057

Third Wayism originally came from European social democrats, who did not insist on nationalization of the economy, but used various levers to create social welfare states, with Sweden leading the way. Then it came to refer to neutralism in the Third World, or those uncommitted to either the capitalist or socialist camps, but socialist "with a difference", that is, more pragmatic, ostensibly. Nasser and Nehru exemplified that sort of "third way". There were other claims of Third Wayism, but most recently, it has been associated with neo- liberalism. Neo- liberalism is liberalism influenced by "wobblies" on the Left, and neo- conservatives on the right. The "wobbly" criticism of the welfare state is that it is technocratic and paternalistic, rather than empowering. Thus, SDS, for example, tried to encourage "participatory democracy" and "direct actions" in organizing rent strikes and volunteer councils in the inner city, in the 60s. The neo- conservative criticism of the welfare state had to do with the limits of social policy, the tendency of too many social programs to render their clientele dependent, the bad tendency to discount the role of values in maintain a decent society, and the "law of unintended consequences". Neo- liberals take all of this to heart, and try to avoid some of the pitfalls of the welfare state, while still being essentially committed to federal, bureaucratic, and ambitious programs. They just try to build in things that will mitigate some of the bad effects, like job training for welfare recipients, or "values rhetoric" in teen programs. They are, in the end, not able to seriously rethink the welfare state, however.......

To: Constant Reader who wrote (15195)	6/21/2002 4:03:15 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 21057

I'd go with what Neo said. 3Way advocates a warmed-over welfare state. Here, too, Third Wayers in continental Europe and elsewhere are following behind, although more tentatively. They want to make the welfare state more flexible, not necessarily smaller. ....................................................................................................................................................... And it has guided the many initiatives to help people into jobs and then to make the jobs pay enough to live on—the expanded earned income tax credit to subsidize low-wage work, the higher minimum wage, the tax incentives for moving jobs to the inner cities, the micro-enterprise banks, and the proposals for child care and health care. Importantly, it is a moral precept as well as a policy idea: work is the core responsibility. If people are willing to work hard, they should have a job that pays enough for them to live on. In order to qualify for such a job, they should have access to adequate job skills. If that's not enough, their job should be subsidized. ....................................................................................................................................................... So it follows that government must be actively involved—helping people over the fence. ....................................................................................................................................................... And even controlling for the uniqueness of the American political system and the obduracy of a conservative Republican Congress ....................................................................................................................................................... When someone has to settle for a lower-paying job, the wage subsidy has to be sufficiently generous to make up for much of the difference. When no private-sector jobs are available, the public sector has to step in with them quickly. And other supports need to be in place—child care, good public transportation to and from jobs, health care—so that it's easy as a practical matter to adapt to the new circumstances. ....................................................................................................................................................... This leaves only one other required source of money: the better-off members of society have to pony up. Their taxes must be raised. In theory at least, the better off should have no problem with this. After all, they're the ones who will gain the most from the move to an unfettered market, because they already have the education, skills, and social connections to virtually guarantee themselves (and their progeny) the best jobs. They should be willing to commit some of this gain to help those who are less well situated across the great divide, in return for their cooperation in unfettering the market. ....................................................................................................................................................... Such advanced planning may be commendable but has little to do with the Third Way. Social Security isn't in trouble. Its solvency could be guaranteed through the next century by means of small increases in amounts paid into the system or small decreases in amounts paid out (ideally, in either case only affecting the more affluent). FRANKLY, George McGovern sounded better than the Third Way.