Redistribution of Wealth C/D?

How far does the 'dud' contigent go in their antipathy to redistribution, btw? Do they think, say, that everyone should be just taxed a flat, poll tax amount, regardless of ability to pay?

people should be taxed until we have nurses driving BMWs!!!

Men who wear pillows underneath jumpers to show support for pregnant wives (if any of these people actually exist) have the right idea.

Don't they all?

The crux of the argument is whether giving government the power to redistribute wealth is inherently an abuse of power. Those who say dud tend to distrust government and cite the long, long history of tyrants. Those who say classic tend to distrust the wealthy and cite the shrewd quotation, "Behind every great fortune is a great crime."

Sadly, everyone is right. Power can be abused. Therefore it will be abused. The only solution with a partial chance of success is to fragment power and make its exercise as transparent as possible. The only tool for accomplishing this strategy is government, since private power will always drive toward individual ascendency. But this solution does not inhere in just any government. It must be carefully designed and jealously watched.

The other upshot of fragmenting power is that, correctly conceived and applied, it tends to reduce aggregate wealth by willfully introducing inefficiencies of scale. But a wise populace learns to love inefficiency, since inefficiency limits power more surely than any other mechanism.

There is this defensive myth perpetuated by the middle classes that the poor are poor because they don't work or can't work or don't work hard enough. This is total bullshit. Millions of ordinary people work themselves into an early grave because their jobs are simply not given adequate financial reward.

What bugs me about this is that it was industrial capitalism that deskilled the workforce in order to get labour more cheaply. Its sick that the defenders of capitalism are the ones who complain about how the poor are the ones bleeding the system dry. Let's take a closer look at where the money comes from. When Chinese workers make your shoes in sweatshops for a dollar a day, someone else is making a fucking killing on the strength of what these workers do - someone sat on their arse is making a fortune because these people are working themselves into an early grave. You think the poor aren't working hard enough? Whose the twat creaming off the profit without lifting a finger, that's the workshy one!

"There is this defensive myth perpetuated by the middle classes that the poor are poor because they don't work or can't work or don't work hard enough. This is total bullshit. Millions of ordinary people work themselves into an early grave because their jobs are simply not given adequate financial reward."

Wow, this must be satire. Leftists feeling the need to defend those poor who had nothing to do with their situation. Yeah there are some mentally handicapped who are homeless who can be taken care of by charities. As for the poor "working themselves to an early grave" boo hoo. If you understand the way our society works it is easy to get ahead. My parents came here with nothing, worked their asses off being rewarded with nothing but managed to save enough to invest in their future. If people are not forward thinking enough then they suffer. That is the way of the world, if you can think of a better system that will WORK then by all means. However, you shouldn't go around trying to implement money systems based on how people SHOULD behave but on how they actually DO behave.

How far do the 'dud' contigent go in their antipathy to redistribution, btw? Do they think, say, that everyone should be just taxed a flat, poll tax amount, regardless of ability to pay? In fact, should the poorer be taxed even higher, because they use services more?

Redistribution of wealth would happen naturally if people were paid what they were worth. If businesses want to be treated as, in a sense, individuals, with freedoms and liberties, why shouldn't they be held to certain ethical standards like individuals in society are?

I'm also interested in why some of you are assuming that a certain pattern of wealth distribution is a priori right or wrong.

Right. There we have it. This is why those good for nothing rich bastards can't pay each seamstress a thousand dollars a day to make some Nikes.

"...just that there's lots of sitting space between D Aziz's position, which is more hardcore than any government model I've ever seen implemented, and the dismantling of capitalism)."

Nick OTM.

Also, there's a difference between distributing wealth EVENLY (patently NOT what I nor most people who agree with me believe) and distributing it FAIRLY or ETHICALLY RESPONSIBLY.

Ah, I love that line of argumentation. "If you're such a liberal/socialist/anarchist/communist/etc., then what are you doing with a computer/car/clothing/food/life?"

Gee, man, sorry. I didn't realize that my political affiliations required me to go the sackcloth and ashes route.

Your "governments are bad" line is a bit of a joke. Capitalism doesn't exist without a powerful state. You have to have the government and legal consequences to protect private property, to create money (unless you'd like to go back to the barter system, which should make global capitalism entertaining), to enforce contracts, to keep people from burning down your stores, etc. etc. etc..

What "governments are bad" means is "governments are bad when they aren't using the police and military to protect the capitalist class from peasants with pitchforks."

as ed said in the very first reply, it's government's moral duty to protect the impoverished from assholes such as yourself.

Aziz: Why should I be FORCED to part with loads of my money?

Short answer: Because, within certain limits, it's fair, responsible, and patriotic.

More in depth answer: If you're making money, accumulating wealth and acquiring new posessions, then you're using the security the government provides for doing so. Your business deals are protected by laws enforced by the government. Standards of quality are enforced by the government. You're protected by the government from criminals. If you don't care or don't want these protections, someone's going to rob your ass.

If you're living off some plot of land in the middle of Nevada, growing your own food, collecting and filtering your water, making your own clothes, etc. Then you're not going to be paying much in taxes. You may pay some form of property taxes, but in return you still enjoy property rights enforced by the government, and protection against theivery and other crimes.

This, of course, does not mean that there is no such thing as unfair tax rates. Taxes that impair business development or impede growth potential are counter-productive (ha ha). Tax rates that choke the economy strip the people of their potential options.

I think a responsible, pro-growth tax rate should be graduated - as opposed to flat - according to income because a graduated scheme produces a whole lot more public revenue without threatening those in lower quintiles. Like if Steve Forbes got his way and the US had a flat tax, either revenue and spending levels would almost disappear or you'd have to tax the lower and middle classes to death.

Okay, then why are you a member of your country?

And where will the money for such enforcement come from?

So taxes should only be applied to that and there's nothing else they're to be used for.

Why would there be civic unrest caused by low taxation? Taxes should be applied for law enforcement, national defense, and any other services that are more efficiently applied by a governemtn as opposed to a private entity.

Oh, so you're leaving, then.

Because a wholesale removal of public health, education and welfare would make a lot of people unemployable in the long term and mad as hell in the short (and long) term?

Listen, I am not advocating some revolution OK? I am asking for the gradual decline of government interference in private lives. That means less taxes and less spending. As less and less services are provided by the government one would hope more and more money would be available for people to spend on the SPECIFIC services they desire. People are not stupid, if they see that they can no longer get free or subsidized healthcare one would hope they would do something about it, like get a private provider etc.

What if you cannot afford it?

If nurses want to drive BMW's they should study more and become doctors.

--

Then you work more, go to a charitable organzation, or die. Why is it my responsibility?

Because you can't give them more work, you are not charitable, and you seem to squeamish about killing the poor yourself. This renders you unfit for the job, I realize.

The problem, as I see it, is that Aziz's position is relying on some belief that taxes are objectively bad, unless you say so because some things (defense/cops) are objectively good.

Your views don't leave any room for discussion or argumentation. It's all subjective - there are no right and wrong answers to these questions. Pretending that taxes are evil, and that government only has certain purposes and no others is absolutely ridiculous.

What you need to do is recognize that your beliefs aren't inherently correct, and that you have to convince others of their rightness. Why should I be opposed to taxes? Why is it wrong to provide social welfare, and what are the alternatives?

Then you work more, go to a charitable organzation, or die. Why is it my responsibility?
Because you're a member of society. Because I provide police protection for you.

In terms of pure self-interest: if there isn't a basic level of social commitment to the worst-off amongst us, it will come back to bite you. History is littered with tales of an under-class that got tired of being pushed around and reacted violently. Now, I'm not opposed to cutting off a few aristrocratic heads or overthrowing the Tsar, but I suspect you are.

And yet you say:

If the poor dont' want to be poor they should take whatever job they can get, and if they think they're above cleaning toilets or flipping burgers then I have no pity for them.

So why are you helping them?

Because some people are disabled or mentally handicapped etc. THOSE are the people that I don't mind helping out of my own CHOICE. However, I don't like giving money to freeloaders who choose not to work.

Are there any historical examples of what you would consider "successful" or even remotely "ideal" minimal-taxation libertarian economic systems, Aziz?

Oh, I'm curious.

oh so benevolent help

Weren't you just praising yourself for being charitable? Oh yes:

Because some people are disabled or mentally handicapped etc. THOSE are the people that I don't mind helping out of my own CHOICE

So the government shouldn't be helping them? Or is not helping them enough?

How is "growth" automatically a good thing?

There is a not insignificant number of persons in this country who - through no fault of their own - are subjected to circumstances they cannot overcome alone. You have to admit that there are situations where people work their asses off but still have a very hard time getting anywhere because of unforeseeable and unavoidable coincidences. What of these people?

'Fact' is a weird word to use in the context of economics. Plenty of economists and governments argue and practice targeted spending as a mechanism with which to foster growth. Keynes? I'd have thought it was a balance. If you want to argue why they're all mistaken then fine, but the use of the word 'fact' seems weird.

But you do not contribute to them.

-- D Aziz (esquire198...), February 23rd, 2004 2:24 AM

I don't know how he knows how much money you give, Ned, but why are you assuming he gives none?

"The 400 wealthiest taxpayers pay about as much in federal income taxes as more than 40 million individuals and families at the bottom of the income scale, according to Internal Revenue Service data."

http://www.detnews.com/2001/politics/0103/23/a05-202187.htm

I don't say he doesn't contribute to any charity, N. He notes that he will give to charity that supports various folks but none other. Stuart asks him a pointed question and then all of a sudden there are other charities that are approved of, whereas before he did not mention them and apparently does not contribute money to them. He also objects to my mental illness, but sadly apparently does not wish to contribute charitably to my cure, though if he is willing to PayPal me, I'm right here.

Nick OTM.

There are no "facts" about any of this. "Growth" can be a good thing, but it is not necessarily one unto itself. "Taxes" can be good things and bad things.

Your problem, D Aziz, is that you seem to think your beliefs are objectively correct, and that no other answers are legitimate.

Why?

"The 400 wealthiest taxpayers pay about as much in federal income taxes as more than 40 million individuals and families at the bottom of the income scale, according to Internal Revenue Service data."
Even if I believed those numbers without question - what percentage of wealth do those 400 control as opposed to those 40 million?

Are any of those 400 having a difficult time putting food on the table because of taxation?

Yes that is my argument, except I would change "quite a few" to "a few."

Yes, that would be nice.

But it's word that lots of people bandy about quite ignorantly, so I guess I shouldn't take it too seriously.

Oh, I'm not, trust me.

Second, do you accept any money from your family in regards to living expenses?

I ask because I see your "fuck the poor, they don't work hard enough!" position far more often in people who aren't supporting themselves, or have been suckling at the family teat, than from people who actually work to provide for themselves.

" what percentage of wealth do those 400 control as opposed to those 40 million."

What does that matter? The fact is they're paying a FAR greater share of the tax burden and recieving a FAR lesser benefit from it. If this isn't "unfair" I don't know what is.

"I ask because I see your "fuck the poor, they don't work hard enough!" position far more often in people who aren't supporting themselves, or have been suckling at the family teat, than from people who actually work to provide for themselves."

No family teat here, I have a job along with being a full-time student. My parents pay my tuition, and I am ready willing and able to start working as soon as i graduate. If I don't get a good job i'll get more education or take a lower paying. Simple. I have also worked since I was 14, but thanks for being such good liberals and being so open-minded.

On the topic of population growth, I found this article really interesting: http://www.policyreview.org/feb04/eberstadt.html

No, thank YOU for being yourself. We have learned much.

Still, I am always uneasy with that as a way of scoring points in an argument.

It's imperfect and yet telling.

Tell me about burdens, Aziz.

But really, i'm still wondering about these a priori assumptions about what good and bad taxes and uses of funds are. You can't very well argue that only social programs that are of equal (or near equal) use to EVERYONE should be paid with public funds, unless you're prepared to get rid of everything. And at any rate, keeping the starving people from rioting in the streets is of use to everyone. And some people might argue that, say, education is an investment.

multi x-post, etc

I am ready willing and able to start working as soon as i graduate.

And this makes you unique from everyone who went to school...how?

Hey, I thought you were mature and self-assured.

But I've noticed that people who actually do support themselves, who understand that life is more difficult when you've got to pay bills and care for yourself, don't have these wacked-out views on social responsibility. And the people I'm talking about aren't bleeding-heart lib'ruls like me.

Let me put it another way, D - what separates you from someone on 'welfare'? You're both receiving money and care from the work of others, right? Your welfare just happens to come from blood relatives.

Doubtless.

Well, everything is about you. I thought you had already concluded that.

d aziz is THE example of why so many people hate the ivy league.

Simple Milo, my parents didn't face the chance of GOING TO JAIL for not paying the money that it takes to support me. They chose to have me and they now choose to invest in my education. When the government demands taxes from me I can go to JAIL for not paying them. THAT is the difference and I think it is an important one at that.

I freely and unhesitatingly agree, actually. The difference between him and D. Aziz is stark; he has more to offer that what I've gotten annoyed with him over in the past.

Regardless, you're still working on that assumption that "taxes are evil" or theft.

Guess what, without the infrastructure those taxes pay for, your parents wouldn't have money and couldn't make it.

How does this point not apply to your ideas on economic reform?

This is odd, though. How come none of us have any problem reading your sentences and yet you seem to have trouble with ours?

You want to see American education get better? Do something about the 20% of kids who grow up below the poverty line.

(Haha, vouchers as proposed, don't begin to cover the costs of a private school education. On top of that, you find me the excellent private schools in areas that are underperforming on education to start with.)

Because my economic reform has shown time and again to increase the size of the pie. When you create private organizations they have to compete in order to gain your consumership, if a school is not efficient nobody will want to send their kids there and they will go out of business. Simple.

then why hasn't edison schools turned a profit yet, then?

Can you find a modern economic system that has existed without government backing?

hardcore marxists also complain that there hasn't been "true socialism" whenever anyone talks about the soviet union.

and the UK circa 1830-1860 was about as close to a "true free market" as there's ever been. what a rip-roaring success that was (i.e., read some dickens, or ask an irish-american why they ended up over here).

I know other people watch it but UGH.

http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?control=235&sortorder=issue

secondly, even if what you say is correct, then maybe what that really proves is that education is NOT something that CAN be run on a for-profit basis and STILL adequately educate our youth. how is it that Brown (a private school, but you know how much government money even PRIVATE schools get?) can compete against the university of rhode island, but edison schools can't turn a profit (even though that was its founder's pitch)? and can't do that even against a pretty shitty municipal school system?

Case in point: I went to public schools. I'm now in college, courtesy of a combination of governement and private grants. Quite frankly, I'll probably be of less use to society as an educated individual than I would be as an uneducated one.

Are you suggesting that it shouldn't and that vouchers are a way of slowly shifting responsibility to the private sector? Because that seems rather silly to me.

etc etc etc

I don't like redistribution of wealth because it allows people to avoid having any guilt they might otherwise have for not taking care of people in need and further isolates said people from society which wouldn't happen if communities helped them instead. The illusion that the gov. actually helps anyone is for the most part an illusion. They are just thrown a few bones to subsit on. I also think they are pretty inefficient at giving out the money they steal from people.

At the same time I am not obsessed with money so its not really that that makes me REALLY FREAKIN ANGRY like some people. If I were dictator the modes of wealth redistribution would be the last thing I'd cut. Except for the child care tax credit cause thats just stupid in that it gives an incentive for poor people to have kids (oh and the distribution towards corporations which hasn't been mentioned).

One more thing:

Wealth is not available to everyone because all wealth is based on some people taking wealth from others.

This is a very prevalent fallacy that is fallicious. There is not one one-sized pie that everyone scrambles for - obviously we are all better off than the people of, say, the year 1800, we are more wealthy on the whole. That is because wealth can be created.

also, i'm failing to understand how giving money to a company like edison so that it can make up for its shitty performance on the NASDAQ isn't "throwing money at problems."

And in any event, paying money for other people's children's school vouchers will be know different from paying money for public schools for other people's children, from the perspective of those not using the service.

Oh, and as long as schooling is compulsory, you won't have schools full of children eager to learn. Period.

and you should really go to law school, that way you can learn to weasel outta yer verbal predicaments more effectively -- or not make yer straw-men so obvious.

Ok fuck me then, I wish you all the best and hope you eventually deal with your obvious anger issues.

Its true, there is nothing we can learn from the past. We all know the well known adage, "History never repeats itself."

By and by I have read john Maynard Keynes. Maynard is GOD. ha ha ha Tool jokes.

Who's "we"? You mean the human race in general?

How much of this "better off" - what does that even mean - is tied to "wealth"? How much is simply tied to technological and social progress?

Yeah, or more specifically the developed world. Obv. Africa is probably worse off.

How much of this "better off" - what does that even mean - is tied to "wealth"? How much is simply tied to technological and social progress?

Good point, but aren't they all tied together to some degree? I mean by "better off" even poor folks generally have refrigeration, clean water, more access to medicine, etc. I think comparing someone out of a Dickens novel to a poor American or Brit today the current poor person is less wretchedly poor.

Hmmm...but we all (on average, in western, modern societies) work more and longer hours than your average hunter-gatherer does. Does time count as wealth?

I don't know this to be true.

To head off the pass you certainly could make the argument that this is due in part to distribution of wealth and I am a bit torn on the issue, but am always fearfull of giving power to any large organizations.

The thing about capitalism is that it's impossible, by its own rules, for everyone to be a winner. Someone has to lose. So while even the poorest American might be 'better off' we've just shipped our misery to other parts of the globe, where we can't see it.

Good point, but aren't they all tied together to some degree? I mean by "better off" even poor folks generally have refrigeration, clean water, more access to medicine, etc. I think comparing someone out of a Dickens novel to a poor American or Brit today the current poor person is less wretchedly poor.
Sure, I agree. But looking at it from just a 'developed nation' perspective requires us to ignore the effects on the rest of humanity. That's counterproductive, unless we decide that those people just don't matter.

RE: hunter-gatherers - yes, we spend less time with our families and neighbors than our ancestors. Now people can work at night, and work from home, and travel long distances to work without much effort. These things weren't available in our past.

According to this, they've been increasing at least since 1980.

I'd like to see a source on the "free time" gain. If you're taking employers' numbers, that ignores unpaid overtime (unpaid completely or for salaried employers), which accounts for a great deal of time put in by Americans.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/work_howmuch_dayone.html

"They aren't the only ones finding long hours in at least certain parts of the workforce. According to a Bureau of Labor Statistics report released last year, more than 25 million Americans — 20.5 percent of the total workforce — reported they worked at least 49 hours a week in 1999. Eleven million of those said they worked more than 59 hours a week."

" An ABCNEWS.com poll released Monday found only 26 percent of Americans feel they work too hard. Although far more feel the opposite, that's still a lot of people and it's twice as many as the 13 percent who told a Harris Poll in 1960 that they felt overworked. And the percentage rises to about a third of people with kids, or people between 35 and 54 years old. "

Well you could say they are where we were 100 or whenever years ago economically and hopefully will get to where we are faster than it took us. Also hopefully with less of the bad shit like war et al. There are a lot of great things out there aiding in this such as micro loans.

Well you could say they are where we were 100 or whenever years ago economically and hopefully will get to where we are faster than it took us. Also hopefully with less of the bad shit like war et al. There are a lot of great things out there aiding in this such as micro loans.
But they're worse off than we were 100 (or 200) years ago, if you want to limit this to sub-Saharan Africa.

Regardless, how is that a good thing? Isn't it just what I said - there has been no net 'better off' effect for humanity, we've just shifted the misery to a greater degree?

High estate taxes, guaranteed universal healthcare and higher education, job training, etc.

Well thats unfair because AIDs and other things play a large part in that.

there has been no net 'better off' effect for humanity, we've just shifted the misery to a greater degree?

Can we agree to disagree yet? I don't think we have shifted misery to anyone. Its a process, a country cannot be made rich overnight. Also, redistribution really ignores the underlying problems (if they are problems) of why some people have make very large sums of $ in comparison to others.

Also if you'd like people to work less hours the laws regarding overtime could be changed. Then people would probably not want to work extra hours.

We can agree to disagree, but explain how we haven't shifted misery, if ultimately there has been no net positive effect for humanity. And explain to me how 'everyone wins' in a system that's built on competition, on winners and losers.

For one business to prosper, another has to suffer or die. That's capitalism.

Milo, your link says American workers clocked "nearly" 2000 hours in 1997, which is fifty 40 hour weeks. That's two weeks vacation a year assuming you don't ever work overtime or weekends. I'm not saying it's not a lot, but haven't American's historically worked longer hours than most industrialized countries? Your link compares the 2000 hours worked by Americans on average in 1997 to the 1889 worked by the Japanese in 1995. But the per capita GDP PPP of Americans in 2002 was $36,300 versus $28,700 in Japan. So Americans are 26% wealthier and work only 5% more. I know other factors are involved but if you want to compare averages, that's not looking too bad.

Milo, regarding the quote: "In 1960, 70% of families had at least one parent who stayed at home. By 2000, in contrast, 70% of families were headed by either two working parents or a working single parent." Doesn't that imply that stay at home parents aren't working?

I addressed this up thread re: creation of wealth.

explain how we haven't shifted misery

Ok, I do think there has been a net positive effect for humanity. I'd rather have a shit job in a factory than one being a subsistence farmer. Maybe I can save a little money and my kids can have a better life.

explain to me how 'everyone wins' in a system that's built on competition, on winners and losers.

I only think capitalism is the best thing we got, I don't think its perfect. I wouldn't characterize our society as based purely on competition. Cooperation plays a huge role which is, to me, only limited by a state's intervention, this is where I buy into a lot of anarchist thinking esp. a book I read by Kropotnik called Mutual Aid (and I still have LOTS to learn obv). I'm all about cooperation, but I think it would work better if none of it were coerced.

And you know, it happens everyday, even in the 'capitalistic' society we live. I share food and beer w/my roommate. We aren't trying to beat each other at anything, it works well to share. No one keeps track of who has shared more.

D Aziz is obviously new to the area.

But as for this:

For one business to prosper, another has to suffer or die. That's capitalism

Not true whatsover Milo. Think that one through.

The other factors would be rather important, particularly what that "extra wealth" actually means and buys. If it's just enough to keep up with a mortgage and bills, then that goes to exactly the problem - we work longer hours for more money just to survive, compared to the rest of the world. There has to be a reason we work so much more than, say, Germans, but don't get anything out of it.

It implies that stay at home parents aren't bringing in income, and that families were still surviving on that. It also implies that stay at home parents are spending time, even "working," with their family/kids (which is the other half of worries about working too long, aside from 'no leisure time').

And as for the argument that people who've done more training deserve more money, that's crazy too. Their reward is to have a better job. If there did turn out to be jobs no-one would do, then those jobs could get more money. But I reckon it would turn out that eg fire fighters AND toilet cleaners would get the highest wages. And that would be fair. I know this is utopian, but we are talking in abstractions here, so why not raise the possibility? As an economist once said, capitalism has only been around for a couple of hundred years, a brief period, so we can probably look forward to something else.

As in as the wealth is increased in America, our economy relies on cheap labor in other countries to maintain the stream of cheap goods, so the level of poverty we may have more or less abolished from the United States has just been displaced elsewhere.

Then christhamrin mentioned that, "you could say they are where we were 100 or whenever years ago economically and hopefully will get to where we are faster than it took us." And then you start talking about sub-saharan africa. Sub-Saharan Africa plays an almost non-existant role when it comes to merchandise trade with the United States. You can argue that their being "left out" accounts for their economic situation, but where does that leave your argument that we're exporting misery to other parts of the globe?

On what planet do you live where we don't "get anything out of it?"

Have economists gotten purchasing power parity all wrong? How can Per Capita GDP PPP in the US be $36,300 and in Germany be $26,200 and you still say we're not "getting aything out of it?"

I don't see it. How does capitalism work "for everybody"? Not everyone can be a capitalist. Not everyone can be a skilled worker. Someone has to have the shit jobs. Someone has to be unemployed to control inflation.

There's no scenario in capitalist economics where everyone wins.

Ok, I do think there has been a net positive effect for humanity. I'd rather have a shit job in a factory than one being a subsistence farmer. Maybe I can save a little money and my kids can have a better life.
Can they? Are children of sweatshop workers in Malaysia or China really making leaps and bounds toward a better life? Are children dying of AIDs in Africa making that progress?

But being a subsistence farmer, at least you have something that's yours - the land, what you can make on it. As a factory worker, you've got nothing. I'm not one of those wackos who wants to go back to subsistence farming, but the last 200 years for humanity might have eased the pains of Dickensian England, but now it's just Dickensian Calcutta or Malaysia or wherever.

I only think capitalism is the best thing we got, I don't think its perfect. I wouldn't characterize our society as based purely on competition.
You're right. That's what has kept capitalism afloat in the past hundred years. Social democracy and the liberalization of capitalism have made it palatable to those people in which it's practiced. There exists a basic level of human dignity for most, a social safety net of some sort for people in the developed world.

(This is why it's ridiculous to accuse the New Deal of being 'socialist' as I've often seen - the fuckin' thing saved capitalism and accomplished nothing in the way of 'socialist' ideas.)

But that's just for the developed world - we've made things worse for the rest of the globe in the pursuit of our own care and happiness. Thus no net positive for humanity.

And under capitalism, I've seen no route where there can be one. How can capitalism create a world where everyone is on equal footing? Or do capitalists just have to cut bait and decide that everyone left behind is just SOL? Is it not important that billions have to suffer for our freedoms and privileges?

And Don, how is that wrong? How does capitalism exist without natural selection? One company beats the other, one company absorbs the other. Always in competition - and there is no competition without winners and losers. If you're all striving for the same goal without it, we have another word for that...

***

I wasn't the first one to mention sub-Saharan Africa, Stuart. They're just one place, but we do impact them - the cost of AIDs medication for instance. In order to protect American profits, we make it difficult or impossible for the millions who need it to get adequate care.

Let's look at maquiladoras in Mexico, or Coke factories in Colombia or Nike or Wal-Mart or anywhere else in the world where our cheap products - those things that allow us to keep our cost of living reasonably cheap for basic necessities.

We do export our poverty. We no longer have (as many) sweatshops without safety or labor regulations in the US, so they've moved elsewhere. What did the people of Nike's Malaysian sweatshops do before? They existed before, they had to survive somehow, right? It's obviously more complicated than simply "capitalism done it" - but capitalism has been tied into every situation that created the need for people in the developing world to flock to cities and low-wage factory work, from European/American-colonialism on.

Have economists gotten purchasing power parity all wrong? How can Per Capita GDP PPP in the US be $36,300 and in Germany be $26,200 and you still say we're not "getting aything out of it?"
Yes, because part of our purchasing power is healthcare, education, public transportation infrastructure, etc.. Basic needs that are covered under German social democracy.

And exactly what I said - what does the extra "purchasing power" get us? What do we gain out of it? What are Germans missing out on in their nine extra weeks every year that we have (aside from child poverty and debt)?

What's your point? Americans have many luxuries? Yes. We do. But in 1960, most kids didn't have jobs. Most two parent families didn't have two jobs. They didn't have to travel as far for necessities. A family of four could get away with one car. That luxury doesn't exist in 2004.

What you don't seem to contest is that we're working longer hours. For what?
Why are our working hours going up in the age of automation? Do you think that's a good thing - do you think it could be tied other problems we face, especially with education and children?

Slowly, not in leaps and bounds. The AIDs thing is obv. a red herring.

How can capitalism create a world where everyone is on equal footing? Is it not important that billions have to suffer for our freedoms and privileges?

I am assuming that all these peasants are flocking to cities because it is in their best interests. Do I like it? No, its terrible I wish there was nio suffering in the world, but I also realize this is unlikely AND think the best way to lessen suffering is through 'capitalism'.

but I do think there is a difference between modern capitalism and what I'd prefer which is something like capitalism, but more decentralized, etc. ie I think all these large corporations (many of which have sweat shops and all) are propped up by the state and wouldn't be as prevalent if there weren't such a huge impersonal thing as the state. but to answer your question, how can ANY society create something where evrryoneis on equal footing? Its completely unrealistic. Also for those of you that are fans of socialism please read this at your leisure: http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/library/anarchismEncyBrit.htm

I am done with this thread, its been real.

And how are children of sweathshop workers moving forward? Did I miss a spike in the number of college graduates from Nike U?

christhamrin said, "Obv. Africa is probably worse off," citing Africa as a place that has not been making great progress in terms of standards of living and so forth.

To which you replied, "The thing about capitalism is that it's impossible, by its own rules, for everyone to be a winner. Someone has to lose. So while even the poorest American might be 'better off' we've just shipped our misery to other parts of the globe, where we can't see it."

Now I can understand how we're "shipping our misery" in terms of, as I said, relying on cheap labor in shitty conditions in China and various other countries to maintain the stream of ever-cheaper merchandise. But you're the one who is suggesting that we're shipping our misery to Africa. "How," I ask, "Africa plays almost no role in merchandise trade with America." Your answer is, "we do impact them - the cost of AIDs medication for instance." Now, I agree that the cost of AIDS medication has an impact on an African AIDS epidemic. But please do explain to me how their need for drugs researched and produced by capitalist pharmaceutical companies, drugs that would not exist without the capitalist system, drugs that probably wouldn't exist had the AIDS epidemic never escaped Africa via planes and ships invented, built, paid-for and operated by capitalists, is an example of OUR exporting misery TO THEM.

Who the hell do you think pays for all that? "Social democracy" is not some joyous system that exists separate from a country's GDP. Per capita GDP PPP is a price-equalized measure of the total market values of goods and services by produced by workers and capital within the year. You're acting like it's "Average per-person take-home pay," which is NOT how it works.

Did it take capitalism to eradicate smallpox? Is it taking capitalism to eradicate polio today? No, of course not. Drugs can be created just as readily by the state as by corporations out for a profit. The difference is that those created by the state will help more people.

We're exporting our misery because our concerns are with corporate profits over human suffering (cf. Al Gore working on pharmaceutical companies' behalf in South Africa).

Who the hell do you think pays for all that? "Social democracy" is not some joyous system that exists separate from a country's GDP. Per capita GDP PPP is a price-equalized measure of the total market values of goods and services by produced by workers and capital within the year. You're acting like it's "Average per-person take-home pay," which is NOT how it works.
Right, in other words, it doesn't deal with what people need or desire, or what it takes to purchase them, or anything else. Which is why I haven't been sure why you chose to concentrate on it to start with.

But it does take into account the amount that the government of a social democracy taxes and spends. If I'm in Germany or Sweden, I "make" less, but I receive back more, in the way of education, healthcare, mass transit, other social welfare amenities.

Do you disagree?

Wrong, wrong, wrong. GDP is the TOTAL VALUE of GOOD AND SERVICES generated by PEOPLE AND CAPITAL within a YEAR. This includes HEALTH CARE whether it's private or public, all levels of EDUCATION, bus rides whether they're free yellow ones or $.50 city ones, FOOD STAMPS, GOV'MENT CHEESE, everything that's BOUGHT and SOLD whether by the GOVERNMENT or the PRIVATE SECTOR.

If the per capita GDP PPP in America is 38% higher than the per capita GDP PPP of Germany - AND IT IS - then that means the total value of all those goods and services, divided by the TOTAL number of human beings in the country - is 38% higher. So the fair market value of the goods and services consumed and enjoyed by the average American is 138% the value of the German's goods and services. PERIOD.

Milo re China and everyone winning,isnt it hard to argue the hard data on the millions who no longer starve to death/live in absolute poverty because of the reforms... even if the gap is wider?

You are assuming that the market/economy is static and finite, which even in the most specialized situation is incredibly rare.

Drugs can be created just as readily by the state as by corporations out for a profit.
Where is the empirical evidence of this?

If it turns out that the international community sanctions the free use of these drugs made by other companies so that the original company gets no profit, then that's tough. Entrepreneurs are always talking about how they take risks!
No entrepreneur would consider this a risk worth pursuing.

Do you disagree?

I agree this might be true for you but maybe not for me (and that's just from a purely financial perspective, let alone my aversion to greater coercion by the state.)

But certainly, in a world market that does not necessarily share the same socioeconomic policies as Germany or Sweden, the result is that it comparatively hinders long term growth for those two countries in economic competition with other more free economies.

i also like countries that feel safe, and where there isnt a feeling of danger in many parts of town

Taxes paid to the government are then SPENT. So the money that goes to the government as taxes goes back to companies, CEOs and individuals, it doesn't build up in some mythical government coffer. In fact, in Bush's American, I'm willing to be that D. Aziz's taxes (not that he pays any) end up in the pockets of just the capitalist business leaders and their corporations (Halliburton, anyone?) who D. Aziz so envies.

Yes Markelby, money is fluid within the economy. It's always being "spent."

But the argument is over efficiency, coercion, and the resulting political power from that coercion.

Privatising everything ensures no other outcome than a strange new feudalism where it matters who your daddy is.

As opposed to what other socio-economic system?

Oh, Bert!

Sure.

I know very few people who can say that they have it better than their middle-class, property-owning, baby boom parents, who are then forced to step in and help us on a ladder that other boomers keep trying to dismantle piece by piece, having climbed it.

First, the evidence you relate is anecdotal and wildy subjective (but not necessarily irrelevant to your worldview, so it's not irrational. Just highly limited.) Secondly, I have no idea what ladder it is you refer to and feel it would be presumptious of me to comment on it. That said, the freer the economic ladder, the more easily ascended. If you want to further discuss your first sentence, elaborate a little and I would be happy to opine.

That would be my preference. It is our moral obligation as individuals to redistribute our wealth.

But even if it is controlling or ultimately controlling, this does not get the mechanisms of capitalism off the hook vis a vis coercion. Pointing the finger constantly at the state is a cheap trick for diverting attention from the coercive techniques of capitalism.

Privatised redistribution - if that means individuals giving to charity - is impractical and socially irresponsible. It is impractical because charitable donations are given for private, subjective reasons, rather than on the basis of need. It is a sort of beauty contest of need. If a society is going to redistribute its wealth fairly and justly then this cannot be achieved simply by asking people to give to whatever charitable fund they choose. What happens to unpopular but necessary needs? The market is not a good regulator of need. What would happen, for instance, if the police and defense were not popular enough to get the funding they need? (Or would you not provide for them privately in this way?) How do you decide which services are funded by the state and which are to be funded privately? If the question hangs on what is considered to be essential for the good of the nation, then why would healthcare be out, for instance, and defense in?

that's because most people don't see the state as coercive.

The entity is out of control to anyone except those who hold political power. The voting power afforded to citizens (in the US) is relatively insignificant when compared to the amount of power wielded on their behalf.

I said capitalist pharma companies in a capitalist system. I didn't say every product was capitalist, nor did I argue that our system is purely capitalist, or even that it should be. I was responding to milo's criticism of the inherent structure of the system in which he cited expensive AIDS drugs as his primary African example. You can argue that people are mean or people are greedy or companies should share their property or give it away all you want, but AIDS drugs being expensive to Africans is a TERRIBLE critique of capitalism.

do you mean, it is an unjustified criticism of capitalism, or it is a critique that shows capitalism to be terrible (or at least a terrible system for dealing with AIDS in Africa)?

I agree with the latter.

Privatised redistribution [...] is impractical because charitable donations are given for private, subjective reasons, rather than on the basis of need.

Yeah ok, but how is public redistribution any different? Any decisions on where it goes are just as arbitrary and not based on need (I can't see how anyone could properly calculate need).

What would happen, for instance, if the police and defense were not popular enough to get the funding they need?

This is where some imagination is necessary. When I was a 12 my friends and I were discussing how we would run our ideal societies and I mentioned there would be no need for any police or military and they thought I was foolish. For some reason I had this almost innate belief that it was so (no one had ever told me as much) - don't know what this means exactly.

Some libertarians argue for a privatized police force, anarchists would reject them altogether. I lean towards siding w/the anarchists being verry Buddha-like and rejecting any retribution (and authority). The only flaw I see is w/sex offenders - I don' t know what to do in that regard (the temptation to cut off their nuts and/or heads is always a tough thing to avoid being tempted by) though the crime itself might be less frequent in a freer society.

Your bizarre conceptions of social bonds and needs are bizarre to me.

Show me a law that has ever made anyone equal w/anyone else. The very idea that there are laws naturally grant lawmakers power making lawmakers and non law makers unequal.

ok.

example 1: the abolition of slavery

example 2: votes for women

do you need me to go on?

this doesn't lead anywhere because it contributes nothing. Tell me what your problem is or offer me an alternative conception of law or an alternative vision of a society without law that happens to retain a liveable social framework.

first off: laws don't belong to individuals, but to the society - so no laws are my laws.

secondly: your body is protected from the incursions of others by law. Take the law away and your body is much more vulnerable than it is at present.

ok. example 1: the abolition of slavery example 2: votes for women do you need me to go on?

I don't think these laws made women and black folks equal. First they were 'equal' to begin with in that they obv. are human beings like the rest of us and all that. Or even after that laws they still suffered from discrimination.

our bizarre conceptions of social bonds and needs are bizarre to me.

this doesn't lead anywhere because it contributes nothing.

yeah, well...thats a tautology isn't it? to be fair you didn't bother explaining anything either. To be honest, I felt relieved because explaining things is hard.

I won't even bother w/the last one but it was cute that you tried to disagree w/the empty bumpersticker slogan I spouted off.

Even if we accept some airy fairy notion of equality (all human beings are equal despite being completely unequal in practice) this doesn't go against the point I had made, and which you disputed, that laws are not exclusively negative but may establish positive social relations.

Even if we accept some airy fairy notion of equality

So now you are a homophobe?

christhamrin, aren't you splitting hairs between [blah blah blah]

Yep. I was doing so in a very likely poor attempt to display my distrust of the wonders of laws. Certainly laws always have scads of unintentional consequences and to measure their supposed 'positive'ity is at best subjective and at worst an impossibility.

But this one is very naughty of you:

Certainly laws always have scads of unintentional consequences and to measure their supposed 'positive'ity is at best subjective and at worst an impossibility.

You see, you spoke of laws as if they were exclusively coercive and so I corrected you by pointing out that laws can be positive too. Now if you attack my position as naively positive, this is because you have conveniently forgotten that my point related to you naively negative account. Mine was never an exclusively positive account of law or the state - I recognise that it is coercive too. I simply made the point that your view of an exclusively coercive State neither fits the facts nor is fully rounded enough to account for what the State actually does or can do.

If you have to reduce people's arguments to one-dimensional positions in order to make your own arguments stick, then I suggest you have a closer look at the positions you are taking.

I do think law is wholly coercive, yes, and you haven't done anything to convince me otherwise. You haven't once even stated any kind of fact (nor logic besides whatever your own eternal, internal logic is) and besides I don't believe in such a thing as facts. I am sorry my account of the StAtE is too squared off for you, but thats the way the geometry is calculated.

You know, we all think we are brilliant geniuses and if only the world would just understand! We could set everything straight with our right-mindedness and cure polio etc. etc. Continually talking past each other, however, seems to have put this at an impasse. I'd go re-distribute some of my money, but I still have to pay my bills this month.

Mr. Hamrin, are you in fact posting from a small town in Minnesota?

Its true! Don't let them take me away!

So like I said, after further clarification, I am seriously done w/the thread and I'd advise everyone else to walk away slowly, but don't turn yr backs!

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092903A.html

two-thirds of tax goes to pay for Social Security, education, and health care

but what do you expect? That is what tax is largely for!

If there were no homosexuals in Britain, the Government would have to invent some. In fact, it turns out that this is pretty much what they have done.

Not necessarily; I just thought it was germaine and rather novel given the thread.

It leaves a lot of important questions open and fails to address exactly how this privatised welfare sector (hospitals, schools, etc) will provide quality services for everyone regardless of ability to pay

This kind of makes me think you didn't even read the article very thoroughly.

It's no good arguing that this proposal will give people more money in their pockets and so everyone will be able to afford decent education and decent healthcare - markets don't work like that.

how do markets work, exactly?

The cost of healthcare will rise if their are more consumers than there are services.

Not necessarily.

Ultimately, if you treat the welfare sector as a market then you will inevitably benefit the rich and punish the poor.

How?

Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA)
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/financialhelp/ema/

The Govt in England are going to pay kids ! in 16 + post compulsory education [6th form/FE coleges etc]

If your household income is: [this money is paid directly into student accounts]
up to £19,630 per year you get £30 per week
£19,631 - £24,030 per year you get £20 a week
£24,031 - £30,000 per year you get £10 a week

And you could also get a bonus of £100 in January and July -and again in October if you come back for a second year. Bonuses depend on the progress you make with your course.

Why are the govt introducing these allowances? and doing the direct opposite for 18 + uni/ HE sector:

i.e Labour continued with Tory idea of Student Loans
and introduced the concept of tuition fees

Is it right these allowances are means tested? what about the family with household income just above 30K they pay the texes but get no benefits

Is the £30 allowance over generous? for a 16 year old

Surely the students that need more help from the Govt are the 18 + HE sector? not the 6th Form/ FE sector?

discuss.

EMAs are Urgent & Key for getting non-traditional learners to stay on at 16, people who have no history of further or higher education in their family. they are means-tested but have been piloted for the last 3 or 4 years in various deprived areas up and down the country, so they've had a chance to work out what the best option is. with any means-tested benefit you can argue that those just above the threshold lose out, but you've got to have a threshold somewhere.

also HE can go take a running jump, it's at level 2 and level 3 that the country needs more skilled people, not churning out more generations of english graduates (sorry that's a bit excessive, but you know what i mean). isn't giving someone from a deprived background a chance to live up to their potential more important than giving the middle-classes the sop of free degrees?

(martian, you've backed a loser here btw, i could go on but i'm too full of GIANT YORKSHIRE PUD at the mo)

(alsoalso, more importantly, they are looking to introduce a similar scheme for adults without level 3 (a-level level) quals, which is even more U&K)

I am also surprised that is being introduced with hardly any media comment/ debate - will this come next week?

x-post I actually agree with the Lib Democrats viewpoint of scrapping tuition fees and re-introducing student grants - funded by introducing a top band tax rate of 50 % for over 100K. That's redistribution of wealth.

i don't know this for sure, but i wonder if the bands are related to the working family tax credit bands? also in the pilots they tried various different amounts, and that's why they settled on £30.

i assume it's because the people who drive the news (both jounros and politicians) have no experience of the sector having gone public school/grammar straight to university, "tecs" being for the thick kids, and FE policy isn't a vote winner or loser in terms of "worcester woman" (or whatever we're calling floating voters this year)

i don't suppose you've heard about the skills strategy or success for all either

i wasn't implying any ignorance on your behalf, merely that these rather major education policies get zero airtime (to the point where the chair of the education select committee had to DEMAND that discussions on the skills strategy be given airtime on BBC parliament, only days after they'd been showing non-stop HE debate).

also i realise this has absolutley nothing to do with the rest of the thread, but having read the last 50 posts up there, i don't think that's necesarily a bad thing...

http://www.letpandasdie.com/

Should there be any limit to how filthy rich you can get if you're not breaking any laws?

Do we have any reason to complain about drug companies, Microsoft, oil companies or any obscenely rich bastard who spends every last dime on himself while taking advantage of every tax deduction he can?

I remember this thread.

Theoretically money is a store of value so as long as the company is creating something of value it makes no sense to complain about how much money they make. That's given a perfect market of course, so there are problems.

As far as spending every last dime on themselves, you are putting Microsoft here for what? Don't they give a lot to charity?

The only harm I see in unlimited wealth accumulation is unlimited power accumulation. Otherwise, I don't care how rich and selfish other people are. I do believe in progressive taxation though, and I believe in social welfare programs and the public good, and I suppose that has some kind of indirect redistribution built in to it.

As far as spending every last dime on themselves, you are putting Microsoft here for what? Don't they give a lot to charity?

Because people complain about them. That is all. I tried to come up with generic things people complain about. Had I said "Nike" you could easily say, "SLAVE CHILD LABOR!" so I did not say "Nike."

HI DERE
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2005/05/23/PH2005052301719.jpg

Is he singing the Song of the Vajra?

"Do we have any reason to complain about drug companies, Microsoft, oil companies or any obscenely rich bastard who spends every last dime on himself while taking advantage of every tax deduction he can?"

In a word, NO.

I mean, we can complain all we want. But if our 'reason' is merely our own lack of resources, lack of ambition, or plain old bad luck - I say stop whining and be grateful you don't live in Cuba.

Grateful to whom? Just everyone in general you meet?

Or like God and stuff?

Hmmm...Founding fathers? Parents? God? Whatever you like. That's not really the point.

I need to know what I'm doing here alright?

https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/abigail-disney-has-more-money-than-shell-ever-spend.html

we lived in a big enough house that we would always get two doorbells on Halloween — people would ring the front and the back thinking it was two houses. But again, it wasn’t lavish. There weren’t private airplanes and things like that until I got older.

This is the weird thing about my life: I am usually excited to meet someone in direct disproportion to how excited they are to meet me. I’m kind of a lefty, New York City, Manhattan, pointy-headed intellectual type.

When I meet people, I have an unfair advantage in being able to make them laugh because all I have to do is make a joke about Tinkerbell or Cinderella, and they love you for it. In some cases, all I have to do is not be a huge asshole. It’s like people think you’ll come in on a chariot or something. Within about an hour, invariably, they’ll say, “Oh my God, you’re so down to Earth.”

Did you have a moment in your life when things started getting lavish and you realized, “Oh, I’m super rich”?
When I went off to college, Michael Eisner came in and reinvigorated the company, and then the stock price, which was basically my family’s entire net worth, was ten times, 20 times, 50 times what it had been when I was growing up. So all of the sudden, we went from being comfortable, upper-middle-class people to suddenly my dad had a private jet.

if I were queen of the world, I would pass a law against private jets, because they enable you to get around a certain reality. You don’t have to go through an airport terminal, you don’t have to interact, you don’t have to be patient, you don’t have to be uncomfortable. These are the things that remind us we’re human.

Are you cautious with money?
You know, I’m not. I’m 59, and now that I’ve been living in the world on my own and managing my own money for a while, I have developed the opposite view of almost everything that my parents did. I started giving money away in my 20s, and my parents thought that was crazy. But it was mine to give. Luckily, my grandfather gave us money directly, which was great because I never had to go to my parents and ask for anything. I was totally independent at 21. So I started giving money away. Within a couple of years I was giving away more money than my parents, who had much more money that I had, which they told me was embarrassing to them.

I spent most of my 20s in graduate school, and graduate school is where people shame you for having money.

-----

classic

"I was totally independent at 21."