America's aversion to socialism ?

[maine75man]

You didn't need to specify a Government loan - you're on Medicaid, food stamps, and unemployment - you obviously don't have the cash to start a business and would need assistance to engage a start up.

my bold
If you aren't "really" considering it - why insert it into the discussion - that could be described a troll.

Well as I'm sure more than one person guessed I inserted my comment about leaving school and becoming a drug dealer (albeit a nominally state sanctioned one) to parody your're rather IMO silly and inflammatory post about drug dealers receiving government benefits.

This seems a convenient time to point out we have a very small class of entrepreneurs in the US that have a public safety net available - they are the drug dealers standing on the corner that don't have any legal means of support. Please label this entire post IMO - and note this is nothing more than an unintended consequence in that these people are not required to seek work while on public assistance. Again - IMO - for the entire post and I stipulated in bold a very small class.

In short I was being facetious.

Was is the best possible response? maybe not. I'm afraid that I was offended enough that my own reaction was a bit emotional.

Really if you're trying to say that those who support these programs are okay with the idea of drug dealers claiming benefits then I suggest you recheck the definition of a strawman argument.

 

[maine75man]

What tactics Ivan?

The young lady in the video celebrated her support of the President, explained how his programs have benefited her, and made it clear she's glad someone else will continue to go to work to pay for it. The re-distribution of wealth is clearly working from her perspective - it's only fair that we should hear from recipients.

I would have posted this in the Warren Buffet thread - but she didn't specify who should pay for her benefits - nothing about "rich" people specifically.

The fact you put forth this woman's video as some sort of fair representation of the sort of people who receive benefits and/or support the president is deeply offensive. This again is a textbook case of a strawman argument.

 

[Zarqon]

I form the "socialism = bad" mental link because of the whole 40% personal taxes and ...

I see this point a lot, but I feel it's very misleading. What actually matters in the end to most people is not what the tax percentage is, but rather "how much money do I have left for my leisure when all necessary things are paid".

In the US you might have lower taxes, but on the other hand you have to spend a lot of money on things like private health insurance and college tuition fees, which are both 100% free in social democratic countries like sweden.

 

[russ_watters]

In the US you might have lower taxes, but on the other hand you have to spend a lot of money on things like private health insurance and college tuition fees, which are both 100% free in social democratic countries like sweden.

Free? Really? That tells me a lot about the mindset of people who favor socialistic policies and informs to part of my aversion to it. Such things are only free insofar as someone else [in the US: me] is forced to pay for them.

 

[MarcoD]

Free? Really? That tells me a lot about the mindset of people who favor socialistic policies and informs to my aversion to it. Such things are only free insofar as someone else [in the US: me] is forced to pay for them.

The poster must have meant: free as in paid by the public. Hardly anyone buys into the class struggle of Marx anymore, similarly, hardly anyone buys into free-market ideologies anymore.

If you want to debate capitalism vs socialism, you're probably better off using the terms 'demand-driven' and 'supply-driven' economies, and comparing these on their own merits.

 

[WhoWee]

The fact you put forth this woman's video as some sort of fair representation of the sort of people who receive benefits and/or support the president is deeply offensive. This again is a textbook case of a strawman argument.

The woman in the video gave a heartfelt testimony to her approval of the healthcare legislation. I appreciate her honesty and accept she is deeply patriotic. She loves the President and her country. Further, she is a firm believer in redistribution. In the context of this thread (and although I never made the claim) - why isn't this a fair representation? Also, aside from your representation that you're on Medicare (then opps it's actually Medicaid), you paid $7.99 per pound for steak and that you might become a legal pot grower because if you fail there's a safety net to catch you (but that you're very responsible with coupons) - we don't have any other examples to review - do we?

Btw - this video has received 928,311 hits. The video polls viewers with "like" and "dislike" choices - the results of the poll are 64.8% "Like" (2944 like vs 1600 dislike).

 

[russ_watters]

The poster must have meant: free as in paid by the public.

Just a freudian slip then?

Hardly anyone buys into the class struggle of Marx anymore, similarly….

Actually, it appears to me that that is the primary driver of American politics today!

 

[MarcoD]

Just a freudian slip then?

Nah, just debating semantics. Of course, when everything is paid by the public, people experience it as 'free.' Well, it isn't, but most of them know that too. It's just a word.

At the same time, you are incorrect in assuming that the opposite by necessity is more fair. Now, you just end up paying it directly through your insurance, instead of taxes. Does it really matter that much? IMO, you're probably just paying too much.

Actually, it appears to me that that is the primary driver of American politics today!

Irrelevant. All politicians are demagogues who ride the opportunistic wave. What else do you expect? All the political humbug is just there for show on your TV. I couldn't care less.

If you want to discuss this stuff, you just need a systems engineering perspective to economies.

 

[WhoWee]

Here's a researched description of what it means to be poor in America.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america

"As the table shows, some 46 percent of poor households own their own home. The typical home owned by the poor is a threebedroom house with oneandahalf baths. It has a garage or carport and a porch or patio and is located on a halfacre lot. The house was constructed in 1967 and is in good repair. The median value of homes owned by poor households was $86,600 in 2001 or 70 percent of the median value of all homes owned in the United States.5
Some 73 percent of poor households own a car or truck; nearly a third own two or more cars or trucks. Over threequarters have air conditioning; by contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the general U.S. population had air conditioning. Nearly threequarters of poor households own microwaves; a third have automatic dishwashers.
Poor households are wellequipped with modern entertainment technology. It should come as no surprise that nearly all (97 percent) poor households have color TVs, but more than half actually own two or more color televisions. Onequarter own largescreen televisions, 78 percent have a VCR or DVD player, and almost twothirds have cable or satellite TV reception. Some 58 percent own a stereo. More than a third have telephone answering machines, while a quarter have personal computers. While these numbers do not suggest lives of luxury, they are notably different from conventional images of poverty."

 

[MarcoD]

Here's a researched description of what it means to be poor in America.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america

"As the table shows, some 46 percent of poor households own their own home. The typical home owned by the poor is a threebedroom house with oneandahalf baths. It has a garage or carport and a porch or patio and is located on a halfacre lot. The house was constructed in 1967 and is in good repair. The median value of homes owned by poor households was $86,600 in 2001 or 70 percent of the median value of all homes owned in the United States.5
Some 73 percent of poor households own a car or truck; nearly a third own two or more cars or trucks. Over threequarters have air conditioning; by contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the general U.S. population had air conditioning. Nearly threequarters of poor households own microwaves; a third have automatic dishwashers.
Poor households are wellequipped with modern entertainment technology. It should come as no surprise that nearly all (97 percent) poor households have color TVs, but more than half actually own two or more color televisions. Onequarter own largescreen televisions, 78 percent have a VCR or DVD player, and almost twothirds have cable or satellite TV reception. Some 58 percent own a stereo. More than a third have telephone answering machines, while a quarter have personal computers. While these numbers do not suggest lives of luxury, they are notably different from conventional images of poverty."

According to the link, these are Januari 2004 numbers; i.e., four years before the credit crunch. What is the percentage of people who lost their homes or pensions after 2008? Guess stuff looks a whole lot different by now.

 

[WhoWee]

According to the link, these are Januari 2004 numbers; i.e., four years before the credit crunch. What is the percentage of people who lost their homes or pensions after 2008? Guess stuff looks a whole lot different by now.

Have a significant number of persons lost their pensions since President Obama was elected in 2008?

 

[Zarqon]

Free? Really? That tells me a lot about the mindset of people who favor socialistic policies and informs to part of my aversion to it. Such things are only free insofar as someone else [in the US: me] is forced to pay for them.

I'm not entirely sure what you thought I meant, but what I did mean was that you pay nothing at the particular point you need to go to the hospital (for example if you need surgery or whatever). Of course the whole thing has to be funded from somewhere and it's funded by the taxes naturally.

My original point was just that one cannot compare high taxes in one country directly to low taxes in another country and from that claim that the lower tax situation would always leave you with more money "after the bills are paid". That is simply not a fair comparison when the people in the low tax level country has to pay additionally for things like medical treatment and college tuition, which are already included in the taxes in the high tax country.

 

[maine75man]

Free? Really? That tells me a lot about the mindset of people who favor socialistic policies and informs to part of my aversion to it. Such things are only free insofar as someone else [in the US: me] is forced to pay for them.

Well I believe the stance of many people who favor what you refer to as "socialistic policies" would say that by paying for these programs in your taxes you actually save money in the long run. This my seem counter intuitive but it happens in free market capitalism as well. A good example is product packaging.

Most products in our society come with some form of packaging whether your talking granola bars or refrigerators. Often people decry this packaging as excessive or unnecessary (and in some cases it is) They realize the cost for the packaging is part of the retail price, and wonder why they should pay for all that wasted material they don't use. Companies do put it there for a reason. Good packaging makes a product easier to ship, store, and merchandise. It saves producers and retailers money and that in turn means they can offer the product for less then it could be offered without packaging. In essence packaging's inclusion free or better for all involved.

Government programs are similar IMO. They are government expenditures but their existence can save the government from spending elsewhere and/or it can lower the general cost of living/cost of doing business for the taxpayers. Either way done correctly a program should save more money then it costs.

The problem America has is to many people see government spending as either always bad or always good. When each program should be honestly evaluated on it's own merits.

 

[maine75man]

The woman in the video gave a heartfelt testimony to her approval of the healthcare legislation. I appreciate her honesty and accept she is deeply patriotic. She loves the President and her country. Further, she is a firm believer in redistribution. In the context of this thread (and although I never made the claim) - why isn't this a fair representation?

Yes but what is your claim? Why did you post the link? How does it support your position?

Also, aside from your representation that you're on Medicare (then opps it's actually Medicaid), you paid $7.99 per pound for steak and that you might become a legal pot grower because if you fail there's a safety net to catch you (but that you're very responsible with coupons) - we don't have any other examples to review - do we?

I believe all my posts have added to this discussion. Though I admit my (perhaps) failed attempt at humor in response to what I considered your inflammatory drug dealer post was not my finest hour. I feel I still explained and defended my post when challenged.

 

[WhoWee]

Ye
I believe all my posts have added to this discussion. Though I admit my (perhaps) failed attempt at humor in response to what I considered your inflammatory drug dealer post was not my finest hour. I feel I still explained and defended my post when challenged.

My "inflammatory drug dealer post"? Do you mean this post?

"This seems a convenient time to point out we have a very small class of entrepreneurs in the US that have a public safety net available - they are the drug dealers standing on the corner that don't have any legal means of support. Please label this entire post IMO - and note this is nothing more than an unintended consequence in that these people are not required to seek work while on public assistance. Again - IMO - for the entire post and I stipulated in bold a very small class."

Was I incorrect or even unfair in my description of this very small class of persons? I've never read any reports of street corner drug dealers paying their fair share of state or federal income tax or Social Security/FUTA/SUTA/Medicare - have you?

 

[maine75man]

My "inflammatory drug dealer post"? Do you mean this post?

"This seems a convenient time to point out we have a very small class of entrepreneurs in the US that have a public safety net available - they are the drug dealers standing on the corner that don't have any legal means of support. Please label this entire post IMO - and note this is nothing more than an unintended consequence in that these people are not required to seek work while on public assistance. Again - IMO - for the entire post and I stipulated in bold a very small class."

Was I incorrect or even unfair in my description of this very small class of persons? I've never read any reports of street corner drug dealers paying their fair share of state or federal income tax or Social Security/FUTA/SUTA/Medicare - have you?

Yes but what was your reason for posting this you made no claims or conclusions as to how this supports your position. Not all posts have to have a reason but the difference between a troll a true contributor to the discussion is that a true contributor can give a reason when challenged. Otherwise other readers are just left to assume the worst.

Furthermore if you feel reiterating my status somehow shames me or revels my positions to be suspect. You should know my view on social services hasn't changed radically in the last few years. It was the same when I was working 50+ hrs a week with employer provided benefits.Nor did it change when I was working part-time without any health benefits to supplement my unemployment and stay in the workforce or now that I'm going to school full-time, getting a 4.0, and state benefits.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes but what was your reason for posting this you made no claims or conclusions as to how this supports your position. Not all posts have to have a reason but the difference between a troll a true contributor to the discussion is that a true contributor can give a reason when challenged. Otherwise other readers are just left to assume the worst.

Furthermore if you feel reiterating my status somehow shames me or revels my positions to be suspect. You should know my view on social services hasn't changed radically in the last few years. It was the same when I was working 50+ hrs a week with employer provided benefits. When I was working part-time without any health benefits to supplement my unemployment and stay in the workforce or now that I'm going to school full-time, getting a 4.0, and state benefits.

Did you read my post?
"Originally Posted by WhoWee
My "inflammatory drug dealer post"? Do you mean this post?

"This seems a convenient time to point out we have a very small class of entrepreneurs in the US that have a public safety net available - they are the drug dealers standing on the corner that don't have any legal means of support. Please label this entire post IMO - and note this is nothing more than an unintended consequence in that these people are not required to seek work while on public assistance. Again - IMO - for the entire post and I stipulated in bold a very small class."

Was I incorrect or even unfair in my description of this very small class of persons? I've never read any reports of street corner drug dealers paying their fair share of state or federal income tax or Social Security/FUTA/SUTA/Medicare - have you?"

How is your "status" relevant to my post? As for 'claims or conclusions' - I gave an example of "a very small class of entrepreneurs in the US that have a public safety net available". This was in response to a comment about a safety net to encourage people to take business risks.

 

[maine75man]

Did you read my post?
"Originally Posted by WhoWee
My "inflammatory drug dealer post"? Do you mean this post?

"This seems a convenient time to point out we have a very small class of entrepreneurs in the US that have a public safety net available - they are the drug dealers standing on the corner that don't have any legal means of support. Please label this entire post IMO - and note this is nothing more than an unintended consequence in that these people are not required to seek work while on public assistance. Again - IMO - for the entire post and I stipulated in bold a very small class."

Was I incorrect or even unfair in my description of this very small class of persons?

Well I can agree it's a very small class of people.

I've never read any reports of street corner drug dealers paying their fair share of state or federal income tax or Social Security/FUTA/SUTA/Medicare - have you?"

Well I have read Superfreakanomics by Levitt and Dubnar which I believe does reference a study that shows that most street level drug dealers actually make well below minimum wage so I guess on that acount they don't owe a lot of taxes.

How is your "status" relevant to my post?

Well your the one who keeps repeating it so it must be important to you. (For future reference if you are going to quote me directly I would prefer you leave it in the format that allows those interested to link back to the OP as I have done for you here. That let's people look at the post in it's original context if they so choose.)

As for 'claims or conclusions' - I gave an example of "a very small class of entrepreneurs in the US that have a public safety net available". This was in response to a comment about a safety net to encourage people to take business risks.

So was it a supporting statement or where you refuting my position somehow. How does the actions of what both we agree is a very small number of people relevant to my position.

 

[DoggerDan]

Well I have read Superfreakanomics by Levitt and Dubnar which I believe does reference a study that shows that most street level drug dealers actually make well below minimum wage so I guess on that acount they don't owe a lot of taxes.

I don't see how anyone earning minimum wage can live by themselves here in America. Two people sharing a small apartment might scrape by. Otherwise, no way.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't see how anyone earning minimum wage can live by themselves here in America. Two people sharing a small apartment might scrape by. Otherwise, no way.

We're (now) discussing the reliance of street level drug dealers on entitlement/welfare/social safety net programs.

 

[WhoWee]

Well I have read Superfreakanomics by Levitt and Dubnar which I believe does reference a study that shows that most street level drug dealers actually make well below minimum wage so I guess on that acount they don't owe a lot of taxes.

I'm not certain that's a credible source, but why don't you post the support?

 

[apeiron]

"This seems a convenient time to point out we have a very small class of entrepreneurs in the US that have a public safety net available - they are the drug dealers standing on the corner that don't have any legal means of support. Please label this entire post IMO - and note this is nothing more than an unintended consequence in that these people are not required to seek work while on public assistance. Again - IMO - for the entire post and I stipulated in bold a very small class.".

I still can't follow the point you thought you were making here.

Are you trying to argue that street corner drug dealers have the "reassurance" of a social safety net to support them in the otherwise risky decision to "go into business for themselves?".

This is such a misuse of logic that no wonder people here think you are trolling.

Taxes pay for a criminal justice system. Are you claiming this is also a psychologically reassuring fact that these entrepreneurs factor into their decision to sell drugs? Are you even claiming that street corner dealers are enterpreneurs in some meaningful business school definition?

Was I incorrect or even unfair in my description of this very small class of persons? I've never read any reports of street corner drug dealers paying their fair share of state or federal income tax or Social Security/FUTA/SUTA/Medicare - have you?"[/I]

Have you tried to research your position here? These articles suggest the story is more complicated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/16/AR2008021602198.html

http://www.politicsla.com/home/item/887-state-collects-taxes-from-drug-dealers-who-want-to-avoid-tax-evasion-if-arrested

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/even-drug-dealers-have-to-pay-taxes/Content?oid=2214930

So can you present some actual research to back up your various claims that street corner drug dealers are a) actual entrepreneurs, b) do regularly claim full social benefits, c) are at no risk of being taxed if the authorities could catch up with them.

 

[WhoWee]

I still can't follow the point you thought you were making here.

Are you trying to argue that street corner drug dealers have the "reassurance" of a social safety net to support them in the otherwise risky decision to "go into business for themselves?".

This is such a misuse of logic that no wonder people here think you are trolling.

Taxes pay for a criminal justice system. Are you claiming this is also a psychologically reassuring fact that these entrepreneurs factor into their decision to sell drugs? Are you even claiming that street corner dealers are enterpreneurs in some meaningful business school definition?



Have you tried to research your position here? These articles suggest the story is more complicated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/16/AR2008021602198.html

http://www.politicsla.com/home/item/887-state-collects-taxes-from-drug-dealers-who-want-to-avoid-tax-evasion-if-arrested

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/even-drug-dealers-have-to-pay-taxes/Content?oid=2214930

So can you present some actual research to back up your various claims that street corner drug dealers are a) actual entrepreneurs, b) do regularly claim full social benefits, c) are at no risk of being taxed if the authorities could catch up with them.

Now I'm the one trolling? Why don't review the posts assembled in this thread by the member with a cumulative one (1) post - and my responses to them? This is ridiculous - IMO of course. I made that post in response to number 274:
"maine75man

Posts: 1
Education: Undergrad
Re: America's aversion to "socialism"?
"Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes
Now, not everyone is an entrepreneur, nor can everyone become the boss, so there will be a non-negligible amount of people earning more or less this amount for a majority of their working lives."


"As I see it in that sort of society their will be very few entrepreneurs. Far fewer people will be willing to take the risks involved in starting a business if failure means rotting in the gutter. This would stifle innovation and calculated risk which is supposed to be the life blood of any capitalist society.

Furthermore I'm thinking that in any society where the price of failure is unreasonably high only the unreasonable will take risks. Never mind starting a business how scary would it be to ask for a raise or take a chance and look for another job. So say goodbye for upward mobility. Oh was that important for the individual freedom and republican democracy you where trying to maintain?

That's why I firmly believe a social safety net is an integral part of both functional capitalism and anything close to a real democracy.""
******

Next, his response in post number 281 was this:

"maine75man

Posts: 1
Education: Undergrad
Re: America's aversion to "socialism"?


Actually there are a couple programs that are part of unemployment to provide benefits for entrepreneurs. Instead of looking for work they must provide a business plan and work towards it. I honestly don't know exactly how it works but my sister-in-law used the program. I could do that instead of going to college maybe. Since Maine now has legal medical marijuana maybe I could go into that business. My area already looks like it's getting a dispensary though so maybe I'll try a grow operation. I had a lot of luck with tomatoes this year and I hear their pretty similar.

Or was that not your point. Where you trying to say that there are dishonest people who engage in criminal activities AND defraud the government. At that I am shocked, you think one morally reprehensible act would be enough for people. Next thing you'll tell me is they don't pay taxes."

Again - read through all of the posts aperion - before trying to put words in my mouth (again I might add).

 

[apeiron]

Again - read through all of the posts aperion - before trying to put words in my mouth (again I might add).

Yes, I did. Which is why I am so baffled by what it is that you thought you were trying to say (just as your still unexplained jump in logic from talking about unproductive able-bodied on benefits to "productive people" as those showing pro-social behaviour").

Maine75man said in post 274...

As I see it in that sort of society their will be very few entrepreneurs. Far fewer people will be willing to take the risks involved in starting a business if failure means rotting in the gutter. This would stifle innovation and calculated risk which is supposed to be the life blood of any capitalist society.

Furthermore I'm thinking that in any society where the price of failure is unreasonably high only the unreasonable will take risks. Never mind starting a business how scary would it be to ask for a raise or take a chance and look for another job. So say goodbye for upward mobility. Oh was that important for the individual freedom and republican democracy you where trying to maintain?

That's why I firmly believe a social safety net is an integral part of both functional capitalism and anything close to a real democracy.

Then you replied in post 276...

This seems a convenient time to point out we have a very small class of entrepreneurs in the US that have a public safety net available - they are the drug dealers standing on the corner that don't have any legal means of support. Please label this entire post IMO - and note this is nothing more than an unintended consequence in that these people are not required to seek work while on public assistance. Again - IMO - for the entire post and I stipulated in bold a very small class.

So the question is what on Earth were you saying here as a logical response to what Maine75man wrote?

Were you just joking? Or did you seriously intend to suggest street corner drug dealers are a class of entrepreneurs who would otherwise be deterred by the unreasonable risks of their bold venture into naked capitalism?

So quit trying to deflect and explain exactly how post 276 was meant to be a proper reply to post 274 and not either some kind of trolling or non sequitur.

The point of post 274 is that a safety net in a capitalist system would increase the chances of entrepreneurial risk-taking (by socially insuring that risk).

If you dispute that specific claim, please spell out why and back it up with research to the contrary.

If you believe your post 276 was actually relevant to the truth of that claim, can you now explain why?

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, I did. Which is why I am so baffled by what it is that you thought you were trying to say (just as your still unexplained jump in logic from talking about unproductive able-bodied on benefits to "productive people" as those showing pro-social behaviour").

That was your conclusion - after you first described a "binary divide" in post number 219.

"So you are arguing that diet should be socialised here? The government should take on the role of the consumer in the consumption~production dichotomy. It should make all the choices about what to buy, using its scale to drive the best bargain. The individuals concerned should have minimal freedom of choice so as to allow this to happen.

Of course, you are probably only saying this should be the situation for where state-machinery is applied. So for people who depend on state intervention, then they should accept complete socialisation. Which would then mean for all the rest - the norms of society - they could have the opposite situation of enjoying complete personal freedom (and responsibility).

We accept this two-tone formula for those who are incapable of choice/responsible action (the mentally ill, the criminal, etc). The state takes over their lives fully. So apply the same logic even to the more borderline cases, like social security safety nets where reasonably capable people get caught out by circumstances not of their making.

But this binary divide does not really work. It is obvious that it is better to continue to foster choice and responsibility as much as possible, even when dealing with the ill or criminal, let alone those thrown out of work.

Instead of trying to run two fundamentally opposed political systems in parallel, what we want is a theory of how to optimise a single system. That system clearly has to include both co-operative and competitive aspects. And to be simple, the balance would have to be scale-invariant - look the same over all scales of social organisation.

As an aside, if you are advocating government as an efficient purchaser, how does that stack up with military spending? One customer, many producers. Do goverments actually have a good track record in this regard?"

You have an elegant and impressive method of leading the discussion with your questions. Unfortunately, your conclusions (logical or not) are simply that - yours.

 

[apeiron]

That was your conclusion - after you first described a "binary divide" in post number 219.
You have an elegant and impressive method of leading the discussion with your questions. Unfortunately, your conclusions (logical or not) are simply that - yours.

And you again are most inelegantly trying to deflect from what was actually said.

Your immediate reply in post 221 was...

We had a thread (now locked) which posed the question "Should Poverty Be Comfortable?".

As per your question, I do think one way to entice people to return to the productive side of the economy is to limit choices (comfort) on the unproductive rail.

I recall years ago when the State first enforced the requirement that unemployed persons visit the benefits office weekly and offer proof they went on at least 3 job interviews during the previous week - a great many young fellows found it easier to get a job than to put up with the rules.

So you must have thought that was your reply to my point. But then very quickly (ie: next post) you switched your definition of productive to this in post 229..

I would like to point out the difference between my use of the word "productive" and your reply that speaks of "production". A "productive" person in my example might be someone who pulls weeds, counsels abused women, licks stamps, answers telephones, helps unemployed persons complete an application, or manages email. A productive person may perform a personal service or build a skyscraper?

Your use of the word "production" infers the making of hard goods for consumption - there is a difference.

So are you arguing that your meaning of "productive/unproductive" in post 221 is the same as in post 229?

In one, you clearly state "the productive side of the economy". In the other, it is licking stamps and pulling weeds.

 

[WhoWee]

So are you arguing that your meaning of "productive/unproductive" in post 221 is the same as in post 229?

In one, you clearly state "the productive side of the economy". In the other, it is licking stamps and pulling weeds.

I wasn't really arguing anything - just pointing out there is a difference between being productive versus actual production - you took it from that point forward to have a greater meaning.

 

[apeiron]

I wasn't really arguing anything - just pointing out there is a difference between being productive versus actual production - you took it from that point forward to have a greater meaning.

So you were not making a coherent logical argument where one point is rebutted by another. And your statement lacked meaning in the context of the thread.

Well, yes, then we agree. But don't you see that it is a problem when you seem to be trying to create the impression of a rational discussion where there is some thread of thought that connects one of your posts to the next instead of, what, this loose train of free association that you exhibit?

It wouldn't matter that your contributions are so ignorable, of your own admission now, except for the way that you pursue others with such a righteous tone.

Are you now also confessing to Maine75maine that your replies to him should also be regarded as non sequiturs. Just random disconnected thoughts that popped into your head.

So when Maine75man says social safety nets encourage entrepreneurship, and you reply street corner drug addicts seem an exception, no one should draw hasty inferences that you were intending a meaningful contribution to the debate?

The problem is that you have compounded your sins by citing a misleading account of the sequence of events - as to which of your posts were in reply to what.

With your expertise of PF PWA rulles, is that acceptable behaviour?

 

[WhoWee]

So you were not making a coherent logical argument where one point is rebutted by another. And your statement lacked meaning in the context of the thread.

Well, yes, then we agree. But don't you see that it is a problem when you seem to be trying to create the impression of a rational discussion where there is some thread of thought that connects one of your posts to the next instead of, what, this loose train of free association that you exhibit?

It wouldn't matter that your contributions are so ignorable, of your own admission now, except for the way that you pursue others with such a righteous tone.

Are you now also confessing to Maine75maine that your replies to him should also be regarded as non sequiturs. Just random disconnected thoughts that popped into your head.

So when Maine75man says social safety nets encourage entrepreneurship, and you reply street corner drug addicts seem an exception, no one should draw hasty inferences that you were intending a meaningful contribution to the debate?

The problem is that you have compounded your sins by citing a misleading account of the sequence of events - as to which of your posts were in reply to what.

With your expertise of PF PWA rulles, is that acceptable behaviour?

Once again, you've initiated an elegant and impressive attempt to lead the discussion. Unfortunately, (again) your conclusions (logical or not) are simply that - yours.

I think we've already discussed our personal interpretations of this?:zzz:

 

[maine75man]

I'm not certain that's a credible source, but why don't you post the support?

Sure.

"[URL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF A DRUG-SELLING
GANG’S FINANCES
[/URL]

 

[russ_watters]

Nah, just debating semantics. Of course, when everything is paid by the public, people experience it as 'free.' Well, it isn't, but most of them know that too. It's just a word.

Well that just means that it is both wrong and yet still a widely held perception. And IMO that that's one of the key problems here: socialism+democracy = wrong financial perceptions and thus bad financial choices.

At the same time, you are incorrect in assuming that the opposite by necessity is more fair. Now, you just end up paying it directly through your insurance, instead of taxes. Does it really matter that much? IMO, you're probably just paying too much.

Um, heck yeah it matters: whether I'm paying too much now or not, the point is that if it becomes socialized, I'll be paying much more. That's my point there. Socialized medicine is a socialistic wealth redistribution policy. It causes a majority of the people to pay less and thus as we showed above create incorrect perceptions about real cost, while forcing a minority to bear the burden for that cost, paying much more for those services than they otherwise would have -- or, rather, paying for their services and the services of others. Whether the overall/average cost is more or less is actually just a red herring, since no one is paying the actual cost of their own services anymore.

Irrelevant. All politicians are demagogues who ride the opportunistic wave. What else do you expect? All the political humbug is just there for show on your TV. I couldn't care less.

If there was any one-word response to give to what I said, "irrelevant" wasn't it: If debate over socialism is the primary driver of politics in the US, then it certainly isn't irrelevant and it does mean people buy-into the teachings of Marx, even if they don't know it or know it and don't want to believe it.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not entirely sure what you thought I meant, but what I did mean was that you pay nothing at the particular point you need to go to the hospital (for example if you need surgery or whatever). Of course the whole thing has to be funded from somewhere and it's funded by the taxes naturally.

When you don't pay at the point of sale and in fact in most cases don't pay what the services are worth via those taxes, don't you think that alters the perception of what those services are worth?

My original point was just that one cannot compare high taxes in one country directly to low taxes in another country and from that claim that the lower tax situation would always leave you with more money "after the bills are paid". That is simply not a fair comparison when the people in the low tax level country has to pay additionally for things like medical treatment and college tuition, which are already included in the taxes in the high tax country.

Except, as I pointed out in the previous post and above, if you decouple the cost and fee for the services from the people using them, you end up with some people paying much more and some people paying much less than they were before for the same services, regardless of whether the services actually cost more or less when funded by the government.

That's just another part of the same logical flaw in socialism: when you decouple the cost of the services from the people receiving the services, you remove most of the incentive to be financially responsible and responsible for the subject of the services. Ie, in many private insurance policies, there are financial incentives for healthy behavior, such as exercise and smoking cessation.

 

[MarcoD]

Um, heck yeah it matters: whether I'm paying too much now or not, the point is that if it becomes socialized, I'll be paying much more. That's my point there. Socialized medicine is a socialistic wealth redistribution policy.

The point is that insurance is a wealth distribution policy too. It doesn't matter whether you pay a tax, or a -in the end- mandatory health insurance. And I gave some Dutch statistics that health costs rise when deregulated. That's why I think one shouldn't talk about socialism in this context.

 

[russ_watters]

The point is that insurance is a wealth distribution policy too.

It most certainly is not! Insurance premiums are not (legally, at least) tied to income!

It doesn't matter whether you pay a tax, or a -in the end- mandatory health insurance. And I gave some Dutch statistics that health costs rise when deregulated. That's why I think one shouldn't talk about socialism in this context.

You're completely missing the point: with insurance, the cost is not tied to income and whether or not the services are more efficient in a government run system, it has a small impact on the change in costs for individuals compared to the change due to redistribution. For example, in my company, everyone pays $80 a month for health insurance, regardless of what they get paid. But under a flat-rate socialized system, someone who earns twice as much as someone else pays twice as much. So, for example if there are two employees who make $30k a year and one who makes $100k, the two each pay $45 for $80 worth of insurance while the third pays his $80 for his insurance plus $35 each for the other two. That's redistribution of his wealth.

 

[MarcoD]

It most certainly is not! Insurance premiums are not (legally, at least) tied to income! You're completely missing the point: with insurance, the cost is not tied to income. For example, in my company, everyone pays $80 a month for health insurance, regardless of what they get paid. But under a flat-rate socialized system, someone who earns twice as much as someone else pays twice as much. So, for example if there are two employees who make $30k a year and one who makes $100k, the two each pay $45 for $80 worth of insurance while the third pays his $80 for his insurance plus $35 each for the other two. That's redistribution of his wealth.

Well, first, congratulations. You don't pay a lot for health insurance in European terms, my bill is double of that.

If I look at the problem then health cost are dependent on the amount of health care a public needs. No matter what system, MDs always take care that health care will be given, even if a person didn't pay for it. And the public will pay that bill anyway.

Therefor, I just think that the cheapest solution is just to look at what health care is needed (and tax it.)

I.e., if you need a hospital per 100k people, you should derive the cost for that, employ a few hundred doctors, and let them figure out what the best health care should be. (IMO, they will because that's just what they do.) There's nothing else to do. Even an insurance company is overhead since you implemented a second system because it may as well just be taxed.