Is the fair deal & fairness (reciprical altruism) an inborn human instinct?
Immortalista
vicious, Darwinian world? Altruism is no fragile cultural construction
but rather a biological adaptation. Kindness evolved because it works-
it promotes survival, and not merely for humans. Selflessness pervades
the animal kingdom in voluntarily asexual bumblebees, nepotistic
woodpeckers, and vampire bats that regurgitate food to strangers.
In a world of aggression and barbarity, whence comes altruism and
kindness?
Why do people donate blood; why did Christians help Jews during the
holocaust; why do people adopt; why are worker bees, termites, queen
bees, bats, organ donors, priests, and others altruistic.
Sated bats regurgitate food to sustain their famished friends. Almost
half of people in England consider their dogs family members. (Dogs
fit into human societies by treating their owners as top dog.) Pet
owners are four times less likely to die in the year after cardiac
surgery than patients without pets. Children younger than 18 months
are not self-aware. Chimpanzees show self-awareness, monkeys and
gorillas do not (p. 105). Rats are not capable of high moral behavior.
Children in nonindustrialized societies are more altruistic than
children in industrialized ones.
There is little difference in altruism between men and women. For all
fifteen of the leading causes of death, men have higher death rates.
Some Americans have paid no tax for ten years despite being taken to
court by the IRS. Adoptees have a higher incidence of alcohol and drug
use, delinquency, crime, and depression which sometimes leads to
attempted suicide. Youngsters in poorer countries, compared with those
in wealthier ones, are usually more altruistic. In-group altruism can
translate into out-group aggression. The most spectacular failure of
altruism relates to violent criminals, but mothers who kill their
offspring also are examples.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Book%20Reviews2005-/9-05.html
http://research.yale.edu/ysm/article.jsp?articleID=435
turtoni
and
laissez-faire capitalism, adduced that if men want to oppose war, it
is
statism that they must oppose. She maintained that so long as people
hold
the tribal notion that the individual is sacrificial fodder for the
collective, that some men have the right to rule others by force, and
that
some (any) alleged "good" can justify it-there can be no peace within
a
nation and no peace among nations."
tooly
Altruism is great. Just don't confuse socialism with charity.
Socialism is a tyranny of force...and nothing else. There is a whole
helleva lot of difference when government TAKES from those that earn
and gives to those who do NOT earn. Charity is conscience of humankind
caring for the less fortunate. These are two entirely different
things. That Obama would try and play the 'moral card' for his
deathcare plan is a total insult to the American people [to think we
are so stupid that such an argument would not be resented].
jj
You're massively confusing what socialism is about yourself.
> Socialism is a tyranny of force...and nothing else.
Mindlessly silly. Socialism that involves the voters deciding that they want
the govt to do something like medicare or public education is nothing even
remotely resembling anything like force, let alone tyranny of force.
> There is a whole helleva lot of difference when government TAKES
> from those that earn and gives to those who do NOT earn.
Its still socialism when the govt takes from taxpayers and does
what those taxpayers/voters have decided they want govt to do.
> Charity is conscience of humankind caring for the less fortunate.
So is socialism.
> These are two entirely different things.
Like hell they are.
> That Obama would try and play the 'moral card' for his
> deathcare plan is a total insult to the American people
How odd that every other modern first and second world country has gone the same route.
> [to think we are so stupid that such an argument would not be resented].
Only by fools.
John Galt
You're drawing the distinction (without explicitly saying so) between
social democracy and socialism. You're describing a social democracy.
Socialist nations do not have "voters" in the sense that democratic
republics do, and they certainly have a track record of using force to
enforce their priorities.
Socialism is the government owning the means of production. It's the US
Government owning 70% of AIG and intending to keep it and run it for the
(ostensible) social benefit (regardless of profits) on into perpetuity.
(I use this example to show the obvious slippery slope involved.)
Social democracy is simply the government, in certain institutions as
you have listed (although public education is a bad example, since there
is no federal school system, or even a state school system, for that
matter), stating that the public function of the institution is so
crucial to society that it's best if the government runs it, thus
insuring consistent application of the institution in all places and at
all times, and that the institution will exist onwards into perpetuity
without the same regard to solvency as a private sector institution
would have.
A socialist government believes that society is served if all
institutions are owned by the state as it rejects the ability of private
ownership to deliver a high societal standard of living, and is
constantly moving in that direction.
A social democracy, OTOH, does not reject the notions of private
ownership or capitalism in the least; they just simply take the position
that certain institutions are too important to fail (or, too big to
fail) and chooses to own them, thus socializing the risk.
Socialist governments have no track record of delivering prosperity.
Social democracies, in practice, most certainly can, although they do
appear to trade high-performance economic statistics for slightly less
impressive ones. GDP per capita, income per capita, unemployment, etc.,
are all statistics that tend to be less impressive in nations with
many social democratic institutions; and since these ultimately affect
tax receipts used to fund the social democratic institutions, there is a
fine line which must be respected where the people can no longer pay for
the social democratic institutions without reform.
None of that is a news flash, and none of it is controversial in the least.
>
>> There is a whole helleva lot of difference when government TAKES
>> from those that earn and gives to those who do NOT earn.
>
> Its still socialism when the govt takes from taxpayers and does
> what those taxpayers/voters have decided they want govt to do.
Good point. In the 90's, one of the GOP "reforms" as part of the
Contract of America (not a contract point, but as a means to an end)
that we started to see was the idea that the federal government would
stop sending money back to the states with detailed remittance
instructions attached ("we are giving you this billion so you can
provide single mothers below this income level $250 per child -- use it
or lose it") and start sending it back in "block grants".
This was tied to the "unfunded mandate" problem, where the government
would send (using the above example) only $150 per child but insist that
$250 per child be vended or lose the program funding, thus forcing the
state to either give up money or toe the line. "Block Grants" just
shipped a box of cash back to the state and said "to be given to kids in
whatever way you like."
Neither method, however, addresses the point you correctly make, that
both methodologies are supporting a social democratic infrastructure. If
you want to get the socialism out of that mechanism, you (the Feds) say
"no more federal money for that program", and you cut federal taxes in
homes that the states will raise their tax programs so as to fund the
program.
>
>> Charity is conscience of humankind caring for the less fortunate.
>
> So is socialism.
Well.....socialism is usually implemented for ideologic reasons that
supersecede issues of the less fortunate. The less fortunate get used to
implement the program (who wouldn't want the rich guy down the street to
buy you a car?) and *may* see some cursory returns depending on how
impoverished the nation was.
But, WRT the "less fortunate", socialism is simply the statist solution
for the problem while charity is the libertarian solution.
>
>> These are two entirely different things.
>
> Like hell they are.
>
>> That Obama would try and play the 'moral card' for his
>> deathcare plan is a total insult to the American people
>
> How odd that every other modern first and second world country has gone the same route.
The US has loads of social democratic institutions. We have fewer than
the established European nations, but we are not all THAT far out of
skew with them.
However, that does not answer the question of whether it is "best" or
"right", or even "moral", which is an aspect that enters when you are
supporting your social democracy with massive deficit spending, eh?
JG
ZerkonXXXX
> In a world of aggression and barbarity, whence comes altruism and
> kindness?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce
No, in a world of mostly kindness, whence comes aggression?
Kindness is not the aberrant behavior here that needs to be accounted
for. It is so common and taken for granted as to be muted and
unnoticeable.
tg
Lost me there. I thought you've been saying that social democracy is
the statist solution for the problem?
>while charity is the libertarian solution.
>
>
>
> >> These are two entirely different things.
>
> > Like hell they are.
>
> >> That Obama would try and play the 'moral card' for his
> >> deathcare plan is a total insult to the American people
>
> > How odd that every other modern first and second world country has gone the same route.
>
> The US has loads of social democratic institutions. We have fewer than
> the established European nations, but we are not all THAT far out of
> skew with them.
>
> However, that does not answer the question of whether it is "best" or
> "right", or even "moral", which is an aspect that enters when you are
> supporting your social democracy with massive deficit spending, eh?
Which is an aspect? Anyone can claim anything is moral or immoral.
If the question is: Given a scarcity of resources, and the existence
of States, is social democracy the most effective way to maximize
liberty and prosperity? The answer is of course yes, since highly
skewed wealth distribution is contrary to that goal.
-tg
John Galt
Sorry. Both are statist solutions to the problem, socialism representing
the extreme version of statism.
>
>> while charity is the libertarian solution.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> These are two entirely different things.
>>> Like hell they are.
>>>> That Obama would try and play the 'moral card' for his
>>>> deathcare plan is a total insult to the American people
>>> How odd that every other modern first and second world country has gone the same route.
>> The US has loads of social democratic institutions. We have fewer than
>> the established European nations, but we are not all THAT far out of
>> skew with them.
>>
>> However, that does not answer the question of whether it is "best" or
>> "right", or even "moral", which is an aspect that enters when you are
>> supporting your social democracy with massive deficit spending, eh?
>
> Which is an aspect? Anyone can claim anything is moral or immoral.
Sure. In general, adding terms like "moral" "right" or "fair" to
economic discussions require you have a priest or philosopher around to
referee. So, I *personally* believe it immoral to make my kids pay, in
the future, the government's bills today.
>
> If the question is: Given a scarcity of resources, and the existence
> of States, is social democracy the most effective way to maximize
> liberty and prosperity? The answer is of course yes, since highly
> skewed wealth distribution is contrary to that goal.
It may well be the most effective, but if you are a believer in personal
liberty, your not looking to balance out liberty and prosperity, eh? I
personally acknowledge the need for a minimum civil society (who would
want to live in a place that had none?) and taxation thereof, but I
wouldn't consider the GINI Coefficient as the only barometer of success.
JG
Allan
> tooly wrote:
> > Charity is conscience of humankind caring for the less fortunate.
>
> So is socialism.
No - perhaps the results are similar, but alas, they are not.
A car and a bike and your feet will get you from point a to point b,
but you never have to put gas in the bike or the feet.
> > That Obama would try and play the 'moral card' for his
> > deathcare plan is a total insult to the American people
>
> How odd that every other modern first and second world country has gone the same route.
What is interesting is that as the US slides into it, others are
anxiously trying to get out of it I would urge anyone who has the
concept that everyone else has Obamacare to look closely at the
changes being made in Sweden, the UK, France, Germany, and even
Australia as each tries to meet the challenges of escalating health
care expenditures. We are not the only one's faced with the issue of
health care - every industrialized country is experiencing the same
thing.
Perhaps we should take our cue not from what Europe did in the 70's
but rather what they are doing today, 40 years after the start of
their socialized medicine experiment.
Allan
tg
I don't get what you are trying to say there. Does "believer in
personal liberty" mean that you desire to maximize your personal
liberty? Or prosperity? That's just human nature, not a 'belief'.
-tg
John Galt
Point is that personal liberty and communal prosperity are antithetical
to one another. The more communal prosperity you wish to fund using my
money, the less personal liberty I have.
JG
tg
I'm afraid you are contradicting yourself here. If reducing your money
reduces your personal liberty, then when we transfer it to the
community, we must be increasing the personal liberty of the
individuals in the community, since now they have more money. Your
first sentence is clearly invalid.
-tg
Fred Weiss
> Point is that personal liberty and communal prosperity are antithetical
> to one another. The more communal prosperity you wish to fund using my
> money, the less personal liberty I have.
There is no possibility of "communal prosperity" if personal liberty
is abridged to achieve it. If we learned nothing else from the 20th
Cent. that should have been it.
Furthermore, don't accept his premise of "scarcity of resources". Such
scarcities only exist in *his* system: socialism. Not under
capitalism. Capitalism is characterized by the creation of vast
abundance at ever lower prices. Socialism is characterized by
impoverishment and gulags.
John Galt
No contradiction. If my concern is my own personal liberty, transferring
wealth from me reduces my liberty. Ergo, I oppose it.
JG
tg
> tg wrote:
> > On Aug 25, 8:36 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> tg wrote:
> >>> On Aug 25, 8:05 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> tg wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 25, 4:51 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Right, that was my point above. You don't have a 'belief' or a
philosophy about individual liberty, you are just being a normal human
who desires to achieve his own preferences.
I have no problem with that, it's just that your language is confused.
The sentence:
"...personal liberty and communal prosperity are antithetical to one
another."
is in fact invalid as I have pointed out, since personal liberty
*increases* as communal prosperity increases.
-tg
Michael Coburn
You OBVIOUSLY are "so stupid".
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
freeisbest
**************************************************************************************
Hey! We argue about politics around here! You kids take your
copies of Atlas Shrugged and go play on somebody else's lawn!
Rod Speed
> John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Point is that personal liberty and communal prosperity are
>> antithetical to one another. The more communal prosperity you
>> wish to fund using my money, the less personal liberty I have.
> There is no possibility of "communal prosperity"
> if personal liberty is abridged to achieve it.
That is just plain wrong. We did in fact see precisely that after
the printing press had been invented, some pretty draconian
abridgment of personal liberty and communal prosperity as well.
> If we learned nothing else from the 20th Cent. that should have been it.
That happened well before the 20th century, stupid.
> Furthermore, don't accept his premise of "scarcity of resources". Such
> scarcities only exist in *his* system: socialism. Not under capitalism.
More of your pig ignorant lies.
> Capitalism is characterized by the creation
> of vast abundance at ever lower prices.
Not always.
> Socialism is characterized by impoverishment and gulags.
You wouldnt know what real socialism was if it bit you on your pig ignorant lard arse.
The most socialist countrys in western europe have rather higher living standards
than the dregs of the US do, and dont have even a single gulag like Gitmo either.
Guess again.
Michael Coburn
This is probably a legitimate concern or seems to be for the religious
Libertarian the the religious "objectivist". What is misunderstood is
that the insurance company does NOT own my barn even though I have an
insurance policy with them. The fact is that _ALL_ insurance system are
SOCIAL enterprises. I pay my premiums and hope like hell I never see a
return on that continuing investment. When my barn burns down the rest of
the premium payers finance the rebuild of my barn. I am financing the
rebuild of someones barn when I pay my premiums. There is no personal
"savings account" associated with my premium payments.
Libertarians and Objectivists have a serious problem with insurance
systems. Galt seems to be smart enough to tell the difference between
Social Democracy and Socialism but most of the rightarded will not allow
the difference to enter their alleged minds. Once it is there then the
totally religious beliefs concerning government=evil would be destroyed.
> Social democracy is simply the government, in certain institutions as
> you have listed (although public education is a bad example, since there
> is no federal school system, or even a state school system, for that
> matter), stating that the public function of the institution is so
> crucial to society that it's best if the government runs it, thus
> insuring consistent application of the institution in all places and at
> all times, and that the institution will exist onwards into perpetuity
> without the same regard to solvency as a private sector institution
> would have.
(not bad. Somewhat clumsy but not real bad)
> A socialist government believes that society is served if all
> institutions are owned by the state as it rejects the ability of private
> ownership to deliver a high societal standard of living, and is
> constantly moving in that direction.
Boogerman, boogerman, boogerman. General motors is the poster child for
this crap and for that reason (and only for that reason) was GM a bad
move. GM is the sort of operation in which government should never take
any ownership at all and it is allowing the brain dead "right" a
marvelous stick with which to beat the boogerman drum.
> A social democracy, OTOH, does not reject the notions of private
> ownership or capitalism in the least; they just simply take the position
> that certain institutions are too important to fail (or, too big to
> fail) and chooses to own them, thus socializing the risk.
That is not the case either for most that subscribe to the concepts of
"Social Democracy". The too big to fail problem is managed by strict
enforcement of antitrust laws and/or by an intelligent application of
progressive income or asset taxation as applied to corporations. NO MICRO
MANAGEMENT OF THE ECONOMY and no state ownership. The insurance systems,
however, are not systems of OWNERSHIP. AIG was not an insurance system
in the typical sense in that it insured "bets" and not actual property or
health/life. So it too was a mistake.
> Socialist governments have no track record of delivering prosperity.
> Social democracies, in practice, most certainly can, although they do
> appear to trade high-performance economic statistics for slightly less
> impressive ones. GDP per capita, income per capita, unemployment, etc.,
> are all statistics that tend to be less impressive in nations with
> many social democratic institutions; and since these ultimately affect
> tax receipts used to fund the social democratic institutions, there is a
> fine line which must be respected where the people can no longer pay for
> the social democratic institutions without reform.
All true enough. I am impressed.
> None of that is a news flash, and none of it is controversial in the
> least.
Oh, but that it were true. The severely brain damaged religious free
market nut cases are howling with great amplitude over CHOICE in health
care insurance; a sphere in which government has already shown its
ability to perform in many other countries. Unlike those other countries
the US wants to preserve CHOICE while reducing cost and is attempting to
do that. But the capitalism worshipers are filled with fear and rage.
>>> There is a whole helleva lot of difference when government TAKES from
>>> those that earn and gives to those who do NOT earn.
>>
>> Its still socialism when the govt takes from taxpayers and does what
>> those taxpayers/voters have decided they want govt to do.
>
> Good point. In the 90's, one of the GOP "reforms" as part of the
> Contract of America (not a contract point, but as a means to an end)
> that we started to see was the idea that the federal government would
> stop sending money back to the states with detailed remittance
> instructions attached ("we are giving you this billion so you can
> provide single mothers below this income level $250 per child -- use it
> or lose it") and start sending it back in "block grants".
>
> This was tied to the "unfunded mandate" problem, where the government
> would send (using the above example) only $150 per child but insist that
> $250 per child be vended or lose the program funding, thus forcing the
> state to either give up money or toe the line. "Block Grants" just
> shipped a box of cash back to the state and said "to be given to kids in
> whatever way you like."
>
> Neither method, however, addresses the point you correctly make, that
> both methodologies are supporting a social democratic infrastructure. If
> you want to get the socialism out of that mechanism, you (the Feds) say
> "no more federal money for that program", and you cut federal taxes in
> homes that the states will raise their tax programs so as to fund the
> program.
The example of the "right" is ALWAYS AND FOREVER the example of welfare.
Try it with the interstate highway system or the schools. The national
government has a national interest in education and in infrastructure.
The national government also has an interest in health care and
protecting the public from unscrupulous snake oil salesmen.
>>
>>> Charity is conscience of humankind caring for the less fortunate.
>>
>> So is socialism.
>
> Well.....socialism is usually implemented for ideologic reasons that
> supersecede issues of the less fortunate. The less fortunate get used to
> implement the program (who wouldn't want the rich guy down the street to
> buy you a car?) and *may* see some cursory returns depending on how
> impoverished the nation was.
>
> But, WRT the "less fortunate", socialism is simply the statist solution
> for the problem while charity is the libertarian solution.
I was wondering how long the "statist" word would remain under wraps.
The guy admits that insurance systems are too important to leave to the
private sector and then whips out the commie paint brush. (sigh)
>>
>>> These are two entirely different things.
>>
>> Like hell they are.
>>
>>> That Obama would try and play the 'moral card' for his deathcare plan
>>> is a total insult to the American people
>>
>> How odd that every other modern first and second world country has gone
>> the same route.
>
> The US has loads of social democratic institutions. We have fewer than
> the established European nations, but we are not all THAT far out of
> skew with them.
>
> However, that does not answer the question of whether it is "best" or
> "right", or even "moral", which is an aspect that enters when you are
> supporting your social democracy with massive deficit spending, eh?
We attempt to subsidize health insurance premiums for the working class
with a surtax on the very wealthy and the rightards crap in their pants.
ANY attempt to subsidize social insurance systems through a tax is
immediately attacked by the government hating idiots. Yet the record of
the non-government approach is an abysmal failure. We offer a compromise
and it too is immediately attacked by the religious nut cases. What the
hell is it about the words "choice" and "option" that soooooooooo upsets
the rightarded.
>>> [to think we are so stupid that such an argument would not be
>>> resented].
>>
>> Only by fools.
>>
>>
--
jj
> On Aug 24, 11:59 pm, "jj" <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> tooly wrote:
>
>>> Charity is conscience of humankind caring for the less fortunate.
>>
>> So is socialism.
> No
Yep, most obviously with welfare.
> - perhaps the results are similar, but alas, they are not.
> A car and a bike and your feet will get you from point a to
> point b, but you never have to put gas in the bike or the feet.
Irrelevant to that claim above.
>>> That Obama would try and play the 'moral card' for his
>>> deathcare plan is a total insult to the American people
>> How odd that every other modern first and
>> second world country has gone the same route.
> What is interesting is that as the US slides into
> it, others are anxiously trying to get out of it
Bare faced lie. NOT ONE modern first or second world country
is even considering a return to JUST the insurance system again.
> I would urge anyone who has the concept that everyone else has
> Obamacare to look closely at the changes being made in Sweden,
> the UK, France, Germany, and even Australia as each tries to meet
> the challenges of escalating health care expenditures.
NOT ONE of them is even considering a return to JUST the insurance system again.
Even the US isnt even considering scrapping medicare and social security either.
> We are not the only one's faced with the issue of health care
> - every industrialized country is experiencing the same thing.
Another lie. They all get their health care for HALF the percentage of
GDP that the US does and get a better result on the measures that
matter, longevity and years in good health than the US does too.
> Perhaps we should take our cue not from what Europe did
> in the 70's but rather what they are doing today, 40 years
> after the start of their socialized medicine experiment.
Taint just Europe, its EVERY modern first and second world country.
NOT ONE of them is even considering a return to JUST the insurance system again.
Michael Coburn
Right, that was my point above. You don't have a 'belief' or a philosophy
about individual liberty, you are just being a normal human who desires to
achieve his own preferences. I have no problem with that, it's just that
your language is confused. The sentence:
"...personal liberty and communal prosperity are antithetical to one
another."
is in fact invalid as I have pointed out, since personal liberty
*increases* as communal prosperity increases.
***********************************
Very nicely done.....
Michael Coburn
> On Aug 25, 8:36 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Point is that personal liberty and communal prosperity are antithetical
>> to one another. The more communal prosperity you wish to fund using my
>> money, the less personal liberty I have.
>
> There is no possibility of "communal prosperity" if personal liberty is
> abridged to achieve it. If we learned nothing else from the 20th Cent.
> that should have been it.
What _we_ (the actual sentient creatures) learned the 20th century is
that the accumulation of the control of wealth into fewer and fewer hands
is an assault on aggregate and per capita liberty.
> Furthermore, don't accept his premise of "scarcity of resources". Such
> scarcities only exist in *his* system: socialism. Not under capitalism.
The Fred moron speaks! Attend, idiot: No "ism" will change the amount of
land and water and sunshine and even oil. There is what there is.
> Capitalism is characterized by the creation of vast abundance at ever
> lower prices. Socialism is characterized by impoverishment and gulags.
And one size fits all golden fleece fundamentalists can only handle
religious propositions like the crap you sling around.
Michael Coburn
Exactly correct. We are seeking a midpoint that preserves choice and
rewards achievement while insuring basic health care for all. That is
what HR 3200 with a strong public option actually does. HR 3200 with a
strong public option is best characterized as a blend of the Swiss and
Canadian systems.
The Swiss pay 30% less for health care:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_427691.html --
... the plans can be costly. A family of four in Switzerland pays an
average of $680 a month in premiums. Government assistance helps pay
premiums for those less well off.
Health-care prices are set each year after negotiations between insurance
companies and medical providers. The fee schedule has to be approved by
the Swiss canton (or state) governments -- an approach Uwe Reinhardt of
Princeton University compares to the doomed health-reform plan drafted by
the Clinton administration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In Canada the people pay in taxes and there is, supposedly, much less
CHOICE, although this is a hotly debated statement.
Les Cargill
>
> Point is that personal liberty and communal prosperity are antithetical
> to one another. The more communal prosperity you wish to fund using my
> money, the less personal liberty I have.
>
> JG
>
That's not true, either. Personal liberty maximizes
(aggregate) communal prosperity, assuming rents
are properly accounted for and the proper lines for
"communal" are drawn.
If tax policy manages to increase communal prosperity,
then the equilibrium in place prior to the tax was
not optimal, and rents were in play.
--
Les Cargill
John Galt
> John Galt wrote:
>> tg wrote:
>>> On Aug 25, 8:05 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> Point is that personal liberty and communal prosperity are
>> antithetical to one another. The more communal prosperity you wish to
>> fund using my money, the less personal liberty I have.
>>
>> JG
>>
>
> That's not true, either. Personal liberty maximizes
> (aggregate) communal prosperity, assuming rents
> are properly accounted for and the proper lines for
> "communal" are drawn.
Assuming...... (my point exactly).
There is theory, and then there is practice.
JG
John Galt
> On Aug 25, 8:36 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Point is that personal liberty and communal prosperity are antithetical
>> to one another. The more communal prosperity you wish to fund using my
>> money, the less personal liberty I have.
>
> There is no possibility of "communal prosperity" if personal liberty
> is abridged to achieve it. If we learned nothing else from the 20th
> Cent. that should have been it.
Quite so.
JG
Les Cargill
>
> Right, that was my point above. You don't have a 'belief' or a
> philosophy about individual liberty, you are just being a normal human
> who desires to achieve his own preferences.
But preferences beyond what one man may do himself requires
people to trade with.
> I have no problem with that, it's just that your language is confused.
> The sentence:
>
> "...personal liberty and communal prosperity are antithetical to one
> another."
>
> is in fact invalid as I have pointed out, since personal liberty
> *increases* as communal prosperity increases.
>
> -tg
>
I think that is is the other way 'round - the liberty comes
before the prosperity. If a man or firm shares too much of the
tax burden ( away from whatever mythical optimum there may be ),
then he produces less goods or services, which reduces
communal prosperity.
Likewise, if someone accepts payments for rents which "should" not
really accrue to him, communal prosperity suffers - but so
does the "winner's" ability to trade for goods and services.
--
Les Cargill
jj
I'm also describing democratic socialism.
> Socialist nations do not have "voters" in the sense that democratic republics do,
That is just plain wrong, most obviously with democratic socialism as seen in western europe.
> and they certainly have a track record of using force to enforce their priorities.
Like hell democratic socialism in western europe does.
> Socialism is the government owning the means of production.
Not exclusively. ALL economys are a mix of capitalism and socialism,
even HongKong before it was handed back to china was, and so is the
US, most obviously with medicare and social security and public education.
> It's the US Government owning 70% of AIG and intending to keep it and run it for the (ostensible) social benefit
> (regardless of profits) on into perpetuity.
That last is a lie.
> (I use this example to show the obvious slippery slope involved.)
How odd that we didnt see that with medicare and social security and public education.
> Social democracy is simply the government, in certain institutions as you have listed (although public education is a
> bad example, since there is no federal school system, or even a state school system, for that matter),
Nope, its still done by govt.
> stating that the public function of the institution is so crucial to society that it's best if the government runs it,
That last is not what its about. Its actually about the voters deciding
what they want govt to do and what they dont want govt to do.
> thus insuring consistent application of the institution in all places and at all times,
Thats not what its about either. Public education is nothing like consistent in all places and at all times.
> and that the institution will exist onwards into perpetuity
Thats not what its about either. What is done by govt changes over
time as the voters decide they want govt to do it or stop doing it etc.
> without the same regard to solvency as a private sector institution would have.
Thats wrong too. Quite a bit of stuff govt does has the same regard
to solvency, most obviously when govts have done stuff like military
manufacturing etc and later decide to leave that to private industry
instead. In spades with some aspects of the cops and security etc.
That happened with taxation at one time too, with the modern
approach of having the govt do it instead of freelance tax collectors etc.
> A socialist government believes that society is served if all institutions are owned by the state
That is just plain wrong. Not one of the western european
democratic socialist systems did it like that.
You're massively confusing socialism and communism.
And even communism didnt own all institutions, most obviously with brothels etc.
> as it rejects the ability of private ownership to deliver a high societal standard of living, and is constantly
> moving in that direction.
Not one of the western european democratic socialist system did anything like that either.
> A social democracy,
Also called democratic socialism.
> OTOH, does not reject the notions of private ownership or capitalism in the least; they just simply take the
> position that certain institutions are too important to fail (or, too
> big to fail) and chooses to own them, thus socializing the risk.
It isnt just dont on that too important criterion, its much more
often done just on the basis of what the voters want the govt
to do and what they dont want the govt to do.
Thats why at one time some western european countrys had even
stuff like car manufacturing, coal mining, power generation, water
supply etc etc etc done by govt and now no longer do.
> Socialist governments have no track record of delivering prosperity.
Again, you are massively confusing socialist govt with communism.
> Social democracies, in practice, most certainly can, although they do appear to trade high-performance economic
> statistics for slightly less impressive ones. GDP per capita, income per capita, unemployment,
> etc., are all statistics that tend to be less impressive in nations with many social democratic institutions;
That is just plain wrong too, with scandinavia particularly doing rather
better on most of those measures than the dregs of the US does.
> and since these ultimately affect tax receipts used to fund the social democratic institutions, there is a fine line
> which must be respected where the people can no longer pay for the social democratic institutions without reform.
They mostly pay HALF the percentage of GDP that the US does for their health care.
> None of that is a news flash, and none of it is controversial in the least.
You claim about what constitutes socialism is that in spades.
>>> There is a whole helleva lot of difference when government TAKES
>>> from those that earn and gives to those who do NOT earn.
>> Its still socialism when the govt takes from taxpayers and does
>> what those taxpayers/voters have decided they want govt to do.
> Good point. In the 90's, one of the GOP "reforms" as part of the
> Contract of America (not a contract point, but as a means to an end)
> that we started to see was the idea that the federal government would
> stop sending money back to the states with detailed remittance
> instructions attached ("we are giving you this billion so you can
> provide single mothers below this income level $250 per child -- use it or lose it") and start sending it back in
> "block grants".
Thats just the distinction between federal and state taxation.
Not between whats done by govt and whats not done by govt.
> This was tied to the "unfunded mandate" problem, where the government would send (using the above example) only $150
> per child but insist that $250 per child be vended or lose the program funding, thus forcing the state to either give
> up money or toe the line. "Block Grants" just shipped a box of cash back to the state and said "to be given to kids in
> whatever way you like."
Thats just the detail of how tax revenue is spent by govt.
> Neither method, however, addresses the point you correctly make, that both methodologies are supporting a social
> democratic infrastructure. If you want to get the socialism out of that mechanism, you (the Feds) say "no more federal
> money for that program", and you cut federal taxes in homes that the states will raise their tax programs so as to
> fund the program.
So its still 'socialism'
>>> Charity is conscience of humankind caring for the less fortunate.
>> So is socialism.
> Well.....socialism is usually implemented for ideologic reasons that supersecede issues of the less fortunate.
Nope, most obviously with welfare as an alterative to charity.
> The less fortunate get used to implement the program (who wouldn't want the rich guy down the street to buy you a
> car?) and *may* see some cursory returns depending on how impoverished the nation was.
> But, WRT the "less fortunate", socialism is simply the statist
> solution for the problem while charity is the libertarian solution.
Mindlessly superficial. Even HongKong before it was handed
back to china had more than just charity for the 'less fortunate'
>>> These are two entirely different things.
>> Like hell they are.
>>> That Obama would try and play the 'moral card' for his
>>> deathcare plan is a total insult to the American people
>> How odd that every other modern first and second world country has gone the same route.
> The US has loads of social democratic institutions.
It has indeed.
> We have fewer than the established European nations, but we are not all THAT far out of skew with them.
What I said at the top in different words.
> However, that does not answer the question of whether it is "best" or
> "right", or even "moral", which is an aspect that enters when you are
> supporting your social democracy with massive deficit spending, eh?
Deficit spending is an entirely separate issue to what the voters decide they want govt to do.
John Galt
Same thing.
>
>> Socialist nations do not have "voters" in the sense that democratic republics do,
>
> That is just plain wrong, most obviously with democratic socialism as seen in western europe.
As I said, there are voters in social democracies, obviously.
>
>> and they certainly have a track record of using force to enforce their priorities.
>
> Like hell democratic socialism in western europe does.
>
>> Socialism is the government owning the means of production.
>
> Not exclusively. ALL economys are a mix of capitalism and socialism,
> even HongKong before it was handed back to china was, and so is the
> US, most obviously with medicare and social security and public education.
Obviously. I
>
>> It's the US Government owning 70% of AIG and intending to keep it and run it for the (ostensible) social benefit
>> (regardless of profits) on into perpetuity.
>
> That last is a lie.
What's a lie? It's a hypothetical. IF the US wants to run it in into
perpetuity, that's socialism. If this is just a true recovery and it's
sold back to shareholders, that's quite different.
>
>> (I use this example to show the obvious slippery slope involved.)
>
> How odd that we didnt see that with medicare and social security and public education.
How odd about what? Neither medicare, social security, nor "public
education" were ever private companies.
>
>> Social democracy is simply the government, in certain institutions as you have listed (although public education is a
>> bad example, since there is no federal school system, or even a state school system, for that matter),
>
> Nope, its still done by govt.
Not "nope" -- we're agreeing.
>
>> stating that the public function of the institution is so crucial to society that it's best if the government runs it,
>
> That last is not what its about. Its actually about the voters deciding
> what they want govt to do and what they dont want govt to do.
Not entirely. Even social democracies have constitutions.
>
>> thus insuring consistent application of the institution in all places and at all times,
>
> Thats not what its about either. Public education is nothing like consistent in all places and at all times.
It is in countries with competent educational systems. Developed nations
have national curriculums and national tests that are held to. We have
no national curriculum of the same sort.
>
>> and that the institution will exist onwards into perpetuity
>
> Thats not what its about either. What is done by govt changes over
> time as the voters decide they want govt to do it or stop doing it etc.
If possible, sure.
>
>> without the same regard to solvency as a private sector institution would have.
>
> Thats wrong too. Quite a bit of stuff govt does has the same regard
> to solvency, most obviously when govts have done stuff like military
> manufacturing etc and later decide to leave that to private industry
> instead. In spades with some aspects of the cops and security etc.
Wrong -- it's not the SAME REGARD. A private company has to turn a
profit or its stock goes into the shitter. A government enterprise can
backfill losses against tax receipts. Happens all the time. Obviously,
if the deficits are TOO great, the entire system is put at risk, but
there's nothing preventing government from running the venture at a loss
for awhile if it chooses to.
>
> That happened with taxation at one time too, with the modern
> approach of having the govt do it instead of freelance tax collectors etc.
>
>> A socialist government believes that society is served if all institutions are owned by the state
>
> That is just plain wrong. Not one of the western european
> democratic socialist systems did it like that.
That's because they're not socialist.
>
> You're massively confusing socialism and communism.
They are types of the same thing.
>
> And even communism didnt own all institutions, most obviously with brothels etc.
The government never owns everything. In a socialist state, they own
just about everything that matters to the macroeconomy, however.
>
>> as it rejects the ability of private ownership to deliver a high societal standard of living, and is constantly
>> moving in that direction.
>
> Not one of the western european democratic socialist system did anything like that either.
That's because they're not socialist countries.
>
>> A social democracy,
>
> Also called democratic socialism.
OK. :-)
>
>> OTOH, does not reject the notions of private ownership or capitalism in the least; they just simply take the
>> position that certain institutions are too important to fail (or, too
>> big to fail) and chooses to own them, thus socializing the risk.
>
> It isnt just dont on that too important criterion, its much more
> often done just on the basis of what the voters want the govt
> to do and what they dont want the govt to do.
If you have voters guiding the government and the government listens,
then you clearly have a social democracy and not socialism.
>
> Thats why at one time some western european countrys had even
> stuff like car manufacturing, coal mining, power generation, water
> supply etc etc etc done by govt and now no longer do.
>
>> Socialist governments have no track record of delivering prosperity.
>
> Again, you are massively confusing socialist govt with communism.
Communism is simply a variant. The USSR was a socialist state at its core.
>
>> Social democracies, in practice, most certainly can, although they do appear to trade high-performance economic
>> statistics for slightly less impressive ones. GDP per capita, income per capita, unemployment,
>> etc., are all statistics that tend to be less impressive in nations with many social democratic institutions;
>
> That is just plain wrong too, with scandinavia particularly doing rather
> better on most of those measures than the dregs of the US does.
Not over long periods of time. Further, Scandinavia is a bad example,
because they are such tiny countries that their economic dynamics are
very different. You may as well be claiming that Cuba's survival for 50
years proves the efficacy of communism.
>
>> and since these ultimately affect tax receipts used to fund the social democratic institutions, there is a fine line
>> which must be respected where the people can no longer pay for the social democratic institutions without reform.
>
> They mostly pay HALF the percentage of GDP that the US does for their health care.
Yes, and their systems run in the red like ours (Medicare) does.
Socialized institutions, to be sure.
>
>>>> Charity is conscience of humankind caring for the less fortunate.
>
>>> So is socialism.
>
>> Well.....socialism is usually implemented for ideologic reasons that supersecede issues of the less fortunate.
>
> Nope, most obviously with welfare as an alterative to charity.
Yep. Find me an example of SOCIALISM (not a social democracy) that's
otherwise.
>
>> The less fortunate get used to implement the program (who wouldn't want the rich guy down the street to buy you a
>> car?) and *may* see some cursory returns depending on how impoverished the nation was.
>
>> But, WRT the "less fortunate", socialism is simply the statist
>> solution for the problem while charity is the libertarian solution.
>
> Mindlessly superficial. Even HongKong before it was handed
> back to china had more than just charity for the 'less fortunate'
Of course it did. Hong Kong has always been a statist government. It has
a democratic layer, but people vote for slates of legislators, IIRC,
rather than individuals.
>
>>>> These are two entirely different things.
>
>>> Like hell they are.
>
>>>> That Obama would try and play the 'moral card' for his
>>>> deathcare plan is a total insult to the American people
>
>>> How odd that every other modern first and second world country has gone the same route.
>
>> The US has loads of social democratic institutions.
>
> It has indeed.
>
>> We have fewer than the established European nations, but we are not all THAT far out of skew with them.
>
> What I said at the top in different words.
>
>> However, that does not answer the question of whether it is "best" or
>> "right", or even "moral", which is an aspect that enters when you are
>> supporting your social democracy with massive deficit spending, eh?
>
> Deficit spending is an entirely separate issue to what the voters decide they want govt to do.
Au contraire. The voters can decide the government ought to print up a
million a citizen and pass it out, if they wish.
Good idea?
JG
Fred Weiss
> Fred Weiss wrote
> > Socialism is characterized by impoverishment and gulags.
>
> You wouldnt know what real socialism was if it bit you on your pig ignorant lard arse.
>
> The most socialist countrys in western europe ...
Obviously it's your pig ignorant lard arse which is on display here.
There are no longer any (strictly) socialist countries in all of
Europe, not just western Europe.
Welfare states, yes. If you weren't such a pig ignorant lard arse you
would know that the socialists were recently defeated in Germany and
France - not that even they had any intention of establishing real
socialism. Even pig ignorant lard arse socialists know that it is a
prescription for disaster.
Fred Weiss
> tg wrote:
> > ... as I have pointed out, since personal liberty
> > *increases* as communal prosperity increases.
>
> > -tg
>
> I think that is is the other way 'round - the liberty comes
> before the prosperity.
I agree with you, Les. It's also a simple fact of history. As personal
freedom grew in the 19th Cent. there was an historically unparalled
explosion of prosperity - and one in fact which benefited everyone,
even the poorest. By our standards of course their lives were still
pretty miserable. But relative to what their lives were before it was
an improvement and most importantly it offered the prospect of
continued improvement, so that even if they remained poor their
children had vastly improved opportunities. The descendants of the
Chinese coolies are disproportionality represented at all the best
universities in the country. The same can of course be said of the
Jewish pushcart peddlers.
Etc.
jj
> Same thing.
Yes, so your claims about democratic socialism below are just plain wrong.
>>> Socialist nations do not have "voters" in the sense that democratic
>>> republics do,
>>
>> That is just plain wrong, most obviously with democratic socialism
>> as seen in western europe.
> As I said, there are voters in social democracies, obviously.
So your do not have above is just plain wrong.
>>> and they certainly have a track record of using force to enforce
>>> their priorities.
>>
>> Like hell democratic socialism in western europe does.
>>
>>> Socialism is the government owning the means of production.
>>
>> Not exclusively. ALL economys are a mix of capitalism and socialism,
>> even HongKong before it was handed back to china was, and so is the
>> US, most obviously with medicare and social security and public
>> education.
>
> Obviously. I
>>
>>> It's the US Government owning 70% of AIG and intending to keep it and run it for the (ostensible) social benefit
>>> (regardless of profits) on into perpetuity.
>> That last is a lie.
> What's a lie?
That they intend to run it themselves in perpetuity.
> It's a hypothetical.
Its a lie.
> IF the US wants to run it in into perpetuity, that's socialism.
Thats wrong too. Plenty of the socialism in western europe was
wound back over time, most obviously with govt car manufacturing,
coal mining, power generation, water supply, phones etc etc etc.
> If this is just a true recovery and it's sold back to shareholders, that's quite different.
Its a lie that they intend to run it in perpetuity. They intend nothing of the sort. GM too.
>>> (I use this example to show the obvious slippery slope involved.)
>> How odd that we didnt see that with medicare and social security and
>> public education.
> How odd about what?
That there is no 'slipperly slope'
> Neither medicare, social security, nor "public
> education" were ever private companies.
But there was no 'slipperly slope'
>>> Social democracy is simply the government, in certain institutions
>>> as you have listed (although public education is a bad example,
>>> since there is no federal school system, or even a state school
>>> system, for that matter),
>> Nope, its still done by govt.
> Not "nope" -- we're agreeing.
No we arent, I dont agree that its a bad example.
Its an excellent example of what the voters decide they want govt to do and is
universal right thruout the entire first and second and much of the third world too.
>>> stating that the public function of the institution is so crucial to society that it's best if the government runs
>>> it,
>> That last is not what its about. Its actually about the voters deciding what they want govt to do and what they dont
>> want govt to do.
> Not entirely. Even social democracies have constitutions.
And constitutions are ALL amendable by enough voters wanting it changed.
>>> thus insuring consistent application of the institution in all places and at all times,
>> Thats not what its about either. Public education is nothing like consistent in all places and at all times.
> It is in countries with competent educational systems.
Nope, there are always significant differences between areas
where the parents support/value education and where they dont.
> Developed nations have national curriculums and national tests that are held to.
Hordes of them dont, most obviously with federal systems.
> We have no national curriculum of the same sort.
Neither do most federal systems, because public education
is usually a state responsibility in the bulk of those.
>>> and that the institution will exist onwards into perpetuity
>> Thats not what its about either. What is done by govt changes over
>> time as the voters decide they want govt to do it or stop doing it etc.
> If possible, sure.
That ALWAYS happens, even in the US.
The US is currently discussing what it wants govt to do in health care.
And significantly changed what it wanted govt to do with social security,
medicare, the FDIC etc etc etc during the great depression and after that.
And signficantly changed what it wanted govt to do militarily over time as well.
And significantly changed what it wanted govt to do about welfare too.
>>> without the same regard to solvency as a private sector institution would have.
>> Thats wrong too. Quite a bit of stuff govt does has the same regard
>> to solvency, most obviously when govts have done stuff like military
>> manufacturing etc and later decide to leave that to private industry
>> instead. In spades with some aspects of the cops and security etc.
> Wrong -- it's not the SAME REGARD.
Corse it is.
> A private company has to turn a profit or its stock goes into the shitter.
Its much more complicated than that.
> A government enterprise can backfill losses against tax receipts.
And few govt enterprises are allowed to do that forever,
particularly with the more marginal operations like car
manufacture, coal mining, phone services, airlines, etc etc etc.
> Happens all the time. Obviously, if the deficits are TOO great, the entire system is put at risk,
No it isnt, they worst they have to do is increase taxes.
> but there's nothing preventing government from running the venture at a loss for awhile if it chooses to.
Same is true for private operations as well, most obviously in recessions.
>> That happened with taxation at one time too, with the modern approach of having the govt do it instead of freelance
>> tax collectors etc.
>>> A socialist government believes that society is served if all institutions are owned by the state
>> That is just plain wrong. Not one of the western european democratic socialist systems did it like that.
> That's because they're not socialist.
Corse they are socialist democracys.
>> You're massively confusing socialism and communism.
> They are types of the same thing.
Nope. Democratic socialism is quite different to communism on the voters
getting to decide what govt does and what it doesnt do for starters.
>> And even communism didnt own all institutions, most obviously with brothels etc.
> The government never owns everything.
What I said, as opposed to what you originally said.
> In a socialist state, they own just about everything that matters to the macroeconomy, however.
Again, thats communism, not socialism.
No western european social democracy has ever
had the state own all property, or even all stores etc.
>>> as it rejects the ability of private ownership to deliver a high societal standard of living, and is constantly
>>> moving in that direction.
>> Not one of the western european democratic socialist system did anything like that either.
> That's because they're not socialist countries.
Corse they are.
>>> A social democracy,
>> Also called democratic socialism.
> OK. :-)
>>> OTOH, does not reject the notions of private ownership or
>>> capitalism in the least; they just simply take the position that certain institutions are too important to fail (or,
>>> too big to fail) and chooses to own them, thus socializing the risk.
>> It isnt just dont on that too important criterion, its much more
>> often done just on the basis of what the voters want the govt
>> to do and what they dont want the govt to do.
> If you have voters guiding the government and the government listens, then you clearly have a social democracy and not
> socialism.
Its still democratic socialism.
>> Thats why at one time some western european countrys had even
>> stuff like car manufacturing, coal mining, power generation, water
>> supply etc etc etc done by govt and now no longer do.
>>> Socialist governments have no track record of delivering prosperity.
>> Again, you are massively confusing socialist govt with communism.
> Communism is simply a variant.
EVERY system is simply a variant.
> The USSR was a socialist state at its core.
And so is the western european democratic socialism.
>>> Social democracies, in practice, most certainly can, although they do appear to trade high-performance economic
>>> statistics for slightly less impressive ones. GDP per capita, income per capita, unemployment, etc., are all
>>> statistics that tend to be less
>>> impressive in nations with many social democratic institutions;
>> That is just plain wrong too, with scandinavia particularly doing rather better on most of those measures than the
>> dregs of the US does.
> Not over long periods of time.
That is just plain wrong, particularly with the dregs of the respective societys.
> Further, Scandinavia is a bad example, because they are such tiny countries that their economic dynamics are very
> different.
They still blow a damned great hole in that claim about
GDP per capita, income per capita, unemployment, etc.
> You may as well be claiming that Cuba's survival for 50 years proves the efficacy of communism.
It does much more badly on GDP per capita,
income per capita, unemployment, etc.
>>> and since these ultimately affect tax receipts used to fund the
>>> social democratic institutions, there is a fine line which must be
>>> respected where the people can no longer pay for the social
>>> democratic institutions without reform.
>> They mostly pay HALF the percentage of GDP that the US does for their health care.
> Yes, and their systems run in the red like ours (Medicare) does.
Theirs dont run in the red. Japans doesnt.
And there is no 'runs in the red' anyway any more than there is with social security.
>> So its still 'socialism'
And its still socialism.
>>>>> Charity is conscience of humankind caring for the less fortunate.
>>>> So is socialism.
>>> Well.....socialism is usually implemented for ideologic reasons that supersecede issues of the less fortunate.
>> Nope, most obviously with welfare as an alterative to charity.
> Yep. Find me an example of SOCIALISM (not a social democracy) that's otherwise.
Western european democratic socialism.
>>> The less fortunate get used to implement the program (who wouldn't
>>> want the rich guy down the street to buy you a car?) and *may* see
>>> some cursory returns depending on how impoverished the nation was.
>>> But, WRT the "less fortunate", socialism is simply the statist
>>> solution for the problem while charity is the libertarian solution.
>> Mindlessly superficial. Even HongKong before it was handed
>> back to china had more than just charity for the 'less fortunate'
> Of course it did. Hong Kong has always been a statist government.
Nope. Not when it started it wasnt.
> It has a democratic layer,
It didnt then, well before it was handed back to china.
> but people vote for slates of legislators, IIRC, rather than individuals.
That was just the sham put in place just before it was handed back to china.
They didnt get any vote at all for anything before that.
>>>>> These are two entirely different things.
>>>> Like hell they are.
>>>>> That Obama would try and play the 'moral card' for his
>>>>> deathcare plan is a total insult to the American people
>>>> How odd that every other modern first and second world country has gone the same route.
>>> The US has loads of social democratic institutions.
>> It has indeed.
>>> We have fewer than the established European nations, but we are not all THAT far out of skew with them.
>> What I said at the top in different words.
>>> However, that does not answer the question of whether it is "best" or "right", or even "moral", which is an aspect
>>> that enters when you are supporting your social democracy with massive deficit spending, eh?
>> Deficit spending is an entirely separate issue to what the voters decide they want govt to do.
> Au contraire.
Nope.
> The voters can decide the government ought to print up a million a citizen and pass it out, if they wish.
> Good idea?
Irrelevant to what is being discussed.
Rod Speed
>>> Socialism is characterized by impoverishment and gulags.
>> You wouldnt know what real socialism was
>> if it bit you on your pig ignorant lard arse.
>> The most socialist countrys in western europe have rather higher living standards
>>than the dregs of the US do, and dont have even a single gulag like Gitmo either.
> Obviously it's your pig ignorant lard arse which is on display here.
We'll see...
> There are no longer any (strictly) socialist countries
> in all of Europe, not just western Europe.
No one said anything about (strictly) socialist countries, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
> Welfare states, yes. If you weren't such a pig ignorant lard arse you would
> know that the socialists were recently defeated in Germany and France
They still have much more socialism than the US does, and not one gulag, unlike the US.
> - not that even they had any intention of establishing real socialism.
You wouldnt know what real socialism was
if it bit you on your pig ignorant lard arse.
> Even pig ignorant lard arse socialists know that it is a prescription for disaster.
How odd that they went for so much of it. And not one gulag in 60 years either.
Rod Speed
>>> ... as I have pointed out, since personal liberty
>>> *increases* as communal prosperity increases.
>> I think that is is the other way 'round - the liberty comes before the prosperity.
> I agree with you, Les. It's also a simple fact of history.
No it isnt. That wasnt what produced by far the
biggest driver of prosperity, the industrial revolution.
> As personal freedom grew in the 19th Cent. there
> was an historically unparalled explosion of prosperity
That is just plain wrong, most obviously with the draconian controls
on the freedom of the press just after the printing press was invented.
> - and one in fact which benefited everyone, even the poorest.
That was the industrial revolution, not personal liberty.
The early industrial revolution not only still had slavery, it also had press gangs as well.
Some personal liberty.
> By our standards of course their lives were still pretty miserable.
> But relative to what their lives were before it was an improvement
Thats wrong too with longevity with the poorest.
> and most importantly it offered the prospect of continued
> improvement, so that even if they remained poor their
> children had vastly improved opportunities.
Yes, but that was the industrial revolution and science, not personal liberty.
> The descendants of the Chinese coolies are disproportionality
> represented at all the best universities in the country.
They're mostly much more recent immigrants, not descendants of coolies.
> The same can of course be said of the Jewish pushcart peddlers.
> Etc.
But not of the dregs from africa etc.
John Galt
Uh, no.
>
>>>> Socialist nations do not have "voters" in the sense that democratic
>>>> republics do,
>>> That is just plain wrong, most obviously with democratic socialism
>>> as seen in western europe.
>
>> As I said, there are voters in social democracies, obviously.
>
> So your do not have above is just plain wrong.
>
>>>> and they certainly have a track record of using force to enforce
>>>> their priorities.
>>> Like hell democratic socialism in western europe does.
>>>
>>>> Socialism is the government owning the means of production.
>>> Not exclusively. ALL economys are a mix of capitalism and socialism,
>>> even HongKong before it was handed back to china was, and so is the
>>> US, most obviously with medicare and social security and public
>>> education.
>> Obviously. I
>>>> It's the US Government owning 70% of AIG and intending to keep it and run it for the (ostensible) social benefit
>>>> (regardless of profits) on into perpetuity.
>
>>> That last is a lie.
>
>> What's a lie?
>
> That they intend to run it themselves in perpetuity.
>
>> It's a hypothetical.
>
> Its a lie.
You can't tell the difference between an "if-then"?
>
>> IF the US wants to run it in into perpetuity, that's socialism.
>
> Thats wrong too. Plenty of the socialism in western europe was
> wound back over time, most obviously with govt car manufacturing,
> coal mining, power generation, water supply, phones etc etc etc.
Didn't say it couldn't be wound back. If the upfront intent is perpetual
ownership, you're socializing the entity.
>
>> If this is just a true recovery and it's sold back to shareholders, that's quite different.
>
> Its a lie that they intend to run it in perpetuity. They intend nothing of the sort. GM too.
I claimed nothing to the contrary.
>
>>>> (I use this example to show the obvious slippery slope involved.)
>
>>> How odd that we didnt see that with medicare and social security and
>>> public education.
>
>> How odd about what?
>
> That there is no 'slipperly slope'
>
>> Neither medicare, social security, nor "public
>> education" were ever private companies.
>
> But there was no 'slipperly slope'
Not in those cases, obviously, because they were never private.
>
>>>> Social democracy is simply the government, in certain institutions
>>>> as you have listed (although public education is a bad example,
>>>> since there is no federal school system, or even a state school
>>>> system, for that matter),
>
>>> Nope, its still done by govt.
>
>> Not "nope" -- we're agreeing.
>
> No we arent, I dont agree that its a bad example.
We've never had a national school system. Ergo, it's dissimilar to the
others.
>
> Its an excellent example of what the voters decide they want govt to do and is
> universal right thruout the entire first and second and much of the third world too.
>
>>>> stating that the public function of the institution is so crucial to society that it's best if the government runs
>>>> it,
>
>>> That last is not what its about. Its actually about the voters deciding what they want govt to do and what they dont
>>> want govt to do.
>
>> Not entirely. Even social democracies have constitutions.
>
> And constitutions are ALL amendable by enough voters wanting it changed.
More or less. Ours doesn't amend easily, thus providing inertia.
>
>>>> thus insuring consistent application of the institution in all places and at all times,
>
>>> Thats not what its about either. Public education is nothing like consistent in all places and at all times.
>
>> It is in countries with competent educational systems.
>
> Nope, there are always significant differences between areas
> where the parents support/value education and where they dont.
Common standards provide continuity.
>
>> Developed nations have national curriculums and national tests that are held to.
>
> Hordes of them dont, most obviously with federal systems.
"Hordes" of them do.
>
>> We have no national curriculum of the same sort.
>
> Neither do most federal systems, because public education
> is usually a state responsibility in the bulk of those.
UK/Canada/Japan/France.....all have them, to name a few.
>
>>>> and that the institution will exist onwards into perpetuity
>
>>> Thats not what its about either. What is done by govt changes over
>>> time as the voters decide they want govt to do it or stop doing it etc.
>
>> If possible, sure.
>
> That ALWAYS happens, even in the US.
>
> The US is currently discussing what it wants govt to do in health care.
>
> And significantly changed what it wanted govt to do with social security,
> medicare, the FDIC etc etc etc during the great depression and after that.
>
> And signficantly changed what it wanted govt to do militarily over time as well.
>
> And significantly changed what it wanted govt to do about welfare too.
Obviously.
>
>>>> without the same regard to solvency as a private sector institution would have.
>
>>> Thats wrong too. Quite a bit of stuff govt does has the same regard
>>> to solvency, most obviously when govts have done stuff like military
>>> manufacturing etc and later decide to leave that to private industry
>>> instead. In spades with some aspects of the cops and security etc.
>
>> Wrong -- it's not the SAME REGARD.
>
> Corse it is.
Are you seriously arguing that a public and private venture have the
same objectives. :-)
>
>> A private company has to turn a profit or its stock goes into the shitter.
>
> Its much more complicated than that.
>
>> A government enterprise can backfill losses against tax receipts.
>
> And few govt enterprises are allowed to do that forever,
> particularly with the more marginal operations like car
> manufacture, coal mining, phone services, airlines, etc etc etc.
>
>> Happens all the time. Obviously, if the deficits are TOO great, the entire system is put at risk,
>
> No it isnt, they worst they have to do is increase taxes.
If they can. Taxation is not infinite. Increased taxation impacts
economic activity.
>
>> but there's nothing preventing government from running the venture at a loss for awhile if it chooses to.
>
> Same is true for private operations as well, most obviously in recessions.
Most obviously, but the government has more of an ability to do so.
>
>>> That happened with taxation at one time too, with the modern approach of having the govt do it instead of freelance
>>> tax collectors etc.
>
>>>> A socialist government believes that society is served if all institutions are owned by the state
>
>>> That is just plain wrong. Not one of the western european democratic socialist systems did it like that.
>
>> That's because they're not socialist.
>
> Corse they are socialist democracys.
>
>>> You're massively confusing socialism and communism.
>
>> They are types of the same thing.
>
> Nope. Democratic socialism is quite different to communism on the voters
> getting to decide what govt does and what it doesnt do for starters.
Granted. It's socialism and communism that are types of the same thing.
Not all socialist countries are social democracies.
>
>>> And even communism didnt own all institutions, most obviously with brothels etc.
>
>> The government never owns everything.
>
> What I said, as opposed to what you originally said.
>
>> In a socialist state, they own just about everything that matters to the macroeconomy, however.
>
> Again, thats communism, not socialism.
Types of the same thing. Socialism is not synonymous with social democracy.
>
> No western european social democracy has ever
> had the state own all property, or even all stores etc.
Obviously. They're not socialist states.
>
>>>> as it rejects the ability of private ownership to deliver a high societal standard of living, and is constantly
>>>> moving in that direction.
>
>>> Not one of the western european democratic socialist system did anything like that either.
>
>> That's because they're not socialist countries.
>
> Corse they are.
Rubbish. You're redefining terms.
>
>>>> A social democracy,
>
>>> Also called democratic socialism.
>
>> OK. :-)
>
>>>> OTOH, does not reject the notions of private ownership or
>>>> capitalism in the least; they just simply take the position that certain institutions are too important to fail (or,
>>>> too big to fail) and chooses to own them, thus socializing the risk.
>
>>> It isnt just dont on that too important criterion, its much more
>>> often done just on the basis of what the voters want the govt
>>> to do and what they dont want the govt to do.
>
>> If you have voters guiding the government and the government listens, then you clearly have a social democracy and not
>> socialism.
>
> Its still democratic socialism.
>
>>> Thats why at one time some western european countrys had even
>>> stuff like car manufacturing, coal mining, power generation, water
>>> supply etc etc etc done by govt and now no longer do.
>
>>>> Socialist governments have no track record of delivering prosperity.
>
>>> Again, you are massively confusing socialist govt with communism.
>
>> Communism is simply a variant.
>
> EVERY system is simply a variant.
>
>> The USSR was a socialist state at its core.
>
> And so is the western european democratic socialism.
Incorrect.
>
>>>> Social democracies, in practice, most certainly can, although they do appear to trade high-performance economic
>>>> statistics for slightly less impressive ones. GDP per capita, income per capita, unemployment, etc., are all
>>>> statistics that tend to be less
>>>> impressive in nations with many social democratic institutions;
>
>>> That is just plain wrong too, with scandinavia particularly doing rather better on most of those measures than the
>>> dregs of the US does.
>
>> Not over long periods of time.
>
> That is just plain wrong, particularly with the dregs of the respective societys.
Incorrect. The eurozone, on average, has lower GDP and higher
unemployment rates than we.
>
>> Further, Scandinavia is a bad example, because they are such tiny countries that their economic dynamics are very
>> different.
>
> They still blow a damned great hole in that claim about
> GDP per capita, income per capita, unemployment, etc.
Nope. Apples and oranges.
>
>> You may as well be claiming that Cuba's survival for 50 years proves the efficacy of communism.
>
> It does much more badly on GDP per capita,
> income per capita, unemployment, etc.
>
>>>> and since these ultimately affect tax receipts used to fund the
>>>> social democratic institutions, there is a fine line which must be
>>>> respected where the people can no longer pay for the social
>>>> democratic institutions without reform.
>
>>> They mostly pay HALF the percentage of GDP that the US does for their health care.
>
>> Yes, and their systems run in the red like ours (Medicare) does.
>
> Theirs dont run in the red. Japans doesnt.
I doubt that, but feel free to show the stats.
It's quite relevant. Obviously.
JG
Fred Weiss
> Fred Weiss wrote
> > - and one in fact which benefited everyone, even the poorest.
>
> That was the industrial revolution, not personal liberty.
The growth in personal liberty went hand in hand with the Industrial
Revolution. In that era it was recognized that property rights were a
key component of personal liberty.
> The early industrial revolution not only still had slavery, it also had press gangs as well.
And it was the Industrial Revolution, accompanied by the rising middle
class, which led to their abolishment.
It was no coincedence that the industrial/liberal north defeated the
agrarian/feudal south. It was in fact in that respect an iconic
conflict of the era.
Rod Speed
Neither has most countrys with a federal system.
> Ergo, it's dissimilar to the others.
Nope, not to the other federal systems.
>> Its an excellent example of what the voters decide they want govt to
>> do and is universal right thruout the entire first and second and much of the
>> third world too.
>>>>> stating that the public function of the institution is so crucial
>>>>> to society that it's best if the government runs it,
>>
>>>> That last is not what its about. Its actually about the voters
>>>> deciding what they want govt to do and what they dont want govt to
>>>> do.
>>
>>> Not entirely. Even social democracies have constitutions.
>>
>> And constitutions are ALL amendable by enough voters wanting it changed.
> More or less. Ours doesn't amend easily, thus providing inertia.
They're ALL done that way. Thats the essential
difference between a constitution and other legislation.
>>>>> thus insuring consistent application of the institution in all
>>>>> places and at all times,
>>>> Thats not what its about either. Public education is nothing like
>>>> consistent in all places and at all times.
>>> It is in countries with competent educational systems.
>> Nope, there are always significant differences between areas
>> where the parents support/value education and where they dont.
> Common standards provide continuity.
No it doesnt. Because there isnt even common standards in federal systems.
>>> Developed nations have national curriculums and national tests that are held to.
>> Hordes of them dont, most obviously with federal systems.
> "Hordes" of them do.
There are in fact just as many federal as non federal systems.
>>> We have no national curriculum of the same sort.
>> Neither do most federal systems, because public education
>> is usually a state responsibility in the bulk of those.
> UK/Canada/Japan/France.....all have them, to name a few.
And Germany/Australia/India/Russia/Switzerland dont.
>>>>> and that the institution will exist onwards into perpetuity
>>>> Thats not what its about either. What is done by govt changes over
>>>> time as the voters decide they want govt to do it or stop doing it etc.
>>> If possible, sure.
>> That ALWAYS happens, even in the US.
>> The US is currently discussing what it wants govt to do in health care.
>> And significantly changed what it wanted govt to do with social security, medicare, the FDIC etc etc etc during the
>> great depression and after that.
>> And signficantly changed what it wanted govt to do militarily over time as well.
>> And significantly changed what it wanted govt to do about welfare too.
> Obviously.
So is clearly possible.
>>>>> without the same regard to solvency as a private sector institution would have.
>>>> Thats wrong too. Quite a bit of stuff govt does has the same regard
>>>> to solvency, most obviously when govts have done stuff like military manufacturing etc and later decide to leave
>>>> that to private industry instead. In spades with some aspects of the cops and security etc.
>>> Wrong -- it's not the SAME REGARD.
>> Corse it is.
> Are you seriously arguing that a public and private venture have the same objectives. :-)
Nope, obviously that both can run at a loss at times.
>>> A private company has to turn a profit or its stock goes into the shitter.
>> Its much more complicated than that.
>>> A government enterprise can backfill losses against tax receipts.
>> And few govt enterprises are allowed to do that forever,
>> particularly with the more marginal operations like car
>> manufacture, coal mining, phone services, airlines, etc etc etc.
>>> Happens all the time. Obviously, if the deficits are TOO great, the
>>> entire system is put at risk,
>> No it isnt, they worst they have to do is increase taxes.
> If they can.
Corse they can.
> Taxation is not infinite.
Neither is anything else.
> Increased taxation impacts economic activity.
They can still do it anyway.
And debt impacts economic activity too.
>>> but there's nothing preventing government from running the venture at a loss for awhile if it chooses to.
>> Same is true for private operations as well, most obviously in recessions.
> Most obviously, but the government has more of an ability to do so.
So what ?
>>>> That happened with taxation at one time too, with the modern approach of having the govt do it instead of freelance
>>>> tax collectors etc.
>>>>> A socialist government believes that society is served if all institutions are owned by the state
>>>> That is just plain wrong. Not one of the western european
>>>> democratic socialist systems did it like that.
>>> That's because they're not socialist.
>> Corse they are socialist democracys.
>>>> You're massively confusing socialism and communism.
>>> They are types of the same thing.
>> Nope. Democratic socialism is quite different to communism on the voters getting to decide what govt does and what it
>> doesnt do for starters.
> Granted. It's socialism and communism that are types of the same thing. Not all socialist countries are social
> democracies.
Not all non socialist countrys are democracys either. So what ?
>>>> And even communism didnt own all institutions, most obviously with brothels etc.
>>> The government never owns everything.
>> What I said, as opposed to what you originally said.
>>> In a socialist state, they own just about everything that matters to the macroeconomy, however.
>> Again, thats communism, not socialism.
> Types of the same thing.
Nope. ALL modern economys are a mix of socialism and capitalism.
They only vary in the amount of each.
> Socialism is not synonymous with social democracy.
Odd that its called democratic socialism.
>> No western european social democracy has ever
>> had the state own all property, or even all stores etc.
> Obviously. They're not socialist states.
Corse they are. So is the US. Its just got less socialism than many of those do.
>>>>> as it rejects the ability of private ownership to deliver a high societal standard of living, and is constantly
>>>>> moving in that direction.
>>>> Not one of the western european democratic socialist system did
>>>> anything like that either.
>>> That's because they're not socialist countries.
>> Corse they are.
> Rubbish. You're redefining terms.
Nope, you are. You mangling socialism and communism.
They aint the same thing, whatever you claim.
>>>>> A social democracy,
>>>> Also called democratic socialism.
>>> OK. :-)
>>>>> OTOH, does not reject the notions of private ownership or
>>>>> capitalism in the least; they just simply take the position that
>>>>> certain institutions are too important to fail (or, too big to
>>>>> fail) and chooses to own them, thus socializing the risk.
>>>> It isnt just dont on that too important criterion, its much more
>>>> often done just on the basis of what the voters want the govt
>>>> to do and what they dont want the govt to do.
>>> If you have voters guiding the government and the government
>>> listens, then you clearly have a social democracy and not socialism.
>> Its still democratic socialism.
>>>> Thats why at one time some western european countrys had even
>>>> stuff like car manufacturing, coal mining, power generation, water
>>>> supply etc etc etc done by govt and now no longer do.
>>>>> Socialist governments have no track record of delivering prosperity.
>>>> Again, you are massively confusing socialist govt with communism.
>>> Communism is simply a variant.
>> EVERY system is simply a variant.
>>> The USSR was a socialist state at its core.
>> And so is the western european democratic socialism.
> Incorrect.
How odd that its called democratic socialism.
>>>>> Social democracies, in practice, most certainly can, although
>>>>> they do appear to trade high-performance economic statistics for slightly less impressive ones. GDP per capita,
>>>>> income per capita,
>>>>> unemployment, etc., are all statistics that tend to be less impressive in nations with many social democratic
>>>>> institutions;
>>>> That is just plain wrong too, with scandinavia particularly doing rather better on most of those measures than the
>>>> dregs of the US does.
>>> Not over long periods of time.
>> That is just plain wrong, particularly with the dregs of the respective societys.
> Incorrect.
Nope.
> The eurozone, on average, has lower GDP and higher unemployment rates than we.
Irrelevant to what the best western european democratic socialist states get on those measures.
>>> Further, Scandinavia is a bad example, because they are such tiny countries that their economic dynamics are very
>>> different.
>> They still blow a damned great hole in that claim about
>> GDP per capita, income per capita, unemployment, etc.
> Nope. Apples and oranges.
LIke hell they are.
>>> You may as well be claiming that Cuba's survival for 50 years
>>> proves the efficacy of communism.
>> It does much more badly on GDP per capita,
>> income per capita, unemployment, etc.
>>>>> and since these ultimately affect tax receipts used to fund the
>>>>> social democratic institutions, there is a fine line which must be
>>>>> respected where the people can no longer pay for the social
>>>>> democratic institutions without reform.
>>>> They mostly pay HALF the percentage of GDP that the US does for
>>>> their health care.
>>> Yes, and their systems run in the red like ours (Medicare) does.
>> Theirs dont run in the red. Japans doesnt.
> I doubt that, but feel free to show the stats.
YOU made the claim that they all run in the red.
YOU get to show the stats that show that.
THATS how it works.
The Japanese system JUST has the govt set prices that can be charged,
so by definition it cant be in the red since it doesnt pay for anything.
>>>> So its still 'socialism'
>> And its still socialism.
>>>>>> So is socialism.
>> Western european democratic socialism.
>>>>>> Like hell they are.
>>>> It has indeed.
>>> Au contraire.
>> Nope.
>>> Good idea?
Nope, nothing to do with socialism, thats just democracy, a different matter entirely.
Les Cargill
> On Aug 25, 3:55 pm, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>> tg wrote:
>
>>> ... as I have pointed out, since personal liberty
>>> *increases* as communal prosperity increases.
>>> -tg
>> I think that is is the other way 'round - the liberty comes
>> before the prosperity.
>
> I agree with you, Les. It's also a simple fact of history. As personal
> freedom grew in the 19th Cent. there was an historically unparalled
> explosion of prosperity - and one in fact which benefited everyone,
> even the poorest.
*Especially* the poorest. And, as Fred knows, David Friedman
once showed me that the decline in poverty in the US *slowed
down* with the passage of the War on Poverty. By no means
conclusive ( it's correlation, not causation ), the bend
in that particular graph is still there.
This cast doubt on one of my most cherished Liberal
beliefs. I ain't done with it yet, either, but it
looks bad. My parents are hardcore LBJ Democrats,
Okies and that's a bitter pill.
> By our standards of course their lives were still
> pretty miserable. But relative to what their lives were before it was
> an improvement and most importantly it offered the prospect of
> continued improvement, so that even if they remained poor their
> children had vastly improved opportunities.
There is this graph which shows GDP per person, historically. Starting
around 1820, it just takes completely off. It's one of the most
startling things I have ever seen. And it apparently
continued this well into the 20th Century... until (in the US,
anyway) the War on Poverty - maybe.
The descendants of the
> Chinese coolies are disproportionality represented at all the best
> universities in the country. The same can of course be said of the
> Jewish pushcart peddlers.
But there's a real effect from immigration there. Second and sometimes
first generation immigrants very often exhibit high levels of
achievement - for reasons that should be all but obvious.
That's my story for now. It'll change, I am sure. But maybe not.
> Etc.
>
>
>
--
Les Cragill
jj
Neither has most countrys with a federal system.
> Ergo, it's dissimilar to the others.
Nope, not to the other federal systems.
>> Its an excellent example of what the voters decide they want govt to
>> do and is universal right thruout the entire first and second and much of the
>> third world too.
>>>>> stating that the public function of the institution is so crucial
>>>>> to society that it's best if the government runs it,
>>
>>>> That last is not what its about. Its actually about the voters
>>>> deciding what they want govt to do and what they dont want govt to
>>>> do.
>>
>>> Not entirely. Even social democracies have constitutions.
>>
>> And constitutions are ALL amendable by enough voters wanting it changed.
> More or less. Ours doesn't amend easily, thus providing inertia.
They're ALL done that way. Thats the essential
difference between a constitution and other legislation.
>>>>> thus insuring consistent application of the institution in all
>>>>> places and at all times,
>>>> Thats not what its about either. Public education is nothing like
>>>> consistent in all places and at all times.
>>> It is in countries with competent educational systems.
>> Nope, there are always significant differences between areas
>> where the parents support/value education and where they dont.
> Common standards provide continuity.
No it doesnt. Because there isnt even common standards in federal systems.
>>> Developed nations have national curriculums and national tests that are held to.
>> Hordes of them dont, most obviously with federal systems.
> "Hordes" of them do.
There are in fact just as many federal as non federal systems.
>>> We have no national curriculum of the same sort.
>> Neither do most federal systems, because public education
>> is usually a state responsibility in the bulk of those.
> UK/Canada/Japan/France.....all have them, to name a few.
And Germany/Australia/India/Russia/Switzerland dont.
>>>>> and that the institution will exist onwards into perpetuity
>>>> Thats not what its about either. What is done by govt changes over
>>>> time as the voters decide they want govt to do it or stop doing it etc.
>>> If possible, sure.
>> That ALWAYS happens, even in the US.
>> The US is currently discussing what it wants govt to do in health care.
>> And significantly changed what it wanted govt to do with social security, medicare, the FDIC etc etc etc during the
>> great depression and after that.
>> And signficantly changed what it wanted govt to do militarily over time as well.
>> And significantly changed what it wanted govt to do about welfare too.
> Obviously.
So is clearly possible.
>>>>> without the same regard to solvency as a private sector institution would have.
>>>> Thats wrong too. Quite a bit of stuff govt does has the same regard
>>>> to solvency, most obviously when govts have done stuff like military manufacturing etc and later decide to leave
>>>> that to private industry instead. In spades with some aspects of the cops and security etc.
>>> Wrong -- it's not the SAME REGARD.
>> Corse it is.
> Are you seriously arguing that a public and private venture have the same objectives.
Nope, obviously that both can run at a loss at times.
>>> A private company has to turn a profit or its stock goes into the shitter.
>> Its much more complicated than that.
>>> A government enterprise can backfill losses against tax receipts.
>> And few govt enterprises are allowed to do that forever,
>> particularly with the more marginal operations like car
>> manufacture, coal mining, phone services, airlines, etc etc etc.
>>> Happens all the time. Obviously, if the deficits are TOO great, the
>>> entire system is put at risk,
>> No it isnt, they worst they have to do is increase taxes.
> If they can.
Corse they can.
> Taxation is not infinite.
Neither is anything else.
> Increased taxation impacts economic activity.
They can still do it anyway.
And debt impacts economic activity too.
>>> but there's nothing preventing government from running the venture at a loss for awhile if it chooses to.
>> Same is true for private operations as well, most obviously in recessions.
> Most obviously, but the government has more of an ability to do so.
So what ?
>>>> That happened with taxation at one time too, with the modern approach of having the govt do it instead of freelance
>>>> tax collectors etc.
>>>>> A socialist government believes that society is served if all institutions are owned by the state
>>>> That is just plain wrong. Not one of the western european
>>>> democratic socialist systems did it like that.
>>> That's because they're not socialist.
>> Corse they are socialist democracys.
>>>> You're massively confusing socialism and communism.
>>> They are types of the same thing.
>> Nope. Democratic socialism is quite different to communism on the voters getting to decide what govt does and what it
>> doesnt do for starters.
> Granted. It's socialism and communism that are types of the same thing. Not all socialist countries are social
> democracies.
Not all non socialist countrys are democracys either. So what ?
>>>> And even communism didnt own all institutions, most obviously with brothels etc.
>>> The government never owns everything.
>> What I said, as opposed to what you originally said.
>>> In a socialist state, they own just about everything that matters to the macroeconomy, however.
>> Again, thats communism, not socialism.
> Types of the same thing.
Nope. ALL modern economys are a mix of socialism and capitalism.
They only vary in the amount of each.
> Socialism is not synonymous with social democracy.
Odd that its called democratic socialism.
>> No western european social democracy has ever
>> had the state own all property, or even all stores etc.
> Obviously. They're not socialist states.
Corse they are. So is the US. Its just got less socialism than many of those do.
>>>>> as it rejects the ability of private ownership to deliver a high societal standard of living, and is constantly
>>>>> moving in that direction.
>>>> Not one of the western european democratic socialist system did
>>>> anything like that either.
>>> That's because they're not socialist countries.
>> Corse they are.
> Rubbish. You're redefining terms.
Nope, you are. You mangling socialism and communism.
They aint the same thing, whatever you claim.
>>>>> A social democracy,
>>>> Also called democratic socialism.
>>> OK.
>>>>> OTOH, does not reject the notions of private ownership or
>>>>> capitalism in the least; they just simply take the position that
>>>>> certain institutions are too important to fail (or, too big to
>>>>> fail) and chooses to own them, thus socializing the risk.
>>>> It isnt just dont on that too important criterion, its much more
>>>> often done just on the basis of what the voters want the govt
>>>> to do and what they dont want the govt to do.
>>> If you have voters guiding the government and the government
>>> listens, then you clearly have a social democracy and not socialism.
>> Its still democratic socialism.
>>>> Thats why at one time some western european countrys had even
>>>> stuff like car manufacturing, coal mining, power generation, water
>>>> supply etc etc etc done by govt and now no longer do.
>>>>> Socialist governments have no track record of delivering prosperity.
>>>> Again, you are massively confusing socialist govt with communism.
>>> Communism is simply a variant.
>> EVERY system is simply a variant.
>>> The USSR was a socialist state at its core.
>> And so is the western european democratic socialism.
> Incorrect.
How odd that its called democratic socialism.
>>>>> Social democracies, in practice, most certainly can, although
>>>>> they do appear to trade high-performance economic statistics for slightly less impressive ones. GDP per capita,
>>>>> income per capita,
>>>>> unemployment, etc., are all statistics that tend to be less impressive in nations with many social democratic
>>>>> institutions;
>>>> That is just plain wrong too, with scandinavia particularly doing rather better on most of those measures than the
>>>> dregs of the US does.
>>> Not over long periods of time.
>> That is just plain wrong, particularly with the dregs of the respective societys.
> Incorrect.
Nope.
> The eurozone, on average, has lower GDP and higher unemployment rates than we.
Irrelevant to what the best western european democratic socialist states get on those measures.
>>> Further, Scandinavia is a bad example, because they are such tiny countries that their economic dynamics are very
>>> different.
>> They still blow a damned great hole in that claim about
>> GDP per capita, income per capita, unemployment, etc.
> Nope. Apples and oranges.
LIke hell they are.
>>> You may as well be claiming that Cuba's survival for 50 years
>>> proves the efficacy of communism.
>> It does much more badly on GDP per capita,
>> income per capita, unemployment, etc.
>>>>> and since these ultimately affect tax receipts used to fund the
>>>>> social democratic institutions, there is a fine line which must be
>>>>> respected where the people can no longer pay for the social
>>>>> democratic institutions without reform.
>>>> They mostly pay HALF the percentage of GDP that the US does for
>>>> their health care.
>>> Yes, and their systems run in the red like ours (Medicare) does.
>> Theirs dont run in the red. Japans doesnt.
> I doubt that, but feel free to show the stats.
YOU made the claim that they all run in the red.
YOU get to show the stats that show that.
THATS how it works.
The Japanese system JUST has the govt set prices that can be charged,
so by definition it cant be in the red since it doesnt pay for anything.
>> And there is no 'runs in the red' anyway any more than there is with social security.
>>>> So its still 'socialism'
>> And its still socialism.
>>>>>> So is socialism.
>> Western european democratic socialism.
>>>>> want the rich guy down the street to buy you a car?) and may see
>>>>>> Like hell they are.
>>>> It has indeed.
>>> Au contraire.
>> Nope.
>>> Good idea?
Nope, nothing to do with socialism, thats just democracy, a different matter entirely.
>>>>>>> [to think we are so stupid that such an argument would not be
Rod Speed
>>>> tg wrote:
>>>>> ... as I have pointed out, since personal liberty
>>>>> increases as communal prosperity increases.
>>>> I think that is is the other way 'round - the liberty comes before the prosperity.
>>> I agree with you, Les. It's also a simple fact of history.
>> No it isnt. That wasnt what produced by far the
>> biggest driver of prosperity, the industrial revolution.
>>> As personal freedom grew in the 19th Cent. there
>>> was an historically unparalled explosion of prosperity
>> That is just plain wrong, most obviously with the draconian controls
>> on the freedom of the press just after the printing press was invented.
>>> - and one in fact which benefited everyone, even the poorest.
>> That was the industrial revolution, not personal liberty.
> The growth in personal liberty went hand in hand with the Industrial Revolution.
Nope, the Industrial Revolution preceeded it by a long way.
> In that era it was recognized that property rights were a key component of personal liberty.
That had changed much earlier than the industrial revolution.
>> The early industrial revolution not only still had slavery, it also had press gangs as well.
> And it was the Industrial Revolution, accompanied by
> the rising middle class, which led to their abolishment.
You previously claimed that liberty preceeded prosperity. You cant have it both ways.
> It was no coincedence that the industrial/liberal north defeated the agrarian/
> feudal south. It was in fact in that respect an iconic conflict of the era.
You previously claimed that liberty preceeded prosperity. You cant have it both ways.
Les Cargill
That's an excellent assessment, but please realize that this
isn't a religious position ( even though there are those that
pull some sorta Big Lebowski rhetoric like it *is* very nearly
Social Darwinist ). The history of social insurance
programs is almost as checkered as is the history of
strong central banking.
I am sure that he gets details wrong, but Niall
Ferguson's "The Ascent of Money" covers this in a
survey format, and at least asks the question properly.
And, of course, the laboratory is in both Japan and in
Central/South America.
(I am a total sucker for the sort of essay-documentary
format pioneered by James Burke, so ... caveat caveat...)
Social insurance is a *risky proposition*. We're still
learning about it, and it *can make things worse than they
were*. That some people yell "the bums lost, Mr.
Lebowski" is quite beside the point. They are really
not even wrong, but more like Internet
blowhards who have not thought through what things
like the Great Depression ( for which I recommend
"The Grapes of Wrath" and "The Trip to Bountiful" for
artistic coverage of the shade and light.) The Russel
Crowe "Cinderella Man" is good for color as well.
If those stories do not frighten you....
I've read, for example Fred Weiss enough to know he
genuinely cares about the poor, but has to face the
empirical facts that what's best for the poor may not
be well-intentioned social insurance. It's all
probably well above my pay grade, ultimately.
If you can hold your nose long enough to watch all four of
Dr. Niall Ferguson's PBS series, he says things that I
had at least *thought*, in an unformed manner. His take
on the 2000s real estate boom being "S&L II: Bigger and Uglier"
rings very true; his take on South America and Japan does
also. I doubt it's perfect, but it is a fact-riddled essay
after all.
>> Social democracy is simply the government, in certain institutions as
>> you have listed (although public education is a bad example, since there
>> is no federal school system, or even a state school system, for that
>> matter), stating that the public function of the institution is so
>> crucial to society that it's best if the government runs it, thus
>> insuring consistent application of the institution in all places and at
>> all times, and that the institution will exist onwards into perpetuity
>> without the same regard to solvency as a private sector institution
>> would have.
>
> (not bad. Somewhat clumsy but not real bad)
>
I would agree - excpet that it's not "without regard to
solvency", it is *with* regard to a much ... higher
order definition of solvency - solvency at the level of
the State. It's no free lunch, and the stakes are even
higher.
>> A socialist government believes that society is served if all
>> institutions are owned by the state as it rejects the ability of private
>> ownership to deliver a high societal standard of living, and is
>> constantly moving in that direction.
>
> Boogerman, boogerman, boogerman. General motors is the poster child for
> this crap and for that reason (and only for that reason) was GM a bad
> move. GM is the sort of operation in which government should never take
> any ownership at all and it is allowing the brain dead "right" a
> marvelous stick with which to beat the boogerman drum.
>
GM was broken by government decades ago. The Charles Edward
Wilson story shows just how much government was threaded into GM
60ish years ago. It's very difficult to convert away from
the sort of government contracting they did in WWII back to
pure capitalist enterprise. Throw in the surprises in labor
then, and it all gets very complex.
>> A social democracy, OTOH, does not reject the notions of private
>> ownership or capitalism in the least; they just simply take the position
>> that certain institutions are too important to fail (or, too big to
>> fail) and chooses to own them, thus socializing the risk.
>
> That is not the case either for most that subscribe to the concepts of
> "Social Democracy". The too big to fail problem is managed by strict
> enforcement of antitrust laws and/or by an intelligent application of
> progressive income or asset taxation as applied to corporations. NO MICRO
> MANAGEMENT OF THE ECONOMY and no state ownership. The insurance systems,
> however, are not systems of OWNERSHIP. AIG was not an insurance system
> in the typical sense in that it insured "bets" and not actual property or
> health/life. So it too was a mistake.
>
Again, I don't think AIG stands as anything more than
a cautionary tale of insurance itself. But I am
extremely open to alternate explanations. It explains
the "we are above the law" smell from all that,
doesn't it?
Coupling rent-seeking with moral hazard.... is Bad. It
makes people think Rand's "separation of government and
economy" might not be that bad an idea.
<snip>
Good thread, fellas.
--
Les Cargill
turtoni
Nobody in their right mind imagines that there is any pure capitalism
or pure socialism on the table in any western society. Of course it's
all a mixture. BUT, any socialism needs to adhere to the tenets of
capitalism to be successful. For example, contracting out government
business wherever possible to the marketplace minus the cronyism.
Rod Speed
> Nobody in their right mind imagines that there is any pure capitalism or pure
> socialism on the table in any western society. Of course it's all a mixture.
And always has been too, before the term socialism was even invented.
> BUT, any socialism needs to adhere to the tenets of capitalism to be successful.
That is just plain wrong.
> For example, contracting out government business
> wherever possible to the marketplace minus the cronyism.
Thats just plain wrong too. There is plenty of real world socialism that isnt done
like that, most obviously with public education, medicare, social security etc etc
etc thats very successful without doing what you claim is essential to be successful.
The japs have a very successful health care system just
by having the govt set the prices that can be charged.
And the whole of western europe has a very successful university system
that is not done the way you claim is the only way to do things successfully.
Michael Coburn
You do that correlation and I do the correlation with tax cuts and the
WOP and Vietnam all lumped together. It was all that crap TOGETHER that
caused the inflation that led to the gold being abandoned and the
stagflation and such. I lay the blame right square of Kennedy and
Johnson; both Democrats. And the WOP has always been a sore point with
me also. In the late 70's I was my young and stupid Libertarian prime
and was fond of talking about Johnson's rhetoric of "Poverty breeds
poverty". At the time I would comment that what needed stopped was the
breeding as opposed to the poverty. I grew up and came to realize that
you can only stop poverty with education and some real opportunity to
contribute to the community.
> The descendants of the
>> Chinese coolies are disproportionality represented at all the best
>> universities in the country. The same can of course be said of the
>> Jewish pushcart peddlers.
>
> But there's a real effect from immigration there. Second and sometimes
> first generation immigrants very often exhibit high levels of
> achievement - for reasons that should be all but obvious.
>
> That's my story for now. It'll change, I am sure. But maybe not.
>
>> Etc.
>>
>>
>>
--
Les Cargill
I couldn't agree more - but the rate of decrease of
poverty was ( ironically ) halted right around '68,
before all that. The actual nadir of poverty was
1974, well-correlated with the beginning of stagflation.
> I lay the blame right square of Kennedy and
> Johnson; both Democrats. And the WOP has always been a sore point with
> me also. In the late 70's I was my young and stupid Libertarian prime
> and was fond of talking about Johnson's rhetoric of "Poverty breeds
> poverty". At the time I would comment that what needed stopped was the
> breeding as opposed to the poverty.
*Groan* :) Of course, Leavitt and Dubner have their own
take on the thing.... (Freakonomics)
> I grew up and came to realize that
> you can only stop poverty with education and some real opportunity to
> contribute to the community.
>
That's right - to the extent that those things result in a certain
kind of growth of ability.
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
John Galt
Whatever. I've lived in more that a few countries and had children
educated there, and I'm not in a mood to correct your misunderstandings
of the world, which I suspect are held intentionally to advance an agenda.
Work on your understanding of the difference between "socialist
government" and "social democratic government". When you realize that
the two are very different and not just just variations on the same
theme, do get back.
JG
Rod Speed
> Les Cargill wrote
>> Fred Weiss wrote
>>>> tg wrote
>>>>> ... as I have pointed out, since personal liberty
>>>>> *increases* as communal prosperity increases.
>>>> I think that is is the other way 'round -
Thats very arguable when stagflation happened right around the first
world at that time, even in countrys that werent involved in Vietnam at all.
> I lay the blame right square of Kennedy and Johnson; both Democrats.
Too superficial when that happened right around the
first world at that time, even in countrys that werent
involved in Vietnam at all and had not WOP either.
> And the WOP has always been a sore point with me also. In the
> late 70's I was my young and stupid Libertarian prime and was
> fond of talking about Johnson's rhetoric of "Poverty breeds poverty".
It still does. Its more a mindset than anything else.
> At the time I would comment that what needed stopped was
> the breeding as opposed to the poverty. I grew up and came
> to realize that you can only stop poverty with education
Even that doesnt work, as is obvious with the very high levels of real
poverty amoungst those with university education in places like Egypt etc.
> and some real opportunity to contribute to the community.
Even that doesnt stop it either.
>>> The descendants of the Chinese coolies are disproportionality
>>> represented at all the best universities in the country. The
>>> same can of course be said of the Jewish pushcart peddlers.
But not with the dregs from africa.
Not one of those has managed much that they are remembered for now.
jj
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> which I suspect are held intentionally to advance an agenda.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> Work on your understanding of the difference between "socialist government" and "social democratic government".
Work on your between socialist and communist.
> When you realize that the two are very different and not just just variations on the same theme, do get back.
You'll never manage to work out the difference
between socialism and communism, so just fuck off.
Fred Weiss
> Fred Weiss wrote
> >> The early industrial revolution not only still had slavery, it also had press gangs as well.
> > And it was the Industrial Revolution, accompanied by
> > the rising middle class, which led to their abolishment.
>
> You previously claimed that liberty preceeded prosperity. You cant have it both ways.
But they did have it "both ways" for a period of time as freedom was
eventually *expanded* to include previously excluded groups, such as
blacks - and then the legal enfranchisement of women. It would not
have happened without the Industrial Revolution and the freedom which
accompanied it and which was at its base.
Look, Rod, this isn't even particularly controversial. You don't have
to try and poke holes in *everything*!
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Fred Weiss wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Fred Weiss wrote
>>>>>> tg wrote:
>>>>>>> ... as I have pointed out, since personal liberty
>>>>>>> increases as communal prosperity increases.
>>>>>> I think that is is the other way 'round - the liberty comes before the prosperity.
>>>>> I agree with you, Les. It's also a simple fact of history.
>>>> No it isnt. That wasnt what produced by far the
>>>> biggest driver of prosperity, the industrial revolution.
>>>>> As personal freedom grew in the 19th Cent. there
>>>>> was an historically unparalled explosion of prosperity
>>>> That is just plain wrong, most obviously with the draconian controls
>>>> on the freedom of the press just after the printing press was invented.
>>>>> - and one in fact which benefited everyone, even the poorest.
>>>> That was the industrial revolution, not personal liberty.
>>> The growth in personal liberty went hand in hand with the Industrial Revolution.
>> Nope, the Industrial Revolution preceeded it by a long way.
>>> In that era it was recognized that property rights were a key component of personal liberty.
>> That had changed much earlier than the industrial revolution.
>>>> The early industrial revolution not only still had slavery, it also had press gangs as well.
>>> And it was the Industrial Revolution, accompanied by
>>> the rising middle class, which led to their abolishment.
>> You previously claimed that liberty preceeded prosperity. You cant have it both ways.
> But they did have it "both ways" for a period of time as freedom
> was eventually *expanded* to include previously excluded groups,
> such as blacks - and then the legal enfranchisement of women.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> It would not have happened without the Industrial Revolution
> and the freedom which accompanied it and which was at its base.
How odd that it did even where the industrial revolution never happened.
> Look, Rod, this isn't even particularly controversial.
> You don't have to try and poke holes in *everything*!
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Fred Weiss
> Fred Weiss wrote
> > It would not have happened without the Industrial Revolution
> > and the freedom which accompanied it and which was at its base.
>
> How odd that it did even where the industrial revolution never happened.
You mean like in the MidEast where women are treated like chattel?
Or in parts of Asia and Africa where children are sold into slavery?
Michael Coburn
Enough! Here's the picture:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c9/Poverty_by_Age.png
During the time between 1930 and 1964 the tax rate on people stuffing 200
million bucks in the bank every year was 8x% - 9x% and the elected
government controlled the tax code and the "government programs" in such
a way as to empower the middle class. Then came the Kennedy tax cuts in
1964-65 and the wars on Vietnam and Poverty. The correlation with the WOP
is only coincidental in my opinion. Poverty decline was STEEPER before
the cuts and it leveled off with the cuts and the dual wars. we see that
poverty made a resounding come back in the 80's as the thief in chief
filled the pockets of the rich with great gobs of money. The poverty
starts to decline again in 1993 with the restoration of a modicum of tax
progressivity.
>
>> I lay the blame right square of Kennedy and Johnson; both Democrats.
>> And the WOP has always been a sore point with me also. In the late
>> 70's I was my young and stupid Libertarian prime and was fond of
>> talking about Johnson's rhetoric of "Poverty breeds poverty". At the
>> time I would comment that what needed stopped was the breeding as
>> opposed to the poverty.
>
> *Groan* :) Of course, Leavitt and Dubner have their own take on the
> thing.... (Freakonomics)
>
>> I grew up and came to realize that
>> you can only stop poverty with education and some real opportunity to
>> contribute to the community.
>>
>>
> That's right - to the extent that those things result in a certain kind
> of growth of ability.
>
> <snip>
--
Michael Coburn
When the main engine of the world economy becomes ill then the whole
system suffers.
>> I lay the blame right square of Kennedy and Johnson; both Democrats.
>
> Too superficial when that happened right around the first world at that
> time, even in countrys that werent involved in Vietnam at all and had
> not WOP either.
When the main engine of the world economy becomes ill then the whole
system suffers.
>> And the WOP has always been a sore point with me also. In the late
>> 70's I was my young and stupid Libertarian prime and was fond of
>> talking about Johnson's rhetoric of "Poverty breeds poverty".
>
> It still does. Its more a mindset than anything else.
>
>> At the time I would comment that what needed stopped was the breeding
>> as opposed to the poverty. I grew up and came to realize that you can
>> only stop poverty with education
>
> Even that doesnt work, as is obvious with the very high levels of real
> poverty amoungst those with university education in places like Egypt
> etc.
>
>> and some real opportunity to contribute to the community.
>
> Even that doesnt stop it either.
The Rod Speed virus is annoying. But it can serve to highlight the
important points in a post. The virus seldom actually offers anything to
the discussion (but it has learned to spell "nukes"). The virus instead
attempts to trash any valid points. This highlights the important
concepts of the post.
>>>> The descendants of the Chinese coolies are disproportionality
>>>> represented at all the best universities in the country. The same can
>>>> of course be said of the Jewish pushcart peddlers.
>
> But not with the dregs from africa.
>
> Not one of those has managed much that they are remembered for now.
>
>>> But there's a real effect from immigration there. Second and sometimes
>>> first generation immigrants very often exhibit high levels of
>>> achievement - for reasons that should be all but obvious.
>
>>> That's my story for now. It'll change, I am sure. But maybe not.
>
>>>> Etc.
--
Rod Speed
That isnt what happened either. Most of the rest of the modern first world isnt
that dependant on the US, really just Japan was at that time and now China.
And Japan certainly didnt move stagflation from the US to the rest of the west either.
Again, stagflation was more a mindset than anything else, mostly
the result of central banks not using interest rates to modulate the
state of the first world economys anything like they came to do later.
It was that that got rid of stagflation.
>>> I lay the blame right square of Kennedy and Johnson; both Democrats.
>> Too superficial when that happened right around the
>> first world at that time, even in countrys that werent
>> involved in Vietnam at all and had not WOP either.
> When the main engine of the world economy
> becomes ill then the whole system suffers.
Repeating that mindlessly superficial mantra doesnt make it gospel.
>>> And the WOP has always been a sore point with me also. In the
>>> late 70's I was my young and stupid Libertarian prime and was fond
>>> of talking about Johnson's rhetoric of "Poverty breeds poverty".
>> It still does. Its more a mindset than anything else.
>>> At the time I would comment that what needed stopped was
>>> the breeding as opposed to the poverty. I grew up and came
>>> to realize that you can only stop poverty with education
>> Even that doesnt work, as is obvious with the very high levels of real
>> poverty amoungst those with university education in places like Egypt etc.
>>> and some real opportunity to contribute to the community.
>> Even that doesnt stop it either.
> The Rod Speed virus is annoying. But it can serve to highlight
> the important points in a post. The virus seldom actually offers
> anything to the discussion (but it has learned to spell "nukes").
> The virus instead attempts to trash any valid points. This
> highlights the important concepts of the post.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
You wont curl up and die if you do admit someone else actually has a point, child.
Rod Speed
>>> But they did have it "both ways" for a period of time as freedom
>>> was eventually expanded to include previously excluded groups,
>>> such as blacks - and then the legal enfranchisement of women
>>> It would not have happened without the Industrial Revolution
>>> and the freedom which accompanied it and which was at its base.
>> How odd that it did even where the industrial revolution never happened.
> You mean like in the MidEast where women are treated like chattel?
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Pity about eastern europe, scandinavia, and virtually the entire rest of the
world where women got the vote and slavery was abolished etc etc etc.
> Or in parts of Asia and Africa where children are sold into slavery?
Same thing happened in western europe at one time and that
stopped LONG before the industrial revolution ever happened,
and so cant possibly have been due to the industrial revolution.
Even you should have noticed that britain had a queen
centurys before the industrial revolution happened.
Michael Coburn
I think the person operating the virus will need to cite something that
shows "stagflation" in the rest of the world as opposed to an economic
downturn in the rest of the world.
>> When the main engine of the world economy becomes ill then the whole
>> system suffers.
>
> That isnt what happened either. Most of the rest of the modern first
> world isnt that dependant on the US, really just Japan was at that time
> and now China.
>
> And Japan certainly didnt move stagflation from the US to the rest of
> the west either.
Stagflation either did not occur in the rest of the world or it was
communicated from the United States. This is a fact because stagflation
was cause by abandoning the gold standard, failure to increase taxes, and
then by the troops coming back from Vietnam and being dumped into the
civilian labor force. Stagflation was a very short term problem and was
totally cured by the end of 1978. INflation, OTOH, remained a problem
until Paul Volcker destroyed the American economy by following the
religious tenets of Uncle Milty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/unemployment_rate.html
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/tax-inf-int-53_html_4022842d.jpg
> Again, stagflation was more a mindset than anything else, mostly the
> result of central banks not using interest rates to modulate the state
> of the first world economys anything like they came to do later.
>
> It was that that got rid of stagflation.
Destroying the economy with high interest rates kills the economy to get
the inflation monster. The dead economy also produces unemployment. But
stagflation is rising unemployment AND simultaneous inflation. And that
was the case in the USA for a brief period in 1972 and then again for
less than a year in 1976.
>>>> I lay the blame right square of Kennedy and Johnson; both Democrats.
>
>>> Too superficial when that happened right around the first world at
>>> that time, even in countrys that werent involved in Vietnam at all and
>>> had not WOP either.
>
>> When the main engine of the world economy becomes ill then the whole
>> system suffers.
>
> Repeating that mindlessly superficial mantra doesnt make it gospel.
No. Reality and data correlation make it "gospel".
--
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>>>> Les Cargill wrote
>>>>>> Fred Weiss wrote
>>>>>>> Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> tg wrote
>>>>>>>>> ... as I have pointed out, since personal liberty
>>>>>>>>> increases as communal prosperity increases.
>>>>>>>> I think that is is the other way 'round -
>>>>>>>> the liberty comes before the prosperity.
>>>>>>> I agree with you, Les. It's also a simple fact of history.
>>>>>>> As personal freedom grew in the 19th Cent. there was
>>>>>>> an historically unparalled explosion of prosperity - and
>>>>>>> one in fact which benefited everyone, even the poorest.
>>>>>> Especially the poorest. And, as Fred knows, David Friedman once
>>>>>> showed me that the decline in poverty in the US slowed down
>>>>>> with the passage of the War on Poverty. By no means conclusive (
>>>>>> it's correlation, not causation ), the bend in that particular
>>>>>> graph is still there.
>>>>>> This cast doubt on one of my most cherished Liberal beliefs.
>>>>>> I ain't done with it yet, either, but it looks bad. My parents
>>>>>> are hardcore LBJ Democrats, Okies and that's a bitter pill.
>>>>>>> By our standards of course their lives were still pretty
>>>>>>> miserable. But relative to what their lives were before it was
>>>>>>> an improvement and most importantly it offered the prospect of
>>>>>>> continued improvement, so that even if they remained poor their
>>>>>>> children had vastly improved opportunities.
>>>>>> There is this graph which shows GDP per person, historically.
>>>>>> Starting around 1820, it just takes completely off. It's one of
>>>>>> the most startling things I have ever seen. And it apparently
>>>>>> continued this well into the 20th Century... until (in the US,
>>>>>> anyway) the War on Poverty - maybe.
>>>>> You do that correlation and I do the correlation with tax cuts and
>>>>> the WOP and Vietnam all lumped together. It was all that crap
>>>>> TOGETHER that caused the inflation that led to the gold being
>>>>> abandoned and the stagflation and such.
>>>> Thats very arguable when stagflation happened right around the
>>>> first world at that time, even in countrys that werent involved in
>>>> Vietnam at all.
> I think the person operating the virus will need to cite
> something that shows "stagflation" in the rest of the world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation
> as opposed to an economic downturn in the rest of the world.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>> When the main engine of the world economy
>>> becomes ill then the whole system suffers.
>> That isnt what happened either. Most of the rest of the
>> modern first world isnt that dependant on the US, really
>> just Japan was at that time and now China.
>> And Japan certainly didnt move stagflation
>> from the US to the rest of the west either.
> Stagflation either did not occur in the rest of the world
Corse it did.
> or it was communicated from the United States.
Nope, didnt even happen in the US first.
> This is a fact
Just claiming its a fact doesnt make it a fact.
> because stagflation was cause by abandoning the gold standard,
> failure to increase taxes, and then by the troops coming back
> from Vietnam and being dumped into the civilian labor force.
Have fun explaining stagflation that happened outside the
US before it happened in the US, in countrys that werent
actually stupid enough to get involved in Vietnam at all.
> Stagflation was a very short term problem
Another pig ignorant lie.
> and was totally cured by the end of 1978. INflation, OTOH,
> remained a problem until Paul Volcker destroyed the American
> economy by following the religious tenets of Uncle Milty.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock
> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/unemployment_rate.html
> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/tax-inf-int-53_html_4022842d.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation
>> Again, stagflation was more a mindset than anything else, mostly the
>> result of central banks not using interest rates to modulate the state
>> of the first world economys anything like they came to do later.
>> It was that that got rid of stagflation.
> Destroying the economy with high interest rates
The economy wasnt even 'destroyed' during the great depression.
> kills the economy to get the inflation monster. The dead economy
The economy wasnt even dead during the great depression.
> also produces unemployment. But stagflation is rising unemployment
> AND simultaneous inflation. And that was the case in the USA for a
> brief period in 1972 and then again for less than a year in 1976.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>>>>> I lay the blame right square of Kennedy and Johnson; both Democrats.
>>>> Too superficial when that happened right around the
>>>> first world at that time, even in countrys that werent
>>>> involved in Vietnam at all and had not WOP either.
>>> When the main engine of the world economy
>>> becomes ill then the whole system suffers.
>> Repeating that mindlessly superficial mantra doesnt make it gospel.
> No. Reality and data correlation make it "gospel".
There is no 'data correlation' when stagflation happened outside the US first.