|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 26 2015 14:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 14:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 26 2015 13:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 26 2015 13:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 26 2015 13:23 IgnE wrote:On May 26 2015 12:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 26 2015 09:43 IgnE wrote:
And I can tell you that it's not because the capitalists were opposed to racist laws. I could make an argument that they fled the south because they were upset that slavery was abolished. You're right about the term 'brain drain' but the capitalists were in the North and the slave holders didn't like them very much. . . . ? I'n right about everything. If the subject is capital flight from the reconstruction era south then comments like "the capitalists were in the north" are worse than irrelevant. Stick to chiming in with irrelevancies on topics you something about or make an attempt to understand what the discussion is about. It's a pattern that has been highlighted several times by several people from a variety of places on the political spectrum. It's a clear and deliberate behavior. I miss the days before it was so predictable. Now old One-line Jonny Payroll is as predictable as an episode of Power Rangers. It's well past time that this guy got banned. Straight past a failed attempt to dispute the behavior pattern, directly into backseat moderating, impressive. If you had something of substance to say about the discussion being had than I encourage you to share it, but your typical tangential at best one-liners are way past played out. What? Making a polite, concise point?
lol riiiight. that's what that was.
On May 26 2015 14:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 13:23 IgnE wrote:On May 26 2015 12:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 26 2015 09:43 IgnE wrote:
And I can tell you that it's not because the capitalists were opposed to racist laws. I could make an argument that they fled the south because they were upset that slavery was abolished. You're right about the term 'brain drain' but the capitalists were in the North and the slave holders didn't like them very much. . . . ? I'm right about everything. If the subject is capital flight from the reconstruction era south then comments like "the capitalists were in the north" are worse than irrelevant. Stick to chiming in with irrelevancies on topics you know something about or make an attempt to understand what the discussion is about. The subject of the post I responded to was 'capitalists', not 'capital flight'. You didn't quote another post, so what "it's" was referring to wasn't entirely clear, but you were talking about a 'brain drain' in your previous post, and you were talking about capitalists moving away from the South in the post I quoted. Anyways, my point was that the slave holders in the South didn't like the whole market capitalism thing going on in the North. + Show Spoiler +Christian morality is impractical in free society and is the natural morality of slave society. Where all men are equals, all must be competitors, rivals, enemies, in the struggle for life, trying each to get the better of the other. The rich cheapen the wages of the poor; the poor take advantage of the scarcity of labor, and charge exorbitant prices for their work; or, when labour is abundant, underbid and strangle each other in the effort to gain employment. Where any man engaged in business in free society to act upon the principle of the Golden Rule--doing unto others as he would that they should do unto him--his certain ruin would be the consequence. "Every man for himself'" is the necessary morality of such society, and that is the negation of Christian morality. . . On the other hand, in slave society, . . .it is in general, easy and profitable to do unto others as we would that they should to unto us. There is no competition, no clashing of interests within the family circle, composed of parents, master, husband, children and slaves. . . . When the master punishes his child or his slave for misconduct he obeys the golden rule just as strictly as when he feeds and clothes them. Were the parent to set his chidden free at fifteen years of age to get their living in the world, he would be guilty of crime; and as negroes never become more provident or intellectual than white children of fifteen, it is equally criminal to emancipate them. We are obeying the golden rule in retaining them in bondage, taking care of them in health and sickness, in old age and infancy, and in compelling them to labor. . . . 'Tis the interest of masters to take good care of their slaves, and not cheat them out of their wages, as Northern bosses cheat and drive free labourers. Slaves are most profitable when best treated., free labourers most profitable when worst treated and most defrauded. Hence the relation of the master and slave is a kindly and Christian one; that of free laborer and employer a selfish and inimical one. It is in the interest of the slave to fulfill his duties to his master; for he thereby elicits his attachment, and the better enables him to provide for his (the slave's) wants. Study and analyze as long as [you] please the relations of men . . . in a slave society, and they will be found to be Christian, humane and affectionate, whilst those of free society are anti-Christian, competitive and antagonistic. + Show Spoiler +Richmond (Virginia) Examiner, July 17, 1861, as quoted in Fighting Words, a 2004 book by Andrew S. Coopersmith (pp. 49-50) Moreover, the North, where the industrialists and capitalists mainly were, was very much against slavery.
See, that wasn't so hard. Just do that next time, instead of the one-liner. At least then it will appear to be substantive.
Were the parent to set his chidden free at fifteen years of age to get their living in the world, he would be guilty of crime; and as negroes never become more provident or intellectual than white children of fifteen, it is equally criminal to emancipate them.
That is pretty funny though. It's crazy to me, people that said stuff like that were actually taken seriously by people. To defend that kind of stupidity with Christianity takes a special person too. Not sad I missed those years in history.
|
On May 26 2015 07:52 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 03:42 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 03:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 26 2015 03:09 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 00:15 Wolfstan wrote:On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public.The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. As long as that redistribution enforcement can be stopped by borders and there is a freedom of mobility, I'm all for other jurisdictions and their citizens doing whatever they want. "Freedom of Mobility"? Meaning rich people are allowed to leave the country to avoid having their assets redistributed? Freedom for people, rich or poor, to enter or leave an economy is indicative of the strength of that economy's economic model. The post Civil War, pre-1980s South is a great example of this. The region suffered a huge brain drain because a lot of sophisticated people did not like Jim Crow laws. This is also, what the United States traditionally was based on, before the more recent centralization efforts. You let people move from state to state, and the assumption is that better governments will influence worse ones to become better, or risk losing their people. The 1860s realization is that this simple model wasn't enough, and that the Federal government also needs to ensure that these governments cannot become too oppressive towards citizens. Poor people tend to not have enough resources to just pack up and leave if they don't like the situation, so "Freedom of mobility" is a term for wealthier people having the ability to leave an area if it isn't ideal. I don't think it's a bad thing really, it's just freedom of mobility means any attempt to put any real measures against the rich is pointless, because they can just go to a different state/country where it doesn't apply. So why do you feel "real measures" have to be taken against the rich, what have they done to you? You are basically saying you don't want them, at the same time saying you don't want them to leave. I think better policy is to create wealthy people or have them immigrate to you that way you have a bigger tax base, instead of destroying the wealthy for a smaller tax base. You could also just throw up a wall and keep them from escaping if they disagree with your execution of policy.
Holy crap. You're either rich and really defensive, or just a moron.
"You are basically saying you don't want them, at the same time saying you don't want them to leave."
No I'm not. I'm literally saying any attempt to take more of their money is pointless because they can just up and leave. Rich people leaving is always bad, because they hold all the money.
I think better policy is to create wealthy people
Create wealthy people? You don't seem to understand how wealth works if you think they can be created, but let everyone in on your secrets if you ever manage to accomplish that, lol.
I agree that the environment should be one wealthy people want to be a part of. The issue is that the interests of the wealthy tends to be to horde wealth, and relying on their existence or the existence of corporations means that the wealth of a community can be drained dry by them, and left to suffer if the former decides to up and leave.
There's a tough balance between making sure they're happy enough to stay, and making sure they're contributing enough to the community to warrant keeping them happy.
On May 26 2015 05:49 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 03:42 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 03:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 26 2015 03:09 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 00:15 Wolfstan wrote:On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public.The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. As long as that redistribution enforcement can be stopped by borders and there is a freedom of mobility, I'm all for other jurisdictions and their citizens doing whatever they want. "Freedom of Mobility"? Meaning rich people are allowed to leave the country to avoid having their assets redistributed? Freedom for people, rich or poor, to enter or leave an economy is indicative of the strength of that economy's economic model. The post Civil War, pre-1980s South is a great example of this. The region suffered a huge brain drain because a lot of sophisticated people did not like Jim Crow laws. This is also, what the United States traditionally was based on, before the more recent centralization efforts. You let people move from state to state, and the assumption is that better governments will influence worse ones to become better, or risk losing their people. The 1860s realization is that this simple model wasn't enough, and that the Federal government also needs to ensure that these governments cannot become too oppressive towards citizens. Poor people tend to not have enough resources to just pack up and leave if they don't like the situation, so "Freedom of mobility" is a term for wealthier people having the ability to leave an area if it isn't ideal. I don't think it's a bad thing really, it's just freedom of mobility means any attempt to put any real measures against the rich is pointless, because they can just go to a different state/country where it doesn't apply. I'm interested in what the evidence is that, in a free market, that there is this low mobility for poorer people. Certainly, there are many poor people now that feel trapped in an area because they can't move a housing voucher or are in property that is being rented to them at sub-market rates, etc. I know during the post-Civil war days there was lots of freedom of movement by the poor, often to escape bad economic conditions (ala Grapes of Wrath), and I certainly understand moving costs and security deposits are non-negligible, but that last one is also a zoning and supply issue, and there are also significant transaction costs for moving as a rich person who probably owns property, a business, and has significant social capital they would be sacrificing.
Poorer people are usually less skilled, so their options are limited as to where they can make a living.
They tend to have assets that are harder to liquefy (everything they own may be invested in their house for example).
No savings/high amounts of loans.
Really poor people may even lack the ability to move. Whether that means they can't afford transportation, or they can't afford to miss even a few days of work to make the move.
Are you legitimately saying that rich people have issues with moving because it costs them more?
|
On May 26 2015 16:16 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 05:49 cLutZ wrote:On May 26 2015 03:42 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 03:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 26 2015 03:09 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 00:15 Wolfstan wrote:On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public.The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. As long as that redistribution enforcement can be stopped by borders and there is a freedom of mobility, I'm all for other jurisdictions and their citizens doing whatever they want. "Freedom of Mobility"? Meaning rich people are allowed to leave the country to avoid having their assets redistributed? Freedom for people, rich or poor, to enter or leave an economy is indicative of the strength of that economy's economic model. The post Civil War, pre-1980s South is a great example of this. The region suffered a huge brain drain because a lot of sophisticated people did not like Jim Crow laws. This is also, what the United States traditionally was based on, before the more recent centralization efforts. You let people move from state to state, and the assumption is that better governments will influence worse ones to become better, or risk losing their people. The 1860s realization is that this simple model wasn't enough, and that the Federal government also needs to ensure that these governments cannot become too oppressive towards citizens. Poor people tend to not have enough resources to just pack up and leave if they don't like the situation, so "Freedom of mobility" is a term for wealthier people having the ability to leave an area if it isn't ideal. I don't think it's a bad thing really, it's just freedom of mobility means any attempt to put any real measures against the rich is pointless, because they can just go to a different state/country where it doesn't apply. I'm interested in what the evidence is that, in a free market, that there is this low mobility for poorer people. Certainly, there are many poor people now that feel trapped in an area because they can't move a housing voucher or are in property that is being rented to them at sub-market rates, etc. I know during the post-Civil war days there was lots of freedom of movement by the poor, often to escape bad economic conditions (ala Grapes of Wrath), and I certainly understand moving costs and security deposits are non-negligible, but that last one is also a zoning and supply issue, and there are also significant transaction costs for moving as a rich person who probably owns property, a business, and has significant social capital they would be sacrificing. Poorer people are usually less skilled, so their options are limited as to where they can make a living. They tend to have assets that are harder to liquefy (everything they own may be invested in their house for example). No savings/high amounts of loans. Really poor people may even lack the ability to move. Whether that means they can't afford transportation, or they can't afford to miss even a few days of work to make the move. Are you legitimately saying that rich people have issues with moving because it costs them more?
No. But actually none of your points make any sense in the context of the discussion which basically says this:
Take the United States, and eliminate all of its welfare, medicare, social security, etc programs. Each state now, obviously has the choice to implement those policies on its own, but they don't have too so its probable some will and some wont.
The objection, by some, to this system is that the rich will just up and leave the high tax areas, and the poor wont be able to leave the places without a welfare system. It is in that context that I do not buy the poor having a mobility problem compared to rich, because the act of moving would get them the subsidies available in the new state.
|
On May 27 2015 03:08 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 16:16 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 05:49 cLutZ wrote:On May 26 2015 03:42 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 03:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 26 2015 03:09 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 00:15 Wolfstan wrote:On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public.The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. As long as that redistribution enforcement can be stopped by borders and there is a freedom of mobility, I'm all for other jurisdictions and their citizens doing whatever they want. "Freedom of Mobility"? Meaning rich people are allowed to leave the country to avoid having their assets redistributed? Freedom for people, rich or poor, to enter or leave an economy is indicative of the strength of that economy's economic model. The post Civil War, pre-1980s South is a great example of this. The region suffered a huge brain drain because a lot of sophisticated people did not like Jim Crow laws. This is also, what the United States traditionally was based on, before the more recent centralization efforts. You let people move from state to state, and the assumption is that better governments will influence worse ones to become better, or risk losing their people. The 1860s realization is that this simple model wasn't enough, and that the Federal government also needs to ensure that these governments cannot become too oppressive towards citizens. Poor people tend to not have enough resources to just pack up and leave if they don't like the situation, so "Freedom of mobility" is a term for wealthier people having the ability to leave an area if it isn't ideal. I don't think it's a bad thing really, it's just freedom of mobility means any attempt to put any real measures against the rich is pointless, because they can just go to a different state/country where it doesn't apply. I'm interested in what the evidence is that, in a free market, that there is this low mobility for poorer people. Certainly, there are many poor people now that feel trapped in an area because they can't move a housing voucher or are in property that is being rented to them at sub-market rates, etc. I know during the post-Civil war days there was lots of freedom of movement by the poor, often to escape bad economic conditions (ala Grapes of Wrath), and I certainly understand moving costs and security deposits are non-negligible, but that last one is also a zoning and supply issue, and there are also significant transaction costs for moving as a rich person who probably owns property, a business, and has significant social capital they would be sacrificing. Poorer people are usually less skilled, so their options are limited as to where they can make a living. They tend to have assets that are harder to liquefy (everything they own may be invested in their house for example). No savings/high amounts of loans. Really poor people may even lack the ability to move. Whether that means they can't afford transportation, or they can't afford to miss even a few days of work to make the move. Are you legitimately saying that rich people have issues with moving because it costs them more? No. But actually none of your points make any sense in the context of the discussion which basically says this: Take the United States, and eliminate all of its welfare, medicare, social security, etc programs. Each state now, obviously has the choice to implement those policies on its own, but they don't have too so its probable some will and some wont. The objection, by some, to this system is that the rich will just up and leave the high tax areas, and the poor wont be able to leave the places without a welfare system. It is in that context that I do not buy the poor having a mobility problem compared to rich, because the act of moving would get them the subsidies available in the new state.
Except the poor don't have a job yet where they are moving, they cant take time off to do interviews in another state. Nor do they have the funds needed for moving (a company to move their furniture/down payments for rent).
Its not like a state will give you money to move there and come flip burgers.
|
On May 27 2015 03:08 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 16:16 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 05:49 cLutZ wrote:On May 26 2015 03:42 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 03:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 26 2015 03:09 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 00:15 Wolfstan wrote:On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public.The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. As long as that redistribution enforcement can be stopped by borders and there is a freedom of mobility, I'm all for other jurisdictions and their citizens doing whatever they want. "Freedom of Mobility"? Meaning rich people are allowed to leave the country to avoid having their assets redistributed? Freedom for people, rich or poor, to enter or leave an economy is indicative of the strength of that economy's economic model. The post Civil War, pre-1980s South is a great example of this. The region suffered a huge brain drain because a lot of sophisticated people did not like Jim Crow laws. This is also, what the United States traditionally was based on, before the more recent centralization efforts. You let people move from state to state, and the assumption is that better governments will influence worse ones to become better, or risk losing their people. The 1860s realization is that this simple model wasn't enough, and that the Federal government also needs to ensure that these governments cannot become too oppressive towards citizens. Poor people tend to not have enough resources to just pack up and leave if they don't like the situation, so "Freedom of mobility" is a term for wealthier people having the ability to leave an area if it isn't ideal. I don't think it's a bad thing really, it's just freedom of mobility means any attempt to put any real measures against the rich is pointless, because they can just go to a different state/country where it doesn't apply. I'm interested in what the evidence is that, in a free market, that there is this low mobility for poorer people. Certainly, there are many poor people now that feel trapped in an area because they can't move a housing voucher or are in property that is being rented to them at sub-market rates, etc. I know during the post-Civil war days there was lots of freedom of movement by the poor, often to escape bad economic conditions (ala Grapes of Wrath), and I certainly understand moving costs and security deposits are non-negligible, but that last one is also a zoning and supply issue, and there are also significant transaction costs for moving as a rich person who probably owns property, a business, and has significant social capital they would be sacrificing. Poorer people are usually less skilled, so their options are limited as to where they can make a living. They tend to have assets that are harder to liquefy (everything they own may be invested in their house for example). No savings/high amounts of loans. Really poor people may even lack the ability to move. Whether that means they can't afford transportation, or they can't afford to miss even a few days of work to make the move. Are you legitimately saying that rich people have issues with moving because it costs them more? No. But actually none of your points make any sense in the context of the discussion which basically says this: Take the United States, and eliminate all of its welfare, medicare, social security, etc programs. Each state now, obviously has the choice to implement those policies on its own, but they don't have too so its probable some will and some wont. The objection, by some, to this system is that the rich will just up and leave the high tax areas, and the poor wont be able to leave the places without a welfare system. It is in that context that I do not buy the poor having a mobility problem compared to rich, because the act of moving would get them the subsidies available in the new state.
Except I'm not, and I'm really beginning to doubt your ability to read. I literally did not even mention welfare once.
The rich WILL up and leave higher tax areas, provided they are taxed enough to make the move worthwhile. Other that the risk vs reward they'd have to weigh, there's really nothing preventing them from moving.
I never said poorer people need to stay near welfare, I said it's hard for poorer people to pick up and leave. You make it sound like anywhere that has welfare is essentially a safe zone, and all they need to do is be able to make the trek there to be fine.
It's not that simple. For starters, "Poorer people" does not translate to "people on welfare", so implying welfare would even be a consideration for all of them is wrong to begin with.
The context of the discussion is people are okay with changes to what the government does, so long as the "Freedom of mobility" exists, allowing those that disagree with the changes to not have to deal with them. My thoughts on this is that "Freedom of mobility" only applies to the rich, meaning changes meant to target the rich in aims to help the general public are rendered pointless because they can just up and leave. It also means even if poorer people dislike some of the changes made, they can't leave, because it's harder for them.
And your counter to this has been "Well actually none of those points matter because they can leave since we have social programs to support them", which is wrong.
|
I have a question, do you think the poor move more or less often than the general public?
|
I disagree, all poor people on a micro level can afford to leave a bad situation. You really need to quit making excuses for them on a macro level.
|
I don't have any stats, but I would assume the poor are forced to move significantly more. Evictions, gentrification, etc.
|
United States42008 Posts
On May 27 2015 05:52 screamingpalm wrote:
I don't have any stats, but I would assume the poor are forced to move significantly more. Evictions, gentrification, etc.
I don't believe that is the kind of move that was being discussed. The topic was more economic migration across state boundaries. I would argue that the poor are less likely to up and leave, the jobs they want are typically not looking across state lines to find qualified individuals and would not compensate a worker for the transition. Furthermore they would be more dependent upon their family, friends and local support network than a richer individual.
|
On May 27 2015 06:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2015 05:52 screamingpalm wrote:
I don't have any stats, but I would assume the poor are forced to move significantly more. Evictions, gentrification, etc. I don't believe that is the kind of move that was being discussed. The topic was more economic migration across state boundaries. I would argue that the poor are less likely to up and leave, the jobs they want are typically not looking across state lines to find qualified individuals and would not compensate a worker for the transition. Furthermore they would be more dependent upon their family, friends and local support network than a richer individual.
Pretty sure the question was asked so they could point out that poor people moved frequently, disregarding the reasons they move and where/how far.
It's not easy to find/parse the statistics to figure out, but on face value one might think the statistics somehow refute the notion that it's harder/near impossible for people near or under the poverty line to voluntarily relocate to a place that would better suit their needs/desires.
The post from screaming seems to be pointing out that many of the 'moves' in the statistics aren't voluntary let alone intentional or evidence of true mobility. Also some of the moves might not actually be moves at all but just changing their address while still living in a car or something similar.
|
Oh right sorry, in that case I agree. Was only directly answering Nova, I would say the more common "mobility" for the poor would be from the frying pan into the fire. I would disagree with the notion that the poor can easily uproot from a bad situation and move to better one.
Edit- ninjia'd... GH understood me 
|
On May 27 2015 05:09 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2015 03:08 cLutZ wrote:On May 26 2015 16:16 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 05:49 cLutZ wrote:On May 26 2015 03:42 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 03:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 26 2015 03:09 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 00:15 Wolfstan wrote:On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:
[quote]And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society.
I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public.The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. As long as that redistribution enforcement can be stopped by borders and there is a freedom of mobility, I'm all for other jurisdictions and their citizens doing whatever they want. "Freedom of Mobility"? Meaning rich people are allowed to leave the country to avoid having their assets redistributed? Freedom for people, rich or poor, to enter or leave an economy is indicative of the strength of that economy's economic model. The post Civil War, pre-1980s South is a great example of this. The region suffered a huge brain drain because a lot of sophisticated people did not like Jim Crow laws. This is also, what the United States traditionally was based on, before the more recent centralization efforts. You let people move from state to state, and the assumption is that better governments will influence worse ones to become better, or risk losing their people. The 1860s realization is that this simple model wasn't enough, and that the Federal government also needs to ensure that these governments cannot become too oppressive towards citizens. Poor people tend to not have enough resources to just pack up and leave if they don't like the situation, so "Freedom of mobility" is a term for wealthier people having the ability to leave an area if it isn't ideal. I don't think it's a bad thing really, it's just freedom of mobility means any attempt to put any real measures against the rich is pointless, because they can just go to a different state/country where it doesn't apply. I'm interested in what the evidence is that, in a free market, that there is this low mobility for poorer people. Certainly, there are many poor people now that feel trapped in an area because they can't move a housing voucher or are in property that is being rented to them at sub-market rates, etc. I know during the post-Civil war days there was lots of freedom of movement by the poor, often to escape bad economic conditions (ala Grapes of Wrath), and I certainly understand moving costs and security deposits are non-negligible, but that last one is also a zoning and supply issue, and there are also significant transaction costs for moving as a rich person who probably owns property, a business, and has significant social capital they would be sacrificing. Poorer people are usually less skilled, so their options are limited as to where they can make a living. They tend to have assets that are harder to liquefy (everything they own may be invested in their house for example). No savings/high amounts of loans. Really poor people may even lack the ability to move. Whether that means they can't afford transportation, or they can't afford to miss even a few days of work to make the move. Are you legitimately saying that rich people have issues with moving because it costs them more? No. But actually none of your points make any sense in the context of the discussion which basically says this: Take the United States, and eliminate all of its welfare, medicare, social security, etc programs. Each state now, obviously has the choice to implement those policies on its own, but they don't have too so its probable some will and some wont. The objection, by some, to this system is that the rich will just up and leave the high tax areas, and the poor wont be able to leave the places without a welfare system. It is in that context that I do not buy the poor having a mobility problem compared to rich, because the act of moving would get them the subsidies available in the new state. Except I'm not, and I'm really beginning to doubt your ability to read. I literally did not even mention welfare once.
Well, that was the point of the discussion. Rich people leaving high tax, high spend areas, and whether poor people are able to move into high tax high spend areas. Welfare is just a catchall word for a high spend area.
On May 27 2015 05:09 killa_robot wrote:
The rich WILL up and leave higher tax areas, provided they are taxed enough to make the move worthwhile. Other that the risk vs reward they'd have to weigh, there's really nothing preventing them from moving.
I don't disagree, I just have pointed out that often the deadweight loss will be significant for many rich people.
On May 27 2015 05:09 killa_robot wrote:
I never said poorer people need to stay near welfare, I said it's hard for poorer people to pick up and leave. You make it sound like anywhere that has welfare is essentially a safe zone, and all they need to do is be able to make the trek there to be fine.
That's not what I was saying, what I was saying that if the welfare is good enough there are few barriers from leaving a place that is a relatively free market. The problem would more likely be a barrier of entry into the welfare state through lack of affordable housing, some sort of delay on receiving benefits, lack of available jobs, etc.
On May 27 2015 05:09 killa_robot wrote:
It's not that simple. For starters, "Poorer people" does not translate to "people on welfare", so implying welfare would even be a consideration for all of them is wrong to begin with.
In this scenario they are not on welfare, and attempting to move to a place where they would be.
On May 27 2015 05:09 killa_robot wrote:
The context of the discussion is people are okay with changes to what the government does, so long as the "Freedom of mobility" exists, allowing those that disagree with the changes to not have to deal with them. My thoughts on this is that "Freedom of mobility" only applies to the rich, meaning changes meant to target the rich in aims to help the general public are rendered pointless because they can just up and leave. It also means even if poorer people dislike some of the changes made, they can't leave, because it's harder for them.
And your counter to this has been "Well actually none of those points matter because they can leave since we have social programs to support them", which is wrong.
I didn't say anything about social programs to support the poor. I was saying in the hypothetical, the state they are leaving doesn't have them, and the one they are going to does, because that is why they are moving in the hypo. If you don't accept the premise of the hypo, you can't discuss it.
|
Your hypotheticals are ridiculous. I've got an empirical for you.
Let's take a look at your graduating high school class. Is it more or less likely that they are within a 50 mile radius of where they lived in high school if they graduated in the bottom quartile?
Is it more or less likely for a person with only a high school education to be living within 50 miles of where they were born?
Is it more or less likely that a person who went to an ivy league school ends up getting a job in a completely different city from where they were born?
I can answer all of those for you if you are still obtuse enough to persist with this silliness.
|
You're attacking a straw man there. I didn't say they were more likely, I said they were capable if the incentives to move out of a low tax-low redistribution system into a high tax-high redistribution system were enough. We know that less educated people move less because they are often reliant on relatives and interpersonal connections to get jobs. Particularly decently paying jobs that don't require education like construction.
|
Man is capable of living on bread and water for a very long time too. It's a wonder that the poor don't buy bread and water and scrounge up money to eventually buy a better life.
Maybe I am attacking a straw man because that's the only thing you've erected in a couple pages of posting.
|
You are the one attacking the idea of freedom of movement on the account that the poor cannot move about as well as the rich. I'm simply showing why that case is overstated (even if its not entirely untrue). Perhaps its time to discuss why we should think its a good idea to compel anyone, rich or poor, to remain in a place that endeavors to make them worse off?
|
Now who is attacking straw men? The rich can move anywhere they like. They just can't take the wealth they've accumulated by running businesses, employing people, and selling goods in a community without paying the requisite tax.
The poor on the other hand cannot move even if they wanted to. They are compelled by circumstance to remain the surplus labor pool that the rich draw on to make their money.
|
Why wouldn't they have already paid taxes on the income while accumulating the wealth. Then pay taxes when selling businesses/property when they leave?
|
Those were taxes on intra-circulating capital, not capital that was leaving the community.
But I dunno, you might want to ask Boeing, General Electric, or Verizon why they aren't paying taxes. Or any of the companies who have moved their headquarters offshore in some tax haven.
|
On May 26 2015 12:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 09:06 puerk wrote:On May 26 2015 03:51 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public. The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. I've seen progress too in the rotting on a peach. Undermining what were advances in personal liberty is the quicker trip to your scarcity society. Mediocrity is praised and wealth decried. You mix in quite a bit of nonsense to attempt to justify attacks on a free and honest economic system. We aren't trashing working condition legislation or the rule of law in general. I also can see no more dishonest way to segregate society than to push the poor onto endless welfare assistance and tell them they couldn't get ahead even if they tried (and Jonny went into depth much earlier in the thread about the costs associated with job promotions in losing benefits and program assistance). I've seen a lot of noble societal goals masquerading as rights in the modern age. It's truly childlike to declare some things rights, then identify oppressors of rights, rather than seek goals and discuss how they might be achieved. The right to a job obviates thoughts of how to grow an economy and create jobs. Right to housing, right to whatever radicals identify as "dignified living" these days ... it's vacuous justification for a host of activities that themselves oppress and enslave. Better still to have an alert populace that signed onto something called the German constitution, than impose somebody else's social contract by fiat with invented authority and justifications. Who the fuck cares about theoretical personal liberty, when he has no social, cultural and economical resources to make use of that liberty? You claim a system with no rules (except some bare minimums of police and military under governmental control) will tend to an equilibrium of equality. Everyone can be rich if they were just forced by scarcity to improve themselfs, because there will suddenly be an ceo position for everyone and nobody ever has to do cleaning jobs, dangerous work, low skill maintenance, really demanding but low barrier of entry medical care (nursing and related things) again. Those highly important jobs are paid shitty because of their low barrier of entry and the urge of people to do everything just to survive. Instituting a guaranteed income would decrease incentives for those jobs to be taken, that they would have to be paid more to be performed, and get closer to their human value to society. You argue that prices determined by market interactions are the only value systems humans should care about. Not only do i see huge flaws in the price mechanism + Show Spoiler +
- the initial distribution of wealth exists and is highly uneven
- knowledge and skill are no simple commodity, so not every market actor can make informed decisions, and even further can not make informed decisions about which "market product" would really improve his information access and parsing ability
- human sustainance is a fact of life and non negotiable, a worker can not use the negotiation position: i will not eat for 6 months till i find work that matches my skills, he has to take whatever pays the bills right now, or die.
- lack of trust (for instance prisoner dilemma) can force individual actors in a system to chose the nonoptimal solution
in sum: the price mechanism works for some simple gadgets in isolation, and sort of works for the whole society in approximation, but fails in some important details
it is a useful concept that can pragmatically used for economic wellbeing, but it is not the ultimate infalible holy grail you make it out to be
, i also see much non monetary value in human interactions and life in general. Especially revealing is your position that i praise mediocrity and encourage people to fail. That could not be further from the truth. The reality is that wealth is unevenly distributed, and through market forces alone will only further accumulate. A look over oecd countries shows that the wealth gap grows faster the less redistribution there is. A society with a huge and growing wealth gap will mean that there inevitable are people you consider as failed as a statistic reality. On an individual basis everyone can move up or down, but that does not change in the slightest the overall distribution and its dynamic. One individual improving his employability improves his own outlook but also reduces the overall pay in the sector he joins. + Show Spoiler +this makes the contribution zero in first order, but there are some second order effects that can be positive on society, as we discussed earlier with Jonny Religious reverence of personal responsiblity will not change those market dynamics. I am so repulsed by your attitude, because you consider me a drain on society that deserves nothing but to die from starvation and an aggressor ruining the lifes of those that have benefited from the society the most. I myself want a society that enables successful economic interactions, but via the social contract enforces a fair share of this success to be redistributed, because not everyone can be successful. I am telling no single individual "you can not be successful" i am telling: "there will always be differences in outcomes, if they become too big society destabilizes, because of game theoretic considerations individual actions are not leading to an equitable equilibrium, therefore we need institutions stabilizing society and balancing outcomes". You see redistributionist societies as failures, when their only failure appears when compared by reductionist values to an unachivable utopia. I made no claim to an "equilibrium of equality" as one of my goals. I want a society as close to equilibrium of moderate to high opportunity. Liberty is bound to produce inequalities. Wealth gap, if you like the fashionable term for it. If individual liberty did not demonstrate that some manners of living are more successful than others, much of the case for it would vanish. That's why I desire a very high level of it, even as those individuals finding inventions and innovations that nobody ever thought of create businesses that hire the starter jobs you so loathe. The movement of individuals between jobs and the existence of part time jobs while individuals train in higher ed/trade schools is exactly that force that lets social mobility continue. It's present opposition is case in point of what happens with a culture and political climate bent on destruction. Markets and prices are a flawed mechanism for resources, for the movement of labor, but frankly it's the best we have. You might say the capitalistic mechanism is worst system around, had it not been for the garbage heap of every other challenger around. We have a rich history to draw from, anywhere from price controls in the USSR to rent controls in New York. Since you reject any individual's efforts to increase their social standing, their economic stability, their revolt against the culture, you assume an ivory tower mentality towards effort, which is exactly why I identify your policies as aimed at mediocrity and failure of the current poor. He can't get ahead. His personal employability improvements come at too great a cost to the sector. Zero-net fallacies at its best. He evacuates positions now found for low-skilled labor, and brings more productivity and availability to the new companies and new positions he fills. Without job training and a skilled labor force, how do you expect companies to expand their markets reached and global competition? It's not some bloke running up the down escalator in education and job advancement. For those born poor, the safety net for the destitute provides enough to keep on living, and its up to his own mind, family, labor, and time to get ahead. He should not be reliant on his voting power to lawfully confiscate an increasing share of other people's money. I consider your policies to be some of the basest conclusions to an envy mentality and a no-growth/low-growth advocacy. Find your ad-hominem victimhood somewhere else, contrary to your assertions, I have no idea whether or not you exist as a drain on society. I want your ideas about how to re-organize society to fail. There will always be differences in outcomes; I see the plain results of your redistributionist policies to tend towards an overall lowering of individuals bent on becoming successes. When you tout "a fair share" for redistribution, I'm reminded of your belief that a central entity can spend the hard-earned money of successful individuals better than they can. Government is brilliant and knows best how to move money/save money, making it certain the individual has less to reinvest in his businesses, employ in other investments, and buy products other successful companies sell. That might be an order of magnitude less efficient than ordinary price and competition (that you disdain). It goes to anticompetitive practices, rewards the politically connected, even further advances cronyism in the economy. Again, there will always be differences in outcomes, so let's make sure the opportunity to hit the middle and high successes is as great as possible. The big-picture society will always have socialist destabilizers, but as with all small thinkers, their ideas should be marginalized and laughed out of town. The politics of envy always have to hide behind more just-sounding cloaks to make headway in a prosperous society.
Ok lets go through this step by step.
- You are comfortable with high inequalities, i am not, we will never resolve that difference.
- You want "opportunity", but only on a vague anecdotal rags to riches level instead of robust statistics that prove that countries with low after tax and transfer income inequality have higher social mobility than those with high inequality.
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/The_Great_Gatsby_Curve.png)
Countries with terrible economic models that are highly redistributionist have far better outcomes for a big portion of society than those with less redistribution.
- You claim societies with ultimative personal liberty are automatically meritocratic, when they are in fact an instable illusion. Those that gain the first advantage will build on it institutions that enshrine it. A system with no stabilizing rules will get exploited by those able to. You decry that a redistributionist government is the worst idea ever because it acknowleges the imperfections of human society and tries to combat them through stabilizing means. It makes no sense to idolize a system that by itself can not be stable as it can never work in practice.
- You cling to a concept of "starter jobs" when those are for the biggest part of society permanent, as there will be never enough stuff to move up to and the jobs i enumerated earlier (all with quite low boundary of entry) are so important for society that a decent chunk of the population will be employed in them.
In short just a version of the typical "High School Jobs"-fallacy we discussed earlier in the thread.
- I do not think that the capitalist system is terrible. I think unregulated, pure capitalism is a bad idea that can be improved upon with social institutions. As i said about the price finding market mechanism, its good enough to use for commodities but it is bad to think it is the ultimate arbiter of human value. There can be alternative mechanism discovering and designating value. For instance voting or personal communication.
When i have no money i can express no preferences in a pure anarcho capitalist society. But as a human being that thinks and feels i can always express them through other nonmarket means.
There are government price controls in many first world countries. But since you only know about the USSR and apparently have never even tried to understand what is possible in central and northern european countries, your cherry picking is utterly obvious. For instance in Germany every single trade is regulated in price:
BGB § 138
2) Nichtig ist insbesondere ein Rechtsgeschäft, durch das jemand unter Ausbeutung der Zwangslage, der Unerfahrenheit, des Mangels an Urteilsvermögen oder der erheblichen Willensschwäche eines anderen sich oder einem Dritten für eine Leistung Vermögensvorteile versprechen oder gewähren lässt, die in einem auffälligen Missverhältnis zu der Leistung stehen.
(2) In particular, a legal transaction is void by which a person, by exploiting the predicament, inexperience, lack of sound judgement or considerable weakness of will of another, causes himself or a third party, in exchange for an act of performance, to be promised or granted pecuniary advantages which are clearly disproportionate to the performance.
I consider this part of German law to be a great accomplishment in fixing the flaws of unimpeded capitalism.
But according to you we all live under a terrible tyranny with no more rights because of it.
- I do not reject individual efforts. I clearly stated that individual efforts can improve the outcome of individuals. But just by statistic realities not everyone can be successful and because of that a system relying on personal effort for success is flawed as it sets an undetermined part of society up for failure. You want people to fail so that your successes feel better in comparison, your 13th million would feel empty and useless as your marginal utility of every additional dollar gets closer and closer to zero. But since it is your highscore in life you strive for every little additional point even it is totally meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
- I never said i do not want job training or opportunities. You mistake the argument i made. Let me reiterate it again:
a system that only relies on personal efforts will not yield good outcomes for everyone. If every poor person would start a apprenticeship to become a paralegal to set them selfs up to study law to become corporate lawyers, managers in mergers and acquisition, and business consultants on tax and regulatory regimes, many would fail. You say because of a lack of trying, bad personal decisions and general failure. I would say because not everyone can succeed. Every person has a chance to succeed if he tries, but not every person can be successful. The market as a whole is competitive, and even with perfect qualifications an employer will only take 1 of the 100 applicants for a position.
- The next part really confused me as you started to contradict yourself directly in adjacent sentences.
For those born poor, the safety net for the destitute provides enough to keep on living, and its up to his own mind, family, labor, and time to get ahead. He should not be reliant on his voting power to lawfully confiscate an increasing share of other people's money.
You know that the safety net is paid for by taxes, which are lawful confiscations?.. Who knew...
Seriously in your advocated world there is no safety net so stop claiming it would still be there after it gets dismantled and the government is back to police, courts, military and nothing else.
- I seriously do not care if you call me envious. Labels i would prefer are disillusioned or cynical. On a personal level i do not feel any envy for rich and powerful people, i want a small sustainance life (to put numbers on that i am thinking on the order of ~600€ a month + healthcare) in that i can focus my time on things i enjoy. I do not and would never demand millions just because there are billionaires. Maybe the issue is that you have no understanding of the involved orders of magnitute. How can you call me envious of a lifestyle that i make no claim to get for myself? Have i ever advocated for personal jets and helicopters for everyone?
- Regarding my victimhood: i tried myself at several things throught my life but failed. Sometimes i gut closer to success sometimes i missed by several miles. You want me to continue struggling because i can totally apply myself to be a great call center agent selling people overpriced undervalued mobile contracts with 10 layers of bullshit add ons that try to obfuscate the true price and value of the contract. And i seriously do not see that.
- About the lowering of individuals: by what standard? compared to which country? Seriously, tell me of a currently existing place that does not hold its citizens down with taxation that has the ultimative super enterpreneurs that transform humantity to the better. I know no such place. Is a highly redistributionist country like sweden holding Persson down? Maybe you will counter with: but imagine what he could have done in somalia, but you have nothing but theoreticals and idolized utopias to offer.
- Yes i do believe that a central social institution like a government can make better use of money than individuals. Do i think it always does: no, do i think it is better than the alternative where everyone fends for themselfs: of course.
You never addressed my point of market failures due to imperfect information, and suboptimal outcomes due to game theoretical considerations in a lack of trust (no trusted third party) environment. People will not pool for healthinsurance when they are healthy, but get emergency care nontheless creating a huge moral hazard. The real world is full of such situations where the individual rational action is inherently risky and on a societal scale will have an expectation value that is lower than a society that preemptively shaves of those risks by mandated wealth transfers (like mandatory health insurance, mandatory unemployment insurance, etc.pp)
The big-picture society will always have socialist destabilizers, but as with all small thinkers, their ideas should be marginalized and laughed out of town.
Holy fuck did you go far off the deep end here.
Personal insults are not really the sign of a selfdeclared great thinker. Your understanding of the history of modern philosophy especially outside the anglo-saxon sphere of influence seems to be quite lacking. The austrian school that only got popular in the US is not the epitome of great thinking that you make it out to be, as it severly lacks in rigorous empirical feedback.
May i ask you where you get your ideas from, how northern european societies look and work?
On May 27 2015 05:46 Wolfstan wrote:
I disagree, all poor people on a micro level can afford to leave a bad situation. You really need to quit making excuses for them on a macro level.
No they can't, they can afford to try to leave a bad situation, but leaving one place does not guarantee success anywhere else. Living on the street and begging is a realistic outcome in some parts of the world when you try to leave a bad place for somewhere better. So no the micro level availability of the option of risking and trying something does not negate macrolevel distributions of success and failure of those tries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
