|
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 November 12 2013 05:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 11:28 sam!zdat wrote:
the healthcare system is dysfunctional because of rent-seeking behaviors on the part of private insurance companies (and because of the high costs associated with american culture and political inability to pursue preventative health care as policy). romneycare is a desperate compromise to avoid nationalizing the entire sector. it won't work.
as for the character of paul, who cares? all politicians are scum. you don't run on strength of character you run on soundbites and whatever your particular flavor of populism is. i don't see how a plagiarist is any worse of a candidate, we're not hiring him to generate original prose. if he steals a line from somebody, he believes that (as much as any politician believes anything they say) - what more do you want to know? it's just a distraction Romneycare seems to be working OK in MA. We basically have universal healthcare (only ~4% uninsured + some government coverage) and cost increases have been mild in recent years.
Maybe when more locally administered and responsively overseen, its detriments can enjoy some limitations and benefits more fully enjoyed. I'm not prepared to do the economic analyses ... any doctor flight, cost overruns, health care field dampeners, blue state problems. I know the first legislative attempt for Romneycare-writ-large is having problems with enrollment (Oregonians reading this thread: you can still try to be person #1 to enroll in your state) and its still very open to fraud and abuse in mental health as well as others.
In other news, I guess for the samzdats out there, everything free market is a ploy by menacing capitalists to avoid beneficial nationalization of industry.
|
it's not free market, it's the status quo of rent-seeking special interests with powerful lobbies
but you couldn't totally deregulate healthcare because there would be a revolution. that's why the compromise
I'm under no delusions about the benefits of nationalization. it's a terrifying prospect. I don't think the US can be governed at all - it is too large and heterogenous. at this point we are just choosing between different possible disasters
|
On November 12 2013 09:28 sam!zdat wrote:
it's not free market, it's the status quo of rent-seeking special interests with powerful lobbies
but you couldn't totally deregulate healthcare because there would be a revolution. that's why the compromise
I'm under no delusions about the benefits of nationalization. it's a terrifying prospect. I don't think the US can be governed at all - it is too large and heterogenous. at this point we are just choosing between different possible disasters
The current status quo developed with an increasingly meddlesome federal government in the 20th and now 21st centuries. Companies start with the special interest of protecting their company against burdensome changes in how they conduct their business. Companies end by cozying up to the same government to make sure that it conducts its business of choosing the winners and losers of private business to make themselves the winners. The hand that strikes is also the hand that feeds. It's not free market, but I'd like to see it return to free market.
I don't want a government bureaucrat sitting next to me negotiating with my insurance provider for what he can provide at what cost. I don't want to ask for one thing, and the bureaucrat add on "And this guy wants contraceptives, and mental health coverage, and this many doctor visits a year covered, and ..." I want government in its legislative and judicial capacity to prevent fraud in the industry. If I could rewrite history, it would be eliminating the tax structure for company health insurance (it's a form of pay) and the legislation preventing companies from providing insurance the employee can take with them to his next employer upon quitting (payments into a private health plan). Pre-existing conditions problems solved by distributing the risk across a longer time and not employment periods, as currently exists. That's a major distortion on the services a free market generates.
|
I agree with everything you say
but the idea of a non-interventionist healthcare sector in the current state of american society is a utopian fantasy. It is a recipe for social instability
|
On November 12 2013 10:07 sam!zdat wrote:
I agree with everything you say
but the idea of a non-interventionist healthcare sector in the current state of american society is a utopian fantasy. It is a recipe for social instability
Now that its very interventionist, the road back won't be immediate. Stepwise changes in the tax law and regulatory state of personal health insurance can lead to a free and vibrant private health insurance market. It could lead to it in the span of a couple generations. When the progressives have been moving sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly for the better part of 80 years, it is impossible to reverse in the span of under a tenth of that.
|
you don't get it. a fully private healthcare system would just exacerbate social inequality and make even more obvious the gap between the haves and have nots. there's no politically feasible way to allow that to happen without also revolutionizing the relations of production and solving the deeper contradictions in the class structure of american society. government intervention in healthcare is part of the social democratic compromise that is the only thing holding the fabric of capitalist society together. the only possible capitalist state is the welfare state - if you don't like the welfare state (i hate it) you are going to have to start thinking about alternatives to capitalism.
|
On November 12 2013 11:36 sam!zdat wrote:
you don't get it. a fully private healthcare system would just exacerbate social inequality and make even more obvious the gap between the haves and have nots. there's no politically feasible way to allow that to happen without also revolutionizing the relations of production and solving the deeper contradictions in the class structure of american society. government intervention in healthcare is part of the social democratic compromise that is the only thing holding the fabric of capitalist society together. the only possible capitalist state is the welfare state - if you don't like the welfare state (i hate it) you are going to have to start thinking about alternatives to capitalism.
I have to accept something less than utopia. Utopia is not for this world. Income and standard of life inequality must exist at some level if the community is not entirely in grinding poverty. To create the the fastest increase in standards of life for the lowest in society, we have capitalist markets.
Why? Without capitalism and the notions of price signalling and profits, you condemn the poor to their pitiable state by depriving them of opportunity to advance. Without the same there will not be a sufficiently prosperous society to provide the wealth necessary to help the truly destitute, unless you want a generalized decrease in living standards across the board. I argue for a safety net of sorts, as much as that construction is abused, to keep that extreme poverty far away and to help the aged and disabled that lack the resources for their own care.
Now, I simplify your revolution in class structure to the natural progressive urges present in capitalist societies. As much as the problem with the related communist society is the communists, the problem with capitalist society is the capitalists. Capitalists sometimes are unwilling to accept that other forms (other than capitalism) would not lead to an increase in poverty rather than a decrease, they agitate for it -- particularly the richest (One avenue meant by the phrase). When, however, the help for impoverished persons transforms into a lifestyle with heavy disincentives for an exit (a welfare trap), then we have a perversion of a good thing and a moral need to reform it. We are not conquering the basic human attribute of envy that commands so much political power nowadays, but we are limiting its destructive and self-defeating economic policies with a healthy dose of reason and historical proof.
|
there's no opportunity to advance, civilization is just settling back into its usual pattern of tiny elites and massive underclass, after the anomalous interlude of large american middle class which is basically just a historical oddity
|
On November 12 2013 12:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2013 11:36 sam!zdat wrote:
you don't get it. a fully private healthcare system would just exacerbate social inequality and make even more obvious the gap between the haves and have nots. there's no politically feasible way to allow that to happen without also revolutionizing the relations of production and solving the deeper contradictions in the class structure of american society. government intervention in healthcare is part of the social democratic compromise that is the only thing holding the fabric of capitalist society together. the only possible capitalist state is the welfare state - if you don't like the welfare state (i hate it) you are going to have to start thinking about alternatives to capitalism. I have to accept something less than utopia. Utopia is not for this world. Income and standard of life inequality must exist at some level if the community is not entirely in grinding poverty. To create the the fastest increase in standards of life for the lowest in society, we have capitalist markets. Why? Without capitalism and the notions of price signalling and profits, you condemn the poor to their pitiable state by depriving them of opportunity to advance. Without the same there will not be a sufficiently prosperous society to provide the wealth necessary to help the truly destitute, unless you want a generalized decrease in living standards across the board. I argue for a safety net of sorts, as much as that construction is abused, to keep that extreme poverty far away and to help the aged and disabled that lack the resources for their own care. Now, I simplify your revolution in class structure to the natural progressive urges present in capitalist societies. As much as the problem with the related communist society is the communists, the problem with capitalist society is the capitalists. Unwilling to accept that other forms would not lead to an increase in poverty rather than a decrease, they agitate for it -- particularly the richest. When, however, the help for impoverished persons transforms into a lifestyle with heavy disincentives for an exit (a welfare trap), then we have a perversion of a good thing and a moral need to reform it. We are not conquering the basic human attribute of envy that commands so much political power nowadays, but we are limiting its destructive and self-defeating economic policies with a healthy dose of reason and historical proof.
Not sure what the bolded sentence means. Seems like you are missing an antecedent.
You misunderstand human beings. They are not rational actors who respond to financial incentives like you think they do. And no one would prefer living in poverty with an iphone to a wealthy life without one.
|
On November 12 2013 12:26 sam!zdat wrote:
there's no opportunity to advance, civilization is just settling back into its usual pattern of tiny elites and massive underclass, after the anomalous interlude of large american middle class which is basically just a historical oddity
On November 12 2013 13:21 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2013 12:23 Danglars wrote:On November 12 2013 11:36 sam!zdat wrote:
you don't get it. a fully private healthcare system would just exacerbate social inequality and make even more obvious the gap between the haves and have nots. there's no politically feasible way to allow that to happen without also revolutionizing the relations of production and solving the deeper contradictions in the class structure of american society. government intervention in healthcare is part of the social democratic compromise that is the only thing holding the fabric of capitalist society together. the only possible capitalist state is the welfare state - if you don't like the welfare state (i hate it) you are going to have to start thinking about alternatives to capitalism. I have to accept something less than utopia. Utopia is not for this world. Income and standard of life inequality must exist at some level if the community is not entirely in grinding poverty. To create the the fastest increase in standards of life for the lowest in society, we have capitalist markets. Why? Without capitalism and the notions of price signalling and profits, you condemn the poor to their pitiable state by depriving them of opportunity to advance. Without the same there will not be a sufficiently prosperous society to provide the wealth necessary to help the truly destitute, unless you want a generalized decrease in living standards across the board. I argue for a safety net of sorts, as much as that construction is abused, to keep that extreme poverty far away and to help the aged and disabled that lack the resources for their own care. Now, I simplify your revolution in class structure to the natural progressive urges present in capitalist societies. As much as the problem with the related communist society is the communists, the problem with capitalist society is the capitalists. Unwilling to accept that other forms would not lead to an increase in poverty rather than a decrease, they agitate for it -- particularly the richest. When, however, the help for impoverished persons transforms into a lifestyle with heavy disincentives for an exit (a welfare trap), then we have a perversion of a good thing and a moral need to reform it. We are not conquering the basic human attribute of envy that commands so much political power nowadays, but we are limiting its destructive and self-defeating economic policies with a healthy dose of reason and historical proof. Not sure what the bolded sentence means. Seems like you are missing an antecedent. You misunderstand human beings. They are not rational actors who respond to financial incentives like you think they do. And no one would prefer living in poverty with an iphone to a wealthy life without one.
Perhaps I jumped too far with the phrase prior for those that have never heard it. It's no matter. And it isn't only financial incentives, it's the lack of financial disincentives in almost equal portion. Your mythical irrational actors, unconcerned with a better life for themselves and their family, slavishly working on despite government telling them that jobs are risky but welfare is bedrock, are not to be found in any great number on this earth. Impoverishing the country is how you create opportunity and jobs. Condemning the poor to their lot is your compassion.
There you have it. I can only dream of raising up as many straw men as you have in the past 50 pages, but dream on I shall. I say it is unfair to the poor for their would-be representatives to continually seek to keep them that way claiming compassion every step of the way. That is the first thing that enters my mind when I hear Sam talking about this or that "exacerbat[ing] social inequality" or these expansionist conceptions of the welfare state.
|
On November 12 2013 14:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2013 12:26 sam!zdat wrote:
there's no opportunity to advance, civilization is just settling back into its usual pattern of tiny elites and massive underclass, after the anomalous interlude of large american middle class which is basically just a historical oddity Show nested quote +On November 12 2013 13:21 IgnE wrote:On November 12 2013 12:23 Danglars wrote:On November 12 2013 11:36 sam!zdat wrote:
you don't get it. a fully private healthcare system would just exacerbate social inequality and make even more obvious the gap between the haves and have nots. there's no politically feasible way to allow that to happen without also revolutionizing the relations of production and solving the deeper contradictions in the class structure of american society. government intervention in healthcare is part of the social democratic compromise that is the only thing holding the fabric of capitalist society together. the only possible capitalist state is the welfare state - if you don't like the welfare state (i hate it) you are going to have to start thinking about alternatives to capitalism. I have to accept something less than utopia. Utopia is not for this world. Income and standard of life inequality must exist at some level if the community is not entirely in grinding poverty. To create the the fastest increase in standards of life for the lowest in society, we have capitalist markets. Why? Without capitalism and the notions of price signalling and profits, you condemn the poor to their pitiable state by depriving them of opportunity to advance. Without the same there will not be a sufficiently prosperous society to provide the wealth necessary to help the truly destitute, unless you want a generalized decrease in living standards across the board. I argue for a safety net of sorts, as much as that construction is abused, to keep that extreme poverty far away and to help the aged and disabled that lack the resources for their own care. Now, I simplify your revolution in class structure to the natural progressive urges present in capitalist societies. As much as the problem with the related communist society is the communists, the problem with capitalist society is the capitalists. Unwilling to accept that other forms would not lead to an increase in poverty rather than a decrease, they agitate for it -- particularly the richest. When, however, the help for impoverished persons transforms into a lifestyle with heavy disincentives for an exit (a welfare trap), then we have a perversion of a good thing and a moral need to reform it. We are not conquering the basic human attribute of envy that commands so much political power nowadays, but we are limiting its destructive and self-defeating economic policies with a healthy dose of reason and historical proof. Not sure what the bolded sentence means. Seems like you are missing an antecedent. You misunderstand human beings. They are not rational actors who respond to financial incentives like you think they do. And no one would prefer living in poverty with an iphone to a wealthy life without one. Perhaps I jumped too far with the phrase prior for those that have never heard it. It's no matter. And it isn't only financial incentives, it's the lack of financial disincentives in almost equal portion. Your mythical irrational actors, unconcerned with a better life for themselves and their family, slavishly working on despite government telling them that jobs are risky but welfare is bedrock, are not to be found in any great number on this earth. Impoverishing the country is how you create opportunity and jobs. Condemning the poor to their lot is your compassion. There you have it. I can only dream of raising up as many straw men as you have in the past 50 pages, but dream on I shall. I say it is unfair to the poor for their would-be representatives to continually seek to keep them that way claiming compassion every step of the way. That is the first thing that enters my mind when I hear Sam talking about this or that "exacerbat[ing] social inequality" or these expansionist conceptions of the welfare state.
I know this is a difficult concept for you to understand, since you would love to work part time and collect food stamps while making 18k a year, but most people who are on welfare would rather have a well-paying job. Maybe you do understand this, but your definition of "well-paying" is $2 for 16 hours of labor a day to make Nike shoes while living in corporate owned housing with bunk beds next to your coworkers. It's unclear at this point.
So what's the main driving force of inequality in the country/world at large right now? Welfare increasing the inequality gap according to you? I really don't understand your position. You seem to say that inequality is a problem and that if only we had freer markets it would take care of itself.
|
On November 12 2013 15:07 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2013 14:55 Danglars wrote:On November 12 2013 12:26 sam!zdat wrote:
there's no opportunity to advance, civilization is just settling back into its usual pattern of tiny elites and massive underclass, after the anomalous interlude of large american middle class which is basically just a historical oddity On November 12 2013 13:21 IgnE wrote:On November 12 2013 12:23 Danglars wrote:On November 12 2013 11:36 sam!zdat wrote:
you don't get it. a fully private healthcare system would just exacerbate social inequality and make even more obvious the gap between the haves and have nots. there's no politically feasible way to allow that to happen without also revolutionizing the relations of production and solving the deeper contradictions in the class structure of american society. government intervention in healthcare is part of the social democratic compromise that is the only thing holding the fabric of capitalist society together. the only possible capitalist state is the welfare state - if you don't like the welfare state (i hate it) you are going to have to start thinking about alternatives to capitalism. I have to accept something less than utopia. Utopia is not for this world. Income and standard of life inequality must exist at some level if the community is not entirely in grinding poverty. To create the the fastest increase in standards of life for the lowest in society, we have capitalist markets. Why? Without capitalism and the notions of price signalling and profits, you condemn the poor to their pitiable state by depriving them of opportunity to advance. Without the same there will not be a sufficiently prosperous society to provide the wealth necessary to help the truly destitute, unless you want a generalized decrease in living standards across the board. I argue for a safety net of sorts, as much as that construction is abused, to keep that extreme poverty far away and to help the aged and disabled that lack the resources for their own care. Now, I simplify your revolution in class structure to the natural progressive urges present in capitalist societies. As much as the problem with the related communist society is the communists, the problem with capitalist society is the capitalists. Unwilling to accept that other forms would not lead to an increase in poverty rather than a decrease, they agitate for it -- particularly the richest. When, however, the help for impoverished persons transforms into a lifestyle with heavy disincentives for an exit (a welfare trap), then we have a perversion of a good thing and a moral need to reform it. We are not conquering the basic human attribute of envy that commands so much political power nowadays, but we are limiting its destructive and self-defeating economic policies with a healthy dose of reason and historical proof. Not sure what the bolded sentence means. Seems like you are missing an antecedent. You misunderstand human beings. They are not rational actors who respond to financial incentives like you think they do. And no one would prefer living in poverty with an iphone to a wealthy life without one. Perhaps I jumped too far with the phrase prior for those that have never heard it. It's no matter. And it isn't only financial incentives, it's the lack of financial disincentives in almost equal portion. Your mythical irrational actors, unconcerned with a better life for themselves and their family, slavishly working on despite government telling them that jobs are risky but welfare is bedrock, are not to be found in any great number on this earth. Impoverishing the country is how you create opportunity and jobs. Condemning the poor to their lot is your compassion. There you have it. I can only dream of raising up as many straw men as you have in the past 50 pages, but dream on I shall. I say it is unfair to the poor for their would-be representatives to continually seek to keep them that way claiming compassion every step of the way. That is the first thing that enters my mind when I hear Sam talking about this or that "exacerbat[ing] social inequality" or these expansionist conceptions of the welfare state. I know this is a difficult concept for you to understand, since you would love to work part time and collect food stamps while making 18k a year, but most people who are on welfare would rather have a well-paying job. Maybe you do understand this, but your definition of "well-paying" is $2 for 16 hours of labor a day to make Nike shoes while living in corporate owned housing with bunk beds next to your coworkers. It's unclear at this point. So what's the main driving force of inequality in the country/world at large right now? Welfare increasing the inequality gap according to you? I really don't understand your position. You seem to say that inequality is a problem and that if only we had freer markets it would take care of itself.
Remember that people believe that welfare queens are a thing in real life and not just a dogwhistle racism campaign tactic.
|
On November 12 2013 15:07 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2013 14:55 Danglars wrote:On November 12 2013 12:26 sam!zdat wrote:
there's no opportunity to advance, civilization is just settling back into its usual pattern of tiny elites and massive underclass, after the anomalous interlude of large american middle class which is basically just a historical oddity On November 12 2013 13:21 IgnE wrote:On November 12 2013 12:23 Danglars wrote:On November 12 2013 11:36 sam!zdat wrote:
you don't get it. a fully private healthcare system would just exacerbate social inequality and make even more obvious the gap between the haves and have nots. there's no politically feasible way to allow that to happen without also revolutionizing the relations of production and solving the deeper contradictions in the class structure of american society. government intervention in healthcare is part of the social democratic compromise that is the only thing holding the fabric of capitalist society together. the only possible capitalist state is the welfare state - if you don't like the welfare state (i hate it) you are going to have to start thinking about alternatives to capitalism. I have to accept something less than utopia. Utopia is not for this world. Income and standard of life inequality must exist at some level if the community is not entirely in grinding poverty. To create the the fastest increase in standards of life for the lowest in society, we have capitalist markets. Why? Without capitalism and the notions of price signalling and profits, you condemn the poor to their pitiable state by depriving them of opportunity to advance. Without the same there will not be a sufficiently prosperous society to provide the wealth necessary to help the truly destitute, unless you want a generalized decrease in living standards across the board. I argue for a safety net of sorts, as much as that construction is abused, to keep that extreme poverty far away and to help the aged and disabled that lack the resources for their own care. Now, I simplify your revolution in class structure to the natural progressive urges present in capitalist societies. As much as the problem with the related communist society is the communists, the problem with capitalist society is the capitalists. Unwilling to accept that other forms would not lead to an increase in poverty rather than a decrease, they agitate for it -- particularly the richest. When, however, the help for impoverished persons transforms into a lifestyle with heavy disincentives for an exit (a welfare trap), then we have a perversion of a good thing and a moral need to reform it. We are not conquering the basic human attribute of envy that commands so much political power nowadays, but we are limiting its destructive and self-defeating economic policies with a healthy dose of reason and historical proof. Not sure what the bolded sentence means. Seems like you are missing an antecedent. You misunderstand human beings. They are not rational actors who respond to financial incentives like you think they do. And no one would prefer living in poverty with an iphone to a wealthy life without one. Perhaps I jumped too far with the phrase prior for those that have never heard it. It's no matter. And it isn't only financial incentives, it's the lack of financial disincentives in almost equal portion. Your mythical irrational actors, unconcerned with a better life for themselves and their family, slavishly working on despite government telling them that jobs are risky but welfare is bedrock, are not to be found in any great number on this earth. Impoverishing the country is how you create opportunity and jobs. Condemning the poor to their lot is your compassion. There you have it. I can only dream of raising up as many straw men as you have in the past 50 pages, but dream on I shall. I say it is unfair to the poor for their would-be representatives to continually seek to keep them that way claiming compassion every step of the way. That is the first thing that enters my mind when I hear Sam talking about this or that "exacerbat[ing] social inequality" or these expansionist conceptions of the welfare state. I know this is a difficult concept for you to understand, since you would love to work part time and collect food stamps while making 18k a year, but most people who are on welfare would rather have a well-paying job. Maybe you do understand this, but your definition of "well-paying" is $2 for 16 hours of labor a day to make Nike shoes while living in corporate owned housing with bunk beds next to your coworkers. It's unclear at this point. So what's the main driving force of inequality in the country/world at large right now? Welfare increasing the inequality gap according to you? I really don't understand your position. You seem to say that inequality is a problem and that if only we had freer markets it would take care of itself.
Inequality at its extreme is a problem. I don't see that in America today. I do see a political party more concerned with beating the rich down into submission than the actual plight of the poor. They're fine with the entire country less prosperous, if the poor maintains their lot in life, as long as net inequality goes down. I believe the opposite ... that inequality taken alone tells very little and the poorest societies can be those with the lowest inequality. It's a misplaced focus as much as it is a disgusting political tactic. Exacerbate envy for political purposes.
I find the people having your views are exactly those intent on policies that ensure the poor person on welfare will never be able to find a job with his skills. From taxation to regulation to minimum wage, the crusade is counterproductive to poverty. I brought up the welfare trap in regards to sam's conception of the welfare state, not on the topic of inequality.
On November 12 2013 15:32 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2013 15:07 IgnE wrote:On November 12 2013 14:55 Danglars wrote:On November 12 2013 12:26 sam!zdat wrote:
there's no opportunity to advance, civilization is just settling back into its usual pattern of tiny elites and massive underclass, after the anomalous interlude of large american middle class which is basically just a historical oddity On November 12 2013 13:21 IgnE wrote:On November 12 2013 12:23 Danglars wrote:On November 12 2013 11:36 sam!zdat wrote:
you don't get it. a fully private healthcare system would just exacerbate social inequality and make even more obvious the gap between the haves and have nots. there's no politically feasible way to allow that to happen without also revolutionizing the relations of production and solving the deeper contradictions in the class structure of american society. government intervention in healthcare is part of the social democratic compromise that is the only thing holding the fabric of capitalist society together. the only possible capitalist state is the welfare state - if you don't like the welfare state (i hate it) you are going to have to start thinking about alternatives to capitalism. I have to accept something less than utopia. Utopia is not for this world. Income and standard of life inequality must exist at some level if the community is not entirely in grinding poverty. To create the the fastest increase in standards of life for the lowest in society, we have capitalist markets. Why? Without capitalism and the notions of price signalling and profits, you condemn the poor to their pitiable state by depriving them of opportunity to advance. Without the same there will not be a sufficiently prosperous society to provide the wealth necessary to help the truly destitute, unless you want a generalized decrease in living standards across the board. I argue for a safety net of sorts, as much as that construction is abused, to keep that extreme poverty far away and to help the aged and disabled that lack the resources for their own care. Now, I simplify your revolution in class structure to the natural progressive urges present in capitalist societies. As much as the problem with the related communist society is the communists, the problem with capitalist society is the capitalists. Unwilling to accept that other forms would not lead to an increase in poverty rather than a decrease, they agitate for it -- particularly the richest. When, however, the help for impoverished persons transforms into a lifestyle with heavy disincentives for an exit (a welfare trap), then we have a perversion of a good thing and a moral need to reform it. We are not conquering the basic human attribute of envy that commands so much political power nowadays, but we are limiting its destructive and self-defeating economic policies with a healthy dose of reason and historical proof. Not sure what the bolded sentence means. Seems like you are missing an antecedent. You misunderstand human beings. They are not rational actors who respond to financial incentives like you think they do. And no one would prefer living in poverty with an iphone to a wealthy life without one. Perhaps I jumped too far with the phrase prior for those that have never heard it. It's no matter. And it isn't only financial incentives, it's the lack of financial disincentives in almost equal portion. Your mythical irrational actors, unconcerned with a better life for themselves and their family, slavishly working on despite government telling them that jobs are risky but welfare is bedrock, are not to be found in any great number on this earth. Impoverishing the country is how you create opportunity and jobs. Condemning the poor to their lot is your compassion. There you have it. I can only dream of raising up as many straw men as you have in the past 50 pages, but dream on I shall. I say it is unfair to the poor for their would-be representatives to continually seek to keep them that way claiming compassion every step of the way. That is the first thing that enters my mind when I hear Sam talking about this or that "exacerbat[ing] social inequality" or these expansionist conceptions of the welfare state. I know this is a difficult concept for you to understand, since you would love to work part time and collect food stamps while making 18k a year, but most people who are on welfare would rather have a well-paying job. Maybe you do understand this, but your definition of "well-paying" is $2 for 16 hours of labor a day to make Nike shoes while living in corporate owned housing with bunk beds next to your coworkers. It's unclear at this point. So what's the main driving force of inequality in the country/world at large right now? Welfare increasing the inequality gap according to you? I really don't understand your position. You seem to say that inequality is a problem and that if only we had freer markets it would take care of itself. Remember that people believe that welfare queens are a thing in real life and not just a dogwhistle racism campaign tactic.
The race card has served your cause well. In the absence of a debate on ideas, insinuate your opponents are racists. Keep creating the very same poverty you decry. Keep hounding those in society actually concerned with welfare reform.
|
Danglers what is your lot in life, nothing specific, but I am just curious who are you in life?
|
On November 12 2013 16:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2013 15:07 IgnE wrote:On November 12 2013 14:55 Danglars wrote:On November 12 2013 12:26 sam!zdat wrote:
there's no opportunity to advance, civilization is just settling back into its usual pattern of tiny elites and massive underclass, after the anomalous interlude of large american middle class which is basically just a historical oddity On November 12 2013 13:21 IgnE wrote:On November 12 2013 12:23 Danglars wrote:On November 12 2013 11:36 sam!zdat wrote:
you don't get it. a fully private healthcare system would just exacerbate social inequality and make even more obvious the gap between the haves and have nots. there's no politically feasible way to allow that to happen without also revolutionizing the relations of production and solving the deeper contradictions in the class structure of american society. government intervention in healthcare is part of the social democratic compromise that is the only thing holding the fabric of capitalist society together. the only possible capitalist state is the welfare state - if you don't like the welfare state (i hate it) you are going to have to start thinking about alternatives to capitalism. I have to accept something less than utopia. Utopia is not for this world. Income and standard of life inequality must exist at some level if the community is not entirely in grinding poverty. To create the the fastest increase in standards of life for the lowest in society, we have capitalist markets. Why? Without capitalism and the notions of price signalling and profits, you condemn the poor to their pitiable state by depriving them of opportunity to advance. Without the same there will not be a sufficiently prosperous society to provide the wealth necessary to help the truly destitute, unless you want a generalized decrease in living standards across the board. I argue for a safety net of sorts, as much as that construction is abused, to keep that extreme poverty far away and to help the aged and disabled that lack the resources for their own care. Now, I simplify your revolution in class structure to the natural progressive urges present in capitalist societies. As much as the problem with the related communist society is the communists, the problem with capitalist society is the capitalists. Unwilling to accept that other forms would not lead to an increase in poverty rather than a decrease, they agitate for it -- particularly the richest. When, however, the help for impoverished persons transforms into a lifestyle with heavy disincentives for an exit (a welfare trap), then we have a perversion of a good thing and a moral need to reform it. We are not conquering the basic human attribute of envy that commands so much political power nowadays, but we are limiting its destructive and self-defeating economic policies with a healthy dose of reason and historical proof. Not sure what the bolded sentence means. Seems like you are missing an antecedent. You misunderstand human beings. They are not rational actors who respond to financial incentives like you think they do. And no one would prefer living in poverty with an iphone to a wealthy life without one. Perhaps I jumped too far with the phrase prior for those that have never heard it. It's no matter. And it isn't only financial incentives, it's the lack of financial disincentives in almost equal portion. Your mythical irrational actors, unconcerned with a better life for themselves and their family, slavishly working on despite government telling them that jobs are risky but welfare is bedrock, are not to be found in any great number on this earth. Impoverishing the country is how you create opportunity and jobs. Condemning the poor to their lot is your compassion. There you have it. I can only dream of raising up as many straw men as you have in the past 50 pages, but dream on I shall. I say it is unfair to the poor for their would-be representatives to continually seek to keep them that way claiming compassion every step of the way. That is the first thing that enters my mind when I hear Sam talking about this or that "exacerbat[ing] social inequality" or these expansionist conceptions of the welfare state. I know this is a difficult concept for you to understand, since you would love to work part time and collect food stamps while making 18k a year, but most people who are on welfare would rather have a well-paying job. Maybe you do understand this, but your definition of "well-paying" is $2 for 16 hours of labor a day to make Nike shoes while living in corporate owned housing with bunk beds next to your coworkers. It's unclear at this point. So what's the main driving force of inequality in the country/world at large right now? Welfare increasing the inequality gap according to you? I really don't understand your position. You seem to say that inequality is a problem and that if only we had freer markets it would take care of itself. Inequality at its extreme is a problem. I don't see that in America today. I do see a political party more concerned with beating the rich down into submission than the actual plight of the poor. They're fine with the entire country less prosperous, if the poor maintains their lot in life, as long as net inequality goes down. I believe the opposite ... that inequality taken alone tells very little and the poorest societies can be those with the lowest inequality. It's a misplaced focus as much as it is a disgusting political tactic. Exacerbate envy for political purposes. I find the people having your views are exactly those intent on policies that ensure the poor person on welfare will never be able to find a job with his skills. From taxation to regulation to minimum wage, the crusade is counterproductive to poverty. I brought up the welfare trap in regards to sam's conception of the welfare state, not on the topic of inequality. Show nested quote +On November 12 2013 15:32 HunterX11 wrote:On November 12 2013 15:07 IgnE wrote:On November 12 2013 14:55 Danglars wrote:On November 12 2013 12:26 sam!zdat wrote:
there's no opportunity to advance, civilization is just settling back into its usual pattern of tiny elites and massive underclass, after the anomalous interlude of large american middle class which is basically just a historical oddity On November 12 2013 13:21 IgnE wrote:On November 12 2013 12:23 Danglars wrote:On November 12 2013 11:36 sam!zdat wrote:
you don't get it. a fully private healthcare system would just exacerbate social inequality and make even more obvious the gap between the haves and have nots. there's no politically feasible way to allow that to happen without also revolutionizing the relations of production and solving the deeper contradictions in the class structure of american society. government intervention in healthcare is part of the social democratic compromise that is the only thing holding the fabric of capitalist society together. the only possible capitalist state is the welfare state - if you don't like the welfare state (i hate it) you are going to have to start thinking about alternatives to capitalism. I have to accept something less than utopia. Utopia is not for this world. Income and standard of life inequality must exist at some level if the community is not entirely in grinding poverty. To create the the fastest increase in standards of life for the lowest in society, we have capitalist markets. Why? Without capitalism and the notions of price signalling and profits, you condemn the poor to their pitiable state by depriving them of opportunity to advance. Without the same there will not be a sufficiently prosperous society to provide the wealth necessary to help the truly destitute, unless you want a generalized decrease in living standards across the board. I argue for a safety net of sorts, as much as that construction is abused, to keep that extreme poverty far away and to help the aged and disabled that lack the resources for their own care. Now, I simplify your revolution in class structure to the natural progressive urges present in capitalist societies. As much as the problem with the related communist society is the communists, the problem with capitalist society is the capitalists. Unwilling to accept that other forms would not lead to an increase in poverty rather than a decrease, they agitate for it -- particularly the richest. When, however, the help for impoverished persons transforms into a lifestyle with heavy disincentives for an exit (a welfare trap), then we have a perversion of a good thing and a moral need to reform it. We are not conquering the basic human attribute of envy that commands so much political power nowadays, but we are limiting its destructive and self-defeating economic policies with a healthy dose of reason and historical proof. Not sure what the bolded sentence means. Seems like you are missing an antecedent. You misunderstand human beings. They are not rational actors who respond to financial incentives like you think they do. And no one would prefer living in poverty with an iphone to a wealthy life without one. Perhaps I jumped too far with the phrase prior for those that have never heard it. It's no matter. And it isn't only financial incentives, it's the lack of financial disincentives in almost equal portion. Your mythical irrational actors, unconcerned with a better life for themselves and their family, slavishly working on despite government telling them that jobs are risky but welfare is bedrock, are not to be found in any great number on this earth. Impoverishing the country is how you create opportunity and jobs. Condemning the poor to their lot is your compassion. There you have it. I can only dream of raising up as many straw men as you have in the past 50 pages, but dream on I shall. I say it is unfair to the poor for their would-be representatives to continually seek to keep them that way claiming compassion every step of the way. That is the first thing that enters my mind when I hear Sam talking about this or that "exacerbat[ing] social inequality" or these expansionist conceptions of the welfare state. I know this is a difficult concept for you to understand, since you would love to work part time and collect food stamps while making 18k a year, but most people who are on welfare would rather have a well-paying job. Maybe you do understand this, but your definition of "well-paying" is $2 for 16 hours of labor a day to make Nike shoes while living in corporate owned housing with bunk beds next to your coworkers. It's unclear at this point. So what's the main driving force of inequality in the country/world at large right now? Welfare increasing the inequality gap according to you? I really don't understand your position. You seem to say that inequality is a problem and that if only we had freer markets it would take care of itself. Remember that people believe that welfare queens are a thing in real life and not just a dogwhistle racism campaign tactic. The race card has served your cause well. In the absence of a debate on ideas, insinuate your opponents are racists. Keep creating the very same poverty you decry. Keep hounding those in society actually concerned with welfare reform.
So this graph doesn't bother you:
![[image loading]](http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page25_actualdistribwithlegend.png)
That's not extreme inequality or you, personally, just don't see it out in your travels?
Which political party is the one beating down the poor rich people into submission? The one led by the neoliberals or the other one led by the neoliberals?
So according to you, if we had less welfare and fewer taxes the people collecting welfare right now could at least be earning $4 an hour picking oranges in Florida and apples in California. Do you not see the disconnect there? Your argument is that taxation and regulation makes it prohibitive to hire people who want to work, so if we removed those socialist barriers, we could get people currently on welfare out in the fields picking cotton instead of immigrants or people in the third world. How does that not result in higher inequality than the already egregious inequality seen in the above graph?
|
On November 12 2013 14:55 Danglars wrote:
That is the first thing that enters my mind when I hear Sam talking about this or that "exacerbat[ing] social inequality" or these expansionist conceptions of the welfare state.
I wish you would listen to me
|
On November 12 2013 16:15 Danglars wrote:
The race card has served your cause well. In the absence of a debate on ideas, insinuate your opponents are racists. Keep creating the very same poverty you decry. Keep hounding those in society actually concerned with welfare reform.
Uh, I just said it's NOT just racism these days. And yes, there are right-wingers like Milton Friedman who wanted much more progressive welfare than what we have today.
|
On November 12 2013 16:33 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2013 14:55 Danglars wrote:
That is the first thing that enters my mind when I hear Sam talking about this or that "exacerbat[ing] social inequality" or these expansionist conceptions of the welfare state. I wish you would listen to me
sam, as someone who has had trouble listening to you in the past. It can get kind of difficult when your main stock is one liners. You don't often detail your objections, and it can kind of sound like the regular party line or w/e.
|
On November 12 2013 11:36 sam!zdat wrote:
you don't get it. a fully private healthcare system would just exacerbate social inequality and make even more obvious the gap between the haves and have nots. there's no politically feasible way to allow that to happen without also revolutionizing the relations of production and solving the deeper contradictions in the class structure of american society. government intervention in healthcare is part of the social democratic compromise that is the only thing holding the fabric of capitalist society together. the only possible capitalist state is the welfare state - if you don't like the welfare state (i hate it) you are going to have to start thinking about alternatives to capitalism.
sam, a question,
Have you ever been living in a country with a functional welfare state?
I used to be increasingly skeptical about state services when I was living in France. French administration is heavy, bureaucratic, unflexible, paternalistic, supremely inefficient: everything negative one would associate with a socialist system.
I moved to Sweden few months ago. The welfare state in this country is way more advanced than in France, but more than that: it works, and it is cleverly designed. Yes, I do not see 30% of my gross income. But then everything works with a diabolic efficiency.
I have an amazing health insurance that I didn't even have to suscribe for. I know my kids will have access to completely free world class education. The public transportation are amazing and very cheap. I have a safety net if I become unemployed that is unmatched in advanced countries.
Explain to me, why would anyone hate having all those things NOT to worry about. All this paperwork not to be done. All those worries not to have wether or not you are rich or poor.
I will tell you one thing: I think you hate welfare state for two reasons: because you have been taught to hate it, and because you have never experienced a good one.
Of course then some people live on a fantasy planet where things could be even better than that: communists, libertarians, etc... We have seen in the last century how GREAT utopias work. And how much of a good idea it is to try to change the world radically according to a theory disconnected from reality. But you are not one of those people I assume?
|
On November 12 2013 18:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I have an amazing health insurance that I didn't even have to suscribe for. I know my kids will have access to completely free world class education. The public transportation are amazing and very cheap. I have a safety net if I become unemployed that is unmatched in advanced countries
...
I will tell you one thing: I think you hate welfare state for two reasons: because you have been taught to hate it, and because you have never experienced a good one.
As someone that lives in a country with an almost as good welfare state, I wholeheartedly agree. Moving (semi-permanently) to the US or any other backwards country is not something I'd look forward to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
