|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Mélenchon? Seriously?
In the interest of trying to learn something, can someone please explain to me (and I'm asking this sincerely) why on earth socialism is a good thing? The restrictions to individual freedom (both moral and economic) are much too severe for me to deem acceptable.
The URSS and China are two nice examples of how planned production, centralizing of production facilities and restrictions on economic freedom are bad things. Communism failed, so why do we even still talk about it? Did they not go far enough or something? How do people still believe in this?
Humor me and for the love of all things holy please don't start with the "super rich are above the law", that isn't a problem with capitalism it's a problem with corruption and tax evasion.
|
On December 06 2016 23:32 kwizach wrote: The primary isn't only open to the PS but to all left-wing candidates, which is why participating in it would not contradict what you pointed out for Mélenchon and Macron. And all major left-wing parties declined to participate, which makes it a primary of the PS and a few irrelevant satellites. On top of that, it is organized by the PS. There is contradiction in being part of a political space so large that it embraces everything and its contrary. There is no compatibility between the antiliberal left and the liberal left, that's all. It is true within the PS, it is even truer when you add political forces outside of the PS.
They have no chance of making it to the second round "alone", which makes their candidacies outside of the primary two exercises in self-promotion. Says who? Polls? Clueless columnists from mainstream medias? They obviously don't have high probabilities, but I wouldn't cross them out so easily simply because as of now, 5 months ahead of the election, their voting intentions are not high enough. We're not in a routine period, the French political system is going and will keep going through a reconfiguration phase, so who knows what might emerge/happen in the next few months. We still don't know who will run in the end.
Getting more votes alone than the candidate who'll emerge out of the left's primary brings you no prize -- you'll still be eliminated if you're not in the top two. The only way to achieve that is by uniting as much of the left as possible behind the winner of a comprehensive primary. It doesn't mean Mélenchon should join the PS. The days where the PS had the monopoly of the left and could dictate its conditions to other left parties are over. They went from representing ~70% to ~25-30% of the left (and it might even fall lower...). Their hegemony is gone. They blew it and they can only blame themselves for that; the fact that they even have the nerve to blame critics from their left—who were right all along—for the weakness of their current position speaks volumes about their insufferable arrogance. If they truly care for the greater good of the left as they claim, then they can simply withdraw as Hollande did. But what they want, as usual, is not unity; it's unity behind them.
|
On December 07 2016 00:00 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2016 23:32 kwizach wrote: The primary isn't only open to the PS but to all left-wing candidates, which is why participating in it would not contradict what you pointed out for Mélenchon and Macron. And all major left-wing parties declined to participate, which makes it a primary of the PS and a few irrelevant satellites. On top of that, it is organized by the PS. There is contradiction in being part of a political space so large that it embraces everything and its contrary. There is no compatibility between the antiliberal left and the liberal left, that's all. It is true within the PS, it is even truer when you add political forces outside of the PS. There are plenty of compatibilities, but regardless my point is about maximizing the left's chances to qualify for the second round. Any representative of the left would be better than Le Pen and Fillon. If that means the PS needs to rally behind Mélenchon if he wins the primary, that's fine.
On December 07 2016 00:00 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +They have no chance of making it to the second round "alone", which makes their candidacies outside of the primary two exercises in self-promotion. Says who? Polls? Clueless columnists from mainstream medias? They obviously don't have high probabilities, but I wouldn't cross them out so easily simply because as of now, 5 months ahead of the election, their voting intentions are not high enough. We're not in a routine period, the French political system is going and will keep going through a reconfiguration phase, so who knows what might emerge/happen in the next few months. We still don't know who will run in the end. Do you think they'd have better chances of going to the second round alone, competing with a large number of other left-wing candidates and with each other, or with most of the left united behind their single candidacy (if they win the primary)? I believe the second to be true.
On December 07 2016 00:00 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +Getting more votes alone than the candidate who'll emerge out of the left's primary brings you no prize -- you'll still be eliminated if you're not in the top two. The only way to achieve that is by uniting as much of the left as possible behind the winner of a comprehensive primary. It doesn't mean Mélenchon should join the PS. The days where the PS had the monopoly of the left and could dictate its conditions to other left parties are over. They went from representing ~70% to ~25-30% of the left (and it might even fall lower...). Their hegemony is gone. They blew it and they can only blame themselves for that; the fact that they even have the nerve to blame critics from their left—who were right all along—for the weakness of their current position speaks volumes about their insufferable arrogance. If they truly care for the greater good of the left as they claim, then they can simply withdraw as Hollande did. But what they want, as usual, is not unity; it's unity behind them. None of that is relevant to the point I'm making, since I'm not saying the left should unite behind the PS' candidate but behind the winner of the left's primary. If the winner comes from outside the PS, fine. Also, I don't think the current polling situation is necessarily an indication of what the weight of the PS will be in the years ahead.
|
On December 07 2016 00:11 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2016 00:00 TheDwf wrote:On December 06 2016 23:32 kwizach wrote: The primary isn't only open to the PS but to all left-wing candidates, which is why participating in it would not contradict what you pointed out for Mélenchon and Macron. And all major left-wing parties declined to participate, which makes it a primary of the PS and a few irrelevant satellites. On top of that, it is organized by the PS. There is contradiction in being part of a political space so large that it embraces everything and its contrary. There is no compatibility between the antiliberal left and the liberal left, that's all. It is true within the PS, it is even truer when you add political forces outside of the PS. There are plenty of compatibilities,
Such as?
I don't see why there would be incompatibility, true socialism is very anti-freedom which is something we don't have in modern western democracies, as flawed as they are.
|
On December 07 2016 00:11 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2016 00:00 TheDwf wrote:On December 06 2016 23:32 kwizach wrote: The primary isn't only open to the PS but to all left-wing candidates, which is why participating in it would not contradict what you pointed out for Mélenchon and Macron. And all major left-wing parties declined to participate, which makes it a primary of the PS and a few irrelevant satellites. On top of that, it is organized by the PS. There is contradiction in being part of a political space so large that it embraces everything and its contrary. There is no compatibility between the antiliberal left and the liberal left, that's all. It is true within the PS, it is even truer when you add political forces outside of the PS. There are plenty of compatibilities, but regardless my point is about maximizing the left's chances to qualify for the second round. Any representative of the left would be better than Le Pen and Fillon. If that means the PS needs to rally behind Mélenchon if he wins the primary, that's fine. Please name them?
Mélenchon wants a 6th Republic, Valls is adamant about keeping the 5th (including its most personal and authoritarian traits) and Macron never claimed he wanted to deeply change institutions. Mélenchon wants the end of the current European treaties enforcing austerity, neither Valls nor Macron said anything when Hollande betrayed his promise to renegotiate the TSCG and signed it. Mélenchon wants an economic policy centered around the demand, Valls and Macron have a supply-side policy. Mélenchon wants to rise salaries, Valls and Macron don't. Mélenchon wants to come back to 60 years for the retirement legal age, Valls and Macron don't. Mélenchon has an ecologist perspective, Valls cares so little that all but the most opportunist ecologists stopped cooperating with the PS.
Etc., etc.
(And the PS would never rally behind Mélenchon, lol. Remember how little support Royal got in 2007 when she had upset the party's dinosaurs? It would be far worse with someone like Mélenchon, who's deeply rejected/hated by most of the PS.)
Do you think they'd have better chances of going to the second round alone, competing with a large number of other left-wing candidates and with each other, or with most of the left united behind their single candidacy (if they win the primary)? I believe the second to be true. There won't necessarily be more left-wing candidates than in the last election; the problem is not the amount of candidates, but the fact that Hollande and Valls' policies made left-wing electors flee and shifted the whole political spectrum to the right.
“Most of the left” wouldn't be united beyond a single candidature, because by definition a single candidature cannot synthetize opposite options. If Mélenchon lost the primary, his voters would never vote Valls or vice versa. That's what people who plead for a single candidature don't want to admit or understand. People who were in the streets to protest against Hollande-Valls-Macron's labour reform won't ever vote for them. People who (mostly) agreed with that reform won't ever vote for Mélenchon (they would vote for a center-right candidate like Bayrou instead). You cannot possibly fathom how deep the fracture is between those orientations.
None of that is relevant to the point I'm making, since I'm not saying the left should unite behind the PS' candidate but behind the winner of the left's primary. If the winner comes from outside the PS, fine. Also, I don't think the current polling situation is necessarily an indication of what the weight of the PS will be in the years ahead. Yeah, but the PS primary is there so that there is a PS winner in the end, just like that the Democrat primary was designed to make Clinton win. As I said, the godfathers won't ever let the keys of the family's mansion to a stranger. If there was a serious rival from outside the PS, they would simply team up against him somehow. But anyway, this scenario won't happen; so this primary will simply be an internal congress for the PS, even if parrot medias will keep talking about a primary of the “left” for some reason.
|
@incognoto Like you, nowadays nearly every socialist has his own idea of a "well run socialist economy", i could give you mine but then someone else would call it still way to capitalist. I frequent a bar 2-3 times a weak and its truely leftwing/hippieland there, the problem is the same as on the far right - neglect/dismiss problems with your "solutions" and call opponents right wing. Everywhere else i am often the leftist hippie antichrist myself.
The hard right and left just don't speak the same language anymore, they don't even life on the same planet anymore.... and thats sad.
|
I would love to know where that "hard left" lives. Is Mélenchon actually asking for a centralist economy and a one party system or anything of that kind? I know for a fact that the left in Germany does not. In Austria we don't even have such a party. SYRIZA isn't either. The most left that America has come up in the past years was Sanders, and I'm not even sure if calling him a democratic socialist is giving him too much credit, as he is just asking for the bare minimum standards of European countries.
As far as I understand the extreme left has no political party at all anymore in the West, and probably at most 1%, but probably much less, would support it. It's laughable neoliberal propaganda that tries to mark liberaldemocratic socialists of our days as far-left and points towards the USSR and China. Noone wants a society like that.
|
What does neoliberalism mean? I see a lot of people blaming neoliberalism for a lot of things but I haven't found a clear definition yet. If someone could enlighten me please do.
|
It's not so much liberal propaganda as the inability of literal socialist governments to deliver on their promises, so logically most historically socialist parties have positioned themselves on the left corner of the 'social market economy' spectrum. Also I've never heard anybody use communist scares in like 15 years, but at least in Germany every state that is being run by 'socialist-ish' governments is simply in a terrible condition, no need to conjure up horror scenarios about China.
Also a few parties aside, say Podemos, most 'left wing' parties have simply started to adopt right-wing positions more and more, Die Linke in Germany has lost more votes to the AfD (relatively) than any other party. They don't have any actual coherent vision and basically don't even want to govern.
|
On December 07 2016 02:58 RvB wrote: What does neoliberalism mean? I see a lot of people blaming neoliberalism for a lot of things but I haven't found a clear definition yet. If someone could enlighten me please do.
When I say neoliberalism I am usually talking about the economic politics of the later 20th century onwards (liberalism would for example be economic politics around the early 20th century until FDR in America) that focus on the smallest possible role for the state, tax advantages for things like LLC's over normal persons, anti-progressive taxation movements or even "head-taxation" movements, no taxation on wealth etc. I.e. the movement away from a social market economy.
But as with every broader political/economical movement there are different definitions and perceptions floating around.
|
On December 07 2016 02:51 Big J wrote: I would love to know where that "hard left" lives. Is Mélenchon actually asking for a centralist economy and a one party system or anything of that kind? Of course not. Abominations like stalinism or “marxism-leninism” (lol) are long dead, and the remaining far left (where Mélenchon does not belong) is extremely critical of the bloody farce that was called “communism” in the last century. All of them criticized the way the Cuban revolution ended, for example.
I am not familiar with the German left, but basically Die Linke was one of the models for Mélenchon. People on this line simply want to regulate capitalism harder, socialize or nationalize critical sectors like banks, but no more.
As far as I understand the extreme left has no political party at all anymore in the West, and probably at most 1%, but probably much less, would support it. It's laughable neoliberal propaganda that tries to mark liberaldemocratic socialists of our days as far-left and points towards the USSR and China. Noone wants a society like that. Yup, exactly.
|
On December 07 2016 00:43 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +Do you think they'd have better chances of going to the second round alone, competing with a large number of other left-wing candidates and with each other, or with most of the left united behind their single candidacy (if they win the primary)? I believe the second to be true. There won't necessarily be more left-wing candidates than in the last election; the problem is not the amount of candidates, but the fact that Hollande and Valls' policies made left-wing electors flee and shifted the whole political spectrum to the right. “Most of the left” wouldn't be united beyond a single candidature, because by definition a single candidature cannot synthetize opposite options. If Mélenchon lost the primary, his voters would never vote Valls or vice versa. That's what people who plead for a single candidature don't want to admit or understand. People who were in the streets to protest against Hollande-Valls-Macron's labour reform won't ever vote for them. People who (mostly) agreed with that reform won't ever vote for Mélenchon (they would vote for a center-right candidate like Bayrou instead). You cannot possibly fathom how deep the fracture is between those orientations. One of the problems is the number of candidates. It allows for the policy/ideological fragmentation of the left to translate itself into a fragmentation of the votes cast. I agree with you that it can't be assumed that all of these voters would aggregate under a single banner if there was only one left-wing candidate instead of many -- that would most probably not be the case, since you'd find plenty to stay home for the first round or find a way to cast a protest vote. Yet you're deluding yourself if you think that it would not still translate into more votes for the main left-wing candidate than that candidate would receive if he or she was competing against many other left-wing candidates. I'm not saying that having a single left-wing candidate come out of the left primary would magically unite the left and heal all divisions. I'm saying that it would improve the left's chances to reach the second round.
In addition, there are plenty of ways to help voters from a certain camp cast their vote for the winner of the primary in the first round if he or she doesn't come from their camp. Those can include assurances with regards to the role that their preferred candidate would play in the government, a policy programme integrating some of their priorities, campaign promises on issues that are important to them, their preferred candidate campaigning hard for the winner, etc. Obviously, again, that still wouldn't lead everyone to support the winner, but it would help.
On December 07 2016 00:43 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +None of that is relevant to the point I'm making, since I'm not saying the left should unite behind the PS' candidate but behind the winner of the left's primary. If the winner comes from outside the PS, fine. Also, I don't think the current polling situation is necessarily an indication of what the weight of the PS will be in the years ahead. Yeah, but the PS primary is there so that there is a PS winner in the end, just like that the Democrat primary was designed to make Clinton win. As I said, the godfathers won't ever let the keys of the family's mansion to a stranger. If there was a serious rival from outside the PS, they would simply team up against him somehow. But anyway, this scenario won't happen; so this primary will simply be an internal congress for the PS, even if parrot medias will keep talking about a primary of the “left” for some reason. The primary is designed to have the candidate with the most votes run opposed, and be supported, by the other candidates of the participating parties. If Mélenchon or Macron were to win the most votes, they would be the candidate supported by those parties. If during the primary all of the PS candidates decided to stop running except one, and that one PS candidate won against Mélenchon, then too bad for Mélenchon but if more people vote for his opponent then he or she is the winner by definition.
Yes, it won't happen because both Mélenchon and Macron are more interested in self-promotion than in having a left-wing candidate that may not be themselves reach the second round. They also probably believe they would not win the primary.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 07 2016 02:58 RvB wrote: What does neoliberalism mean? I see a lot of people blaming neoliberalism for a lot of things but I haven't found a clear definition yet. If someone could enlighten me please do. It's not a term with a very clear definition, and it's hard to give one that isn't vague because it really is used quite vaguely to describe a broad range of related ideas.
|
Mélenchon isn't extreme left? He seems pretty extreme to me. He himself says he is communist and he says dumb shit such as Cuba not being a dictatorship.
The guy is a fucking nutcase and people take him seriously. So I'm asking "why".
I don't know why you guys dodge the question, I'm asking which left policies are supposed to be good and why anyone would take the extreme left seriously.
From Wiki:
Additional goals include a new constitution that will initiate a 6th French Republic in which the president will have less power and Parliament more, increase wages, a public bank created by nationalizing the private banks, democratization through the establishment of new rights for employees allowing them to develop cooperatives, the nationalization of large corporations, environmental planning, an exit from NATO
He's fucking nuts. There is your planned economy right there. On what grounds do you nationalize private companies? On extreme-left ideologies...
En décembre 2010, Jean-Luc Mélenchon est accusé par le journaliste Jean Quatremer d'avoir quitté l'hémicycle du Parlement européen au moment de la remise du prix Sakharov (qui honore un défenseur des droits de l'homme) au journaliste et dissident cubain Guillermo Fariñas162. Il entendait ainsi protester contre les « croisades anticommunistes » du Parlement163. En janvier 2011, interrogé sur son geste et sur le régime de Fidel Castro, il déclare sur France Inter que Cuba « n'est pas une dictature »164 tout en soulignant que ce n'est « certainement pas une démocratie »165.
In December 2010, JLM is accused of leaving the hemicycle when a Cuban journalist is given an award. It was apparently to protest against "anti-communist" crusades from the Parliament. He then declares on France Inter that "Cuba is not a dictatorship" and also says that "it's certainly not a democracy either".
Yeah fuck that shit, I'm not living in a fascist country. People who say that Cuba is a nice place to live are delusional.
|
No one is dodging anything, your just not asking in a way that anyone could answer.
|
On December 07 2016 04:08 Velr wrote: No one is dodging anything, your just not asking in a way that anyone could answer.
It's not rocket science, here's my question:
In the interest of trying to learn something, can someone please explain to me (and I'm asking this sincerely) why on earth socialism is a good thing? The restrictions to individual freedom (both moral and economic) are much too severe for me to deem acceptable.
In other words, why is it acceptable for socialists to revoke individual freedom (such as nationalizing companies)? Individual freedom means I get to start and run a company. I get to keep the money I earn from working. If I invest in a company then when I get dividends I get to keep those dividends. What do I give back to society? Taxes..
What do taxes pay for? Socialized education, health care, security, justice, military, public services, welfare and help to those who need it. What doesn't it pay for? The pensions of political fat cats who parasite society while doing nothing for anyone else. That includes useless bureaucrats and public sector workers who retired when they're fifty fucking five.
Left wingers will argue that we need to tax the private sector more to fuel the economy. Fuck that, let's start by cracking down on tax evasion and corrupt politicians (like Cahuzac? Fabius who doesn't pay ISF?) instead of taxing the shit out the middle class who work 50 hours a week only to see literally half of their money go to the public black whole which is France's public sector which is stupidly inefficient.
This issue isn't just French, plenty of countries have huge issues with corruption and tax evasion.
My question is what do socialists want these days?
|
there's a big wikipedia article which explains the history of the word "neoliberalism", it has been used for different things, nowadays it mainly means the chicago school of economic thinking, reaganomics, thatcherism in a lot of peoples use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
it's a good read
ad socialism: just look at countries like sweden, denmark, austria also germany back in the day of social markets, they have been heavily influenced by left wing politics and are a success story. there's hundreds of different ideas on the left how to implement a social and democratic welfare state, socialism isn't just what cccp or china claimed to be based on, in fact you could argue that they don't have a lot to do with socialist ideas at all and just abused the term to appeal to the masses.
edit: btw because i just read it, france's public sector is not at all inefficient, you have "despite" much bigger public sector still higher productivity than in germany afaik, you are right about corruption and tax evasion though, an issue you can sadly only tackle on a global scale.
|
On December 07 2016 04:15 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2016 04:08 Velr wrote: No one is dodging anything, your just not asking in a way that anyone could answer. It's not rocket science, here's my question: Show nested quote +In the interest of trying to learn something, can someone please explain to me (and I'm asking this sincerely) why on earth socialism is a good thing? The restrictions to individual freedom (both moral and economic) are much too severe for me to deem acceptable. In other words, why is it acceptable for socialists to revoke individual freedom (such as nationalizing companies)? Individual freedom means I get to start and run a company. I get to keep the money I earn from working. If I invest in a company then when I get dividends I get to keep those dividends. What do I give back to society? Taxes.. What do taxes pay for? Socialized education, health care, security, justice, military, public services, welfare and help to those who need it. What doesn't it pay for? The pensions of political fat cats who parasite society while doing nothing for anyone else. That includes useless bureaucrats and public sector workers who retired when they're fifty fucking five. Left wingers will argue that we need to tax the private sector more to fuel the economy. Fuck that, let's start by cracking down on tax evasion and corrupt politicians (like Cahuzac? Fabius who doesn't pay ISF?) instead of taxing the shit out the middle class who work 50 hours a week only to see literally half of their money go to the public black whole which is France's public sector which is stupidly inefficient. This issue isn't just French, plenty of countries have huge issues with corruption and tax evasion. My question is what do socialists want these days?
Philosophically there are two sides of freedom: Negative freedom, which means you are allowed to do something. Positive freedom, which means you are actually capable of doing something. (note, I did not create those terms. If you get offended by the negative-positive spectrum, you can also call it right-liberal and left-liberal or whatever suits you; I'm just going with the terminology I know from philosophy classes)
What you describe as freedom is mostly negative freedom. But let's assume a much more fundamental, basically anarchic negative freedom. Then the more powerful has the right to do with others has he pleases. Well, that's where even the most right-liberals would say that you need an organized society that prevents such things. You need laws, you need people who enforce laws. Basically a framework for positive freedom. Now you mention education, well, that's also a positive freedom.
You mention taxation, why relative taxation? Why not "head-taxation", so an absolute amount everyone pays equally, wouldn't that be more liberal? So why do we take more of someone that earns more? Well, because not everyone can contribute equally. But why make it a flat tax, why not a progressive one when we are already there? Why only stop at progressive income taxation, why not look at the statistical data in which the rich pay much less of their income, because their sources of income - capital income - is taxed less. So why not make it at least actually a flat tax? Why only tax income and why don't we tax capital income equally or capital directly? What difference does it make, how someone is financing themselves and wouldn't it be more performance oriented if we wouldn't tax income that much and capital more?
I think we both agree that you need a certain amount of positive freedom. It is a gradual question where you stop as a liberal and a question on how you finance your system, and what the exact services are that you provide to allow for positive freedom. Obviously, eventually you are not liberal anymore. In neither direction. Empirically speaking, in my view the world is drifting towards negative freedom in social-economical questions a lot.
|
Incognoto, that'll be because your question makes no sense. Nationalisation is not socialism. Russia and China is not Socialist. Nationalisation usually occurs because the company is deemed strategic.
I personally agree that taxes should not be used for "The pensions of political fat cats who parasite society while doing nothing for anyone else. That includes useless bureaucrats and public sector workers who retired when they're fifty fucking five" but throwing a strop because you are just angry isn't helpful.
|
Thanks for answering seriously.
Using your definitions I entirely agree that positive freedom is something which is necessary in a society. I'm not defending the notion that we should end all laws and let it be a free for all, law of the jungle. However nor can you go in the opposite spectrum and say that no one should be allowed to do anything.
I'm fine with a progressive taxation, I'm fine with taxes on capital income, etc. However taxation is not what I have a problem with (as long as it remains reasonable, which I can't say is the case in France, we've gone beyond stupid level of taxes).
I would have issues with the notion of nationalizing private corporations. I would have issues with how public money is spent as well. For instance the idea that a certain category of people would be privileged due to working in the public sector is deplorable (régimes spéciaux). Here are some examples I found from an interesting reddit thread today (the thread was about the Pentagon wasting $125B on unnecessary overhead costs):
+ Show Spoiler +I would be very surprised if this could ever be changed. I was in the Navy. In 1982, I was stationed at Treasure Island. I was tasked with building a "pusher boat" out of an LCM-6. I began buying materials through the open market (steel yards in Oakland) and was called on the carpet for purchasing outside the Naval Supply System. The fact that the exact same piece of steel could be purchased at a discount of 90% and delivered next day versus delivered in a month wasn't considered a good enough reason to go outside the system. I was ordered to purchase through the NSS or be subject to an Article 15. And of course, as any ex-military person can tell you, the month before the end of the fiscal year, we were told to spend any remaining funds we had in the budget. If we didn't, we ran the risk of having our budget reduced the next year. The fact that maybe we didn't need all that money to complete our mission meant nothing; you never allowed your budget to have unspent funds. In the ensuing 34 years, nothing has changed. As long as there is no accountability for actions that are going to eventually bankrupt our country, nothing will ever change. I work for a county government, and this specific issue is infuriating. Can I order a $30 rain jacket from amazon to keep my ass dry during the summer rains in Florida? No, I have to order the same fucking jacket from our "vendor", who happens to charge $70 for the jacket, and we are required to put our county logo on the jacket for another $20. So instead of getting 4 jackets for our whole team for $120, I get the same four jackets w/logos, for $360. It's literally insanity. We tried to order a Yeti knockoff online, 35qt cooler for $80 to keep some of our work supplies cold all day (we work in Florida heat all summer outdoors and carry around some chemicals which degrade in the heat). NOPE, go to the local hardware store (our contractual vendor) and spend $250... County shirts for us (All Columbia gear) must come through the same vendor as the jackets. Doesn't matter that we order 100+ for our department, we have to pay top dollar for something we could order through Columbia on a sale day for 1/2 price. Don't get me started on how Fleet operates. Cost averaging among the county. Inflation of prices for services rendered, so they can increase their monthly payments from every department in the county. $2,300 to repair a couple of bunks for a boat trailer, because custom fabrication.... of 4 fucking L-brackets. We literally could have replaced the entire trailer with a new aluminum on for $1,500. It's pathetic. For every dime we have saved, they have made us spend it back 3 times over. It's why I hate government work. It's also why I love it. If I keep trying to save money where I can, at least I know that I'm improving the efficiency of tax-payers money. I can't fix the whole system, but I can make my little part of it better. I have a large array of my own anecdotes relating to public money being squandered, be it perfectly public infrastructure (roads, etc.) being torn down and rebuilt or Paris employees discussing the merits of the bribes (pot de vin, can't find a better translation) they got, French taxpayer money is being squandered.
Left-wingers will very often say "we must raise taxes to increase public spending", which is silly, instead of the much more reasonable approach of "how can we spend this money better". Let's be real, you can't be a developed nation like France, have your government spend literally more than half of the country's GDP every year, see a stagnating economy and realistically think "well I think that public expenditure just isn't quite there yet", no, the money is being wasted by the billions and that needs to fixed before anything else. Neither the left nor the right is really addressing this. You can talk about demand-driven economies, Keynesian policies or jerk off to Krugman's picture, that doesn't mean that you should excessively tax and deprive the private sector of normal economic freedom if all you're going to do is burn money.
The left could very x10 more serious if they said that they were going to run the public sector more efficiently, but they can't say that since that is a very right wing thing to say.
|
|
|
|