News America's aversion to socialism ?

[WhoWee]

The Greeks have a contempt for what they are themselves.

They don't want to pay taxes, nepotism and corruption is rampant throughout the whole government, and socialism was just a manner to hand out jobs and sponsor consumerism. It self-enforces itself, why would you pay taxes for a government which just enriches itself?

It's in their culture, if you order a bottle of first quality wine, you're buying a refilled bottle of methanol with a pretty sticker on it; everybody jokes about manners to cheat the system. I once had a conversation with a Greek about economy. He stated it is about greed, I stated it is about trust. That is a fundamental difference in how your economy is going to work.

Doesn't imply that most of them are not decent people, just implies that socialism will never work in that context. They need to privatize everything and switch over to a minimal government, the rest just won't work.

Maybe they'll figure out a way to tax all of the global Greeks that have moved on to prosper around the world - maybe hold their passports at end of holiday visits?

 

[MarcoD]

Maybe they'll figure out a way to tax all of the global Greeks that have moved on to prosper around the world - maybe hold their passports at end of holiday visits?

Nah, since the banks and them got us in this mess, I am more in favor of old-fashioned socialist educational gulags for the lot of 'em.

 

[mheslep]

...I'm a little bit confused about the GM bailout right now. Last I had heard about it, (but I forgot, then remembered) was that GM had paid back its bailout money. A little research on the internet shows almost no verification of that, saying in fact, they just shuffled money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), so I think what actually happened was as part of the Bailout, in fact GM was supposed to be subject to government oversight. ...

Briefly: GM's bailout from the federal government was approximately $50B. Most of that was in the form of equity (365 million shares of stock) meaning the government bought GM. Part of the $50B was in the form of a loan, about ~$6B. A portion of that was repaid, as you read in the news, by shuffling money about. However, GM is still deserved called Government Motors; none of that stock has been sold. I expect that will be left to next administration, as doing so will very likely tag the treasury's balance sheet at the time with a large loss.

 

[apeiron]

That would be true if equality of opportunity were the only driver of social mobility. But culture can provide an invisible barrier while socialism attempts to artificially drive social mobility using exactly the types of policies you suggest!

What are you attempting to say here? I can't follow.

What are the enablers of social mobility apart from an equality of opportunity?

I would have thought it logical that if the story is "each by their own efforts", then countries with more effective equality of opportunity would see more mobility. Are you arguing something different?

What is this invisible barrier of culture?

What policies did I suggest that artificially drive mobility? And what defines "natural" here?

 

[mheslep]

I think Russ was attempting to draw distinctions between barriers imposed by market economics, government rules and regulations, and cultural barriers, at the least.

 

[JDoolin]

The questions to ask regarding GM should include 1.) what happened to the dealer network, 2.) how did the unions benefit, and 3.) why didn't the Government trust the Federal Bankruptcy courts (that everyone else has to use) as per unions and bond holders?

If union leaders now show up at the Wall Street protest (to use street slang) - the union "ain't nutin but a lie" - IMO of course.

IMO stands for "in my opinion," I think.

Opinions are attitudes toward what is good or bad, while statements are either true or false. If you believe a statement to be true, it's not your opinion, but your belief.

In any case, I can't make any sense out of what you're saying here. Is there a conflict of interest between unions and the wall-street protesters?

 

[russ_watters]

What are you attempting to say here? I can't follow.

What are the enablers of social mobility apart from an equality of opportunity? [snip]

What policies did I suggest that artificially drive mobility?

Forced redistribution is forced social mobility. You can't say a country has more individual freedom to be socially mobile if the measured mobility is due to the fact that the government took money from one person and gave it to another - as opposed to doing it themselves. You gave an example here:

Access to education is of course the key opportunity that needs to be equal in practice the OECD report suggests. This is the positive liberty that would need to be in place.

"Positive liberty" in the form of money taken from one group and given to another (to pay for their college education, in this case) is forced redistribution of wealth/forced social mobility.

I would have thought it logical that if the story is "each by their own efforts", then countries with more effective equality of opportunity would see more mobility. Are you arguing something different?

It's the flawed premise that makes the conclusion flawed. If wealth is redistributed, then the [formerly] poor are not moving up "by their own efforts".

What is this invisible barrier of culture?

It is invisible because it only exists in people's heads, even if it can be measured with a survey. When kids of parents that didn't finish high school don't finish high school themselves, there is typically no physical reason for that to happen. Kids see that their parents dropped out (or took drugs or drank a lot or had lots of unprotected sex at a young age, etc) and think that it is ok for them to drop out too. So despite the fact there there is no physical barrier to getting a high school diploma for most people, a disturbing fraction of kids don't.

And what defines "natural" here?

You defined it above: "by their own efforts". For most people, graduating from high school is something that they can do by their own (and their parents' own) efforts.

 

[apeiron]

IMO - the Greeks have a thriving underground economy out of contempt for their Government system.

Other opinions say something a little different...
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_325_en.pdf

The close links between business and politics is the most common cause
Europeans give for corruption, followed by insufficient action by governments
to prevent corruption. In fact, most Europeans agree that tougher penalties
and more successful prosecutions are needed to combat corruption.

So it would be weak regulation rather than too much regulation which is the general diagnosis. Your claim that the Greeks are rebelling in natural fashion against an overly-intrusive state is not supported here.

The majority of Europeans - 78% - agree that corruption is a major problem
for their country. There is a large variation across Member States ranging from
a high of 95% of respondents in Greece, to 22% of respondents in Denmark.

At least nine out of ten respondents in Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary, Malta, Cyprus,
Slovenia, Portugal and Romania agree that corruption is a major national problem.

This seems a good analysis of the Greek story - http://www.asecu.gr/Seeje/issue06/katsios.pdf

And it does see high taxation as an important driver of tax evasion - the problem for Scandinavian countries.

According to these estimates two southern European countries, Greece and Italy,
have an underground economy almost one third as large as the officially measured
GNP, followed by Spain, Portugal and Belgium, with a shadow economy between
20-24 % of official GNP. The Scandinavian countries also have an unofficial economy
between 18-20% of GNP, which is attributed mainly to the high fiscal burden.
“Central” European countries like Ireland, the Netherlands, France, Germany and
Great Britain have a smaller underground economy (between 13-16% of GNP) probably
due to a lower fiscal burden and moderate regulatory restrictions.

But the paper concludes...

The paper finally argues that the strong and consistent relationship between the
shadow economy and corruption in Greece is closely connected with the reflexes of those who are not willing or cannot afford to bribe central or local government bureaucrats, or who have no connections to these bureaucrats, systematically choosing the dark (shadow) side of the economy as a substitute for corruption (bribery) and making the shadow economy complementary to a “corrupt state”.

So the problem is with a corrupt system, an ineffective system, rather than with "socialist wealth redistribution" or "nanny state interference".

Greek government spending is middle of the pack for Europe. But its effectiveness at collecting tax is woeful. Its levels of corruption high. Add in the opportunity granted it by international finance to live on the national equivalent of a sub-prime mortgage and the results are as we see.

The story reflects the failure of regulation rather than the perils of socialism and so is irrelevant to the OP. Oh - all just IMO.

 

[mheslep]

I suggest any political system which by its nature centrally concentrates power over most aspects of daily like, as socialism does, breeds corruption. Greece's ratio of spending to the money bring in is far worst than most European states. Regardless of their problems with bringing in revenues, the Greek government was still in control of much of the spending, and thus the ratio. They chose not reduce spending sufficiently.

 

[apeiron]

Forced redistribution is forced social mobility.

OK I can see the source of your confusion. This post - https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3539250&postcount=436 - addressed the notion of postive liberties needing to be in place to actually create equal opportunity - the claimed basis of a libertarian democracy.

That is a different, if related, issue to what levels of financial inequality are optimal in a such a society.

So if the US claims to be an equal opportunity country, how does it measure up? Social mobility would seem a straightforward metric - unless you can argue otherwise.

What should happen if the US demonstrably falls far short of its professed ideals is the question that comes after it has first been shown that it does.

Enforcing true equality of opportunity (even if paid for by wealth redistribution) may be considered a good thing. But there is no required leap to "socialism". You still might want to argue that free market policies can indeed deliver a universal education - it just hasn't been given the chance to do so as yet in the US.

And then it is yet another question as to whether the long-run outcomes of neo-liberal market policies are even desirable.

Creating equality of opportunity is about what happens at the front-end, regardless of whether people are entering into a more restrained, or more unfettered, competitive environment. Whereas financial inequality is a global result, a systems level property, that can be tuned by the balance of freedoms and constraints that apply.

Some total package has to be created. But it is important to keep its elements distinct and not just lump it altogether as some parody of "commies vs the free world".

You gave an example here: "Positive liberty" in the form of money taken from one group and given to another (to pay for their college education, in this case) is forced redistribution of wealth/forced social mobility.

Yes, but again defining the objective is different from debating the remedies. The post was pointing out that the US lacks actual equality of opportunity based on the evidence of its social mobility stats - and experts do indeed finger education as the key issue.

It is invisible because it only exists in people's heads, even if it can be measured with a survey. When kids of parents that didn't finish high school don't finish high school themselves, there is typically no physical reason for that to happen. Kids see that their parents dropped out (or took drugs or drank a lot or had lots of unprotected sex at a young age, etc) and think that it is ok for them to drop out too. So despite the fact there there is no physical barrier to getting a high school diploma for most people, a disturbing fraction of kids don't.

Yes, we all understand the underclass argument. But your annecdotal analysis - people who are bad deserve what they get - is quite risible.

I am interested here in social/political systems that are effective, not in excusing ones that have failed the test.

 

[MarcoD]

I suggest any political system which by its nature centrally concentrates power over most aspects of daily like, as socialism does, breeds corruption. Greece's ratio of spending to the money bring in is far worst than most European states. Regardless of their problems with bringing in revenues, the Greek government was still in control of much of the spending, and thus the ratio. They chose not reduce spending sufficiently.

Of course not. The Dutch and Swedes tax the most, and have big governments. We're also among the wealthiest of nations. IMO, it works because of our cultures. The Dutch have a long record of planning every square centimeter of life, a social democracy comes natural. And the Nordic, well, you ever seen a Swede or Fin talk? It's like watching a glacier move. They are just not 'smart' enough to ever find out that you can lie, steal or cheat yourself out of the system. We're just not corrupt, because of culture.

IMO, social democracies can work for most Northern European countries, though it's under stress of Anglo-Saxon exported capitalism [which breeds corruption, IMO]. It may work for Spain and Portugal, it might work for the US [well, not with FOX News in place]. That's about it. (Oh, and maybe China, though it's going to be different there.)

 

[apeiron]

I suggest any political system which by its nature centrally concentrates power over most aspects of daily like, as socialism does, breeds corruption.

Are you sure? Outright socialism - ie: collective ownership communism - seemed to centralise corruption rather than making it socially endemic as you suggest. The high life was reserved for the elite.

If we are talking here about social democracy, then that was meant to be a model of distributed power.

And of course, an effectively distributed model of power (a mix of personal freedoms/opportunities/access to capital and social regulation/constraints/resource provision) is the only thing I have been talking about here.

Greece's ratio of spending to the money bring in is far worst than most European states. Regardless of their problems with bringing in revenues, the Greek government was still in control of much of the spending, and thus the ratio. They chose not reduce spending sufficiently.

That is what I said. It is a failed example of neo-liberalism.

Greece was run by the centre-right New Democracy party from 2004-2009, crashing to defeat of course after the global financial bust that revealed what had been going on.

 

[WhoWee]

Briefly: GM's bailout from the federal government was approximately $50B. Most of that was in the form of equity (365 million shares of stock) meaning the government bought GM. Part of the $50B was in the form of a loan, about ~$6B. A portion of that was repaid, as you read in the news, by shuffling money about. However, GM is still deserved called Government Motors; none of that stock has been sold. I expect that will be left to next administration, as doing so will very likely tag the treasury's balance sheet at the time with a large loss.

I'll add to this a bit - the union has no right to protest regarding bank bailouts and fair treatment of anyone - when millions of people are unemployed with no benefits.

****
The union pensions were underfunded.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1981958,00.html
"General Motors Corp. may no longer be the world's biggest automaker, but it still operates the country's largest pension fund. The threat to its pension plans has always been an issue, butit took on a new urgency when GM disclosed April 7 that its plans were underfunded by more than $27 billion, with more than half of that being owed to U.S. workers and retirees. Across town, a post- bankrupt Chrysler faces its own pension shortfall. Moreover, a report last week from the Government Accounting Office (GAO) says the pension crisis in the auto industry could create an unprecedented crisis for the federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp., a government-sponsored organization to backstop company pensions."
***
Some details of negotiations in 2009.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104549771
"General Motors Corp. plans to give the United Auto Workers union 17.5 percent of its common stock, $6.5 billion of preferred shares and a $2.5 billion note to fund a trust that will take over retiree health care costs starting next year.

The funding for the trust was outlined in a summary of concessions that the company and union have agreed to as GM tries to restructure outside of bankruptcy. Plant-level union officials met in Detroit on Tuesday to get briefed on the agreement, and The Associated Press obtained a summary of the concessions.

The summary says most of GM's 61,000 hourly workers will get another buyout and early retirement offer, this one sweeter than the most recent one.

Production workers will be offered $20,000 plus a $25,000 car voucher for early retirement, while skilled trades workers will get $45,000 plus the car voucher.

Buyout packages include $115,000 and the car voucher for employees with 20 or more years of service. Those with less than 10 years would get $45,000 and the car voucher to leave the company."


*****
GM was provided a VERY LARGE TAX LOOPHOLE/credit.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704462704575590642149103202.html

"General Motors Co. will drive away from its U.S.-government-financed restructuring with a final gift in its trunk: a tax break that could be worth as much as $45 billion."

 

[BobG]

Forced redistribution is forced social mobility. You can't say a country has more individual freedom to be socially mobile if the measured mobility is due to the fact that the government took money from one person and gave it to another - as opposed to doing it themselves.

Access to education is of course the key opportunity that needs to be equal in practice the OECD report suggests. This is the positive liberty that would need to be in place.

You gave an example here: "Positive liberty" in the form of money taken from one group and given to another (to pay for their college education, in this case) is forced redistribution of wealth/forced social mobility. It's the flawed premise that makes the conclusion flawed. If wealth is redistributed, then the [formerly] poor are not moving up "by their own efforts".

Why should parents get a tax deduction for paying for their kid's college education when he should get a job or a loan and pay his own way? One way or another, that person's tax deduction either reduces government services, increases my taxes to pay for those services, or increases the national debt (with the latter being the most likely). I'm having to sacrifice so some other person's kid can go to college.

Those tax credits are simply a more targeted forced redistribution and the parents' kid isn't moving up by his own efforts, even if the money his parents paid for his education earned them no tax credits.

And, at least theoretically, the reason that type of redistribution is made is because the government assumes the person will succeed at something. That type of redistribution is made to encourage the person to try their hand at something that will actually benefit the nation's economy (at least it would if those types of redistribution were actually targeted towards careers that are in demand).

It's more than just redistribution. It's an investment, even if managed somewhat badly.

 

[WhoWee]

Other opinions say something a little different...
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_325_en.pdf



So it would be weak regulation rather than too much regulation which is the general diagnosis. Your claim that the Greeks are rebelling in natural fashion against an overly-intrusive state is not supported here.



This seems a good analysis of the Greek story - http://www.asecu.gr/Seeje/issue06/katsios.pdf

And it does see high taxation as an important driver of tax evasion - the problem for Scandinavian countries.



But the paper concludes...



So the problem is with a corrupt system, an ineffective system, rather than with "socialist wealth redistribution" or "nanny state interference".

Greek government spending is middle of the pack for Europe. But its effectiveness at collecting tax is woeful. Its levels of corruption high. Add in the opportunity granted it by international finance to live on the national equivalent of a sub-prime mortgage and the results are as we see.

The story reflects the failure of regulation rather than the perils of socialism and so is irrelevant to the OP. Oh - all just IMO.

To be clear, "intrusion" is not the problem. Rather, the Greeks feel "weak regulation rather than too much regulation" - over the corruption of Government - is the problem?

 

[apeiron]

To be clear, "intrusion" is not the problem. Rather, the Greeks feel "weak regulation rather than too much regulation" - over the corruption of Government - is the problem?

So why were you quoting "Underground Economy: Can be described as a created response that society establishes as a result of an unwelcomed state intrusion..." to get the discussion back on track?

 

[MarcoD]

Why should parents get a tax deduction for paying for their kid's college education when he should get a job or a loan and pay his own way? One way or another, that person's tax deduction either reduces government services, increases my taxes to pay for those services, or increases the national debt (with the latter being the most likely). I'm having to sacrifice so some other person's kid can go to college.

Those tax credits are simply a more targeted forced redistribution and the parents' kid isn't moving up by his own efforts, even if the money his parents paid for his education earned them no tax credits.

This is part of your cultural heritage that everybody, when born in the US, has equal opportunities to become whatever, and whoever, he wants, if he just sets himself to it.

The question is whether that assumption is correct. As a nation, you want the best engineers to become engineers (well, meeting the demand, of course); i.e., you want access to all the resources available. The question is not to make the nation poor, it is to make the nation rich.

Maybe the assumption is true. Maybe the demand is even met. In that case, it hardly matters. It also may be the case that lots of Einsteins never make to their 'rightful' place, in which case, your nation is just poorer than it possibly could have been with some form of 'socialized' regulation of forces.

Then there is the point of your 'human' obligation to create equal opportunities. But in the US mindset, that is present without question, I gather.

One of the good things of 'old-fashioned' communism is that they recognized early what the potential of a kid was. If he had an aptitude for engineering, he was forced to become an engineer. The reason also why many communist nations excelled at sports. (It didn't outweigh the disadvantages, of course.)

And, at least theoretically, the reason that type of redistribution is made is because the government assumes the person will succeed at something. That type of redistribution is made to encourage the person to try their hand at something that will actually benefit the nation's economy (at least it would if those types of redistribution were actually targeted towards careers that are in demand).

It's more than just redistribution. It's an investment, even if managed somewhat badly.

So what's the point here? If your nations demand is met by the current human resources, everything is fine. If it isn't, you probably need some kind of 'socialist' redistribution of wealth.

 

[WhoWee]

So why were you quoting "Underground Economy: Can be described as a created response that society establishes as a result of an unwelcomed state intrusion..." to get the discussion back on track?

I'll assume we agree there is a significant underground economy in Greece? With this as a given - there must be a reason for people to earn money that isn't taxed?
**
My post was in response to MarcoD post 448 "Our attitude toward life determines life's attitude towards us. Being socialistic without the attitude, or recognizing it's own drawbacks, is meaningless, as the Greeks have shown us.

If a society doesn't care, there's no point in starting caring."
**
In response, I commented "IMO - the Greeks have a thriving underground economy out of contempt for their Government system." Then I cited the intrusion of Government - my link also cited corruption.

"Corruption- Individuals need to bribe civil servants to get papers at the Social Security office or other municipal offices approved otherwise they uncover that their papers have been filed away and ignored. A 65% of corrupted reported incidents were seen in the highest of public sectors like; tax offices, and hospitals. In the private sector the majority of the corruption cases are largely seen in; law firms, banks, and real estate firms. It is estimated that Greeks paid 750 million Euros ($1 billion) in bribes in 2008. Often the recipients were tax auditors who take cash in return for ignoring cheating."
***
Over the past 20 years, I've done enough business in Greece to understand the challenges of their system. Again, (labeled my post opinion) I do believe the Greeks have a thriving underground economy out of contempt for their Government system - they don't want to give the Government their money - apparently because of excessive corruption - I thought it was because the Government is too intrusive.

 

[MarcoD]

To be clear, "intrusion" is not the problem. Rather, the Greeks feel "weak regulation rather than too much regulation" - over the corruption of Government - is the problem?

No, it clearly states that corruption was, and is, the problem. IMO, they failed because they didn't tackle that.

Any system would have worked if they would have invested massively in a public effort of reeducating their society and lots of 'ethical' committees with widespread authority. Just people who are screened, fed up, and successively examine the entire system on corrupt 'mistakes.'

[ Which is why I think privatization is the only manner out at the moment. At least a company has the incentives to kick everyone corrupt out. They can start social reforms after that period. Note that this message is brought to you by someone who, in US terms, can be considered a rabid socialist. ]

 

[apeiron]

Again, (labeled my post opinion) I do believe the Greeks have a thriving underground economy out of contempt for their Government system - they don't want to give the Government their money - apparently because of excessive corruption - I thought it was because the Government is too intrusive.

I presume that you are honestly trying to explain yourself here and are not just trolling.
But how do you jump again in this one sentence from corruption to intrusion? The sentence does not parse grammatically so it is not interpretable.

You say the Greek situation is about contempt for a system that is corrupt, and then throw in "I thought it was because the Government is too intrusive".

Which one is it? Or did you miss out some words, like "I mistakenly thought..."?

 

[WhoWee]

I presume that you are honestly trying to explain yourself here and are not just trolling.
But how do you jump again in this one sentence from corruption to intrusion? The sentence does not parse grammatically so it is not interpretable.

You say the Greek situation is about contempt for a system that is corrupt, and then throw in "I thought it was because the Government is too intrusive".

Which one is it? Or did you miss out some words, like "I mistakenly thought..."?

Are you using a translator program?

 

[apeiron]

Are you using a translator program?

No, I am asking you to explain the gaps in your logic.

I would also ask you to explain in what sense you have supported yourself with a credible source as per the rules.

Is some random badly written International Business Wiki post a proper source to be citing in the first place?

Do you know who this Leslie Zamacona is?

Have you checked that the statement "Underground Economy: Can be described as a created response that society establishes as a result of an unwelcomed state intrusion; it’s becoming an overwhelming dilemma many governments are facing in today’s world wide economic system." is said by anyone apart from this poster?

 

[mheslep]

Are you sure? Outright socialism - ie: collective ownership communism - seemed to centralise corruption rather than making it socially endemic as you suggest. The high life was reserved for the elite.

If we are talking here about social democracy, then that was meant to be a model of distributed power.

And of course, an effectively distributed model of power (a mix of personal freedoms/opportunities/access to capital and social regulation/constraints/resource provision) is the only thing I have been talking about here.

I include in my definition of socialism not just state ownership but also state control. If government (federal and local) becomes significantly involved in economic redistribution, then it must take on to itself a large amount of power. In the act of redistribution, taking from A to give to B, the power and control to make that act take place remain with the state. It is anything but distributed.

 

[apeiron]

I include in my definition of socialism not just state ownership but also state control. If government (federal and local) becomes significantly involved in the redistribution of an economy, then it must take on to itself a large amount of power. In the act of redistribution, taking from A to give to B, the power and control to make that act take place remain with the state. It is anything but distributed.

So tell us what your theory of power is. How do you define it, measure it?

It would be helpful if you referred to mainstream approaches in political/social/economic analysis.

I have already said that I take a systems view in which power lies both with a system's local degrees of freedom and its global constraints. So power (the power to make things happen) comes in the naturally complementary forms of bottom-up constructive action and top-down limits - a mix of competition and co-operation.

If you identify power solely with the notion of control, then that is where your misunderstanding may be.

Political theories based on the idea of a machine-like control (whether a Randian personal control or fascist state control) always work out badly because they are unnatural, artificial.

A natural system is one that harnesses competition and co-operation in the right balance. That is what makes them creative and adaptive.

It doesn't matter whether you are in charge of a workplace, bringing up kids or growing a garden, you don't try to control things, right? You are trying to use your "power" to create the fruitful conditions for growth. The same applies to any intelligent notion of a state, or political theory like "socialism".

 

[mheslep]

It doesn't matter whether you are in charge of a workplace, bringing up kids or growing a garden, you don't try to control things, right?

Yes of course I do try and am able to control things to an extent. My power do so is limited.

You are trying to use your "power" to create the fruitful conditions for growth.

What I use it for, good or bad, does not change the definition. Give anyone or any group too much of it and regardless of stated nobel goals I go with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton#Religion_and_writings": it leads to corruption.

 

[apeiron]

Yes of course I do try and am able to control things to an extent. My power do so is limited.

This is a disappointingly weak response. That is why I asked for reference to some actual theory about power upon which you might base your analysis here.

 

[WhoWee]

No, I am asking you to explain the gaps in your logic.

I would also ask you to explain in what sense you have supported yourself with a credible source as per the rules.

Is some random badly written International Business Wiki post a proper source to be citing in the first place?

Do you know who this Leslie Zamacona is?

Have you checked that the statement "Underground Economy: Can be described as a created response that society establishes as a result of an unwelcomed state intrusion; it’s becoming an overwhelming dilemma many governments are facing in today’s world wide economic system." is said by anyone apart from this poster?

What are the gaps in my logic? Greeks engage in underground economic activities to avoid paying taxes to - IMO - an intrusive and (as you pointed out) corrupt Government. It's my opinion based upon years of experience.

Do you acknowledge that Greece has an underground economy (or shadow economy, or black market) - specifically people who earn money they don't report to the Government?

If not, these credible-source links will support the existence of the alternative economy.

http://www.asecu.gr/Seeje/issue06/katsios.pdf
"The researchers - having applied direct and indirect methodological
approaches to evaluating the main financial sectors and the Greek GDP - estimated
the range of the Greek Underground Economy at from 20% to 25% of GDP, ranking
Greece among the most problematic OECD economies. The underground economy,
defined as all off-the-books and unregulated activity, is considered as one of the main
negative effects deriving from serious structural problems of the Greek economy.
From the point of view of government policy, knowing the size of the shadow economy is less important than knowing who is operating there and how. "

****
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/07/in-greece-underground-economy-fuels-financial-crisis.html
"The public sector accounts for about half of Greek GDP: roughly the average for a European country and lower than economic success stories like Sweden or Denmark. No, the overriding difference is tax collection. If you think there's been a tax revolt in the U.S. -- or even California -- consider Greece.

The estimates we've heard, from the sources that seem the most reliable: 40-50 percent of the Greek economy is underground. i.e., untaxed. When we were in Spain, people there were embarrassed that the estimate was as high as 25 percent. In the U.S., the usual estimates are less than 10 percent.

In Greece, by contrast, the stories are jaw-dropping: surgery held up in mid-operation until a cash payoff was made; a university professor forced to pay off a COLLEAGUE in order to get a grant approved. We heard complaints about corruption, petty to high-level, from literally everyone we interviewed, big or small, rich or poor, in English or Greek.

The bottom line is as simple as it is daunting. The key to fixing the Greek economy is getting Greeks to finally stop paying cash and start paying their taxes. It would be a revolution. It would be a transformation."
***

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/business/worldbusiness/27iht-grecon.2953042.html
"Greece will revise upward its gross domestic product for the past six years by as much as 25 percent a quarter by including parts of its underground economy, top officials said Wednesday.

The revision will help Greece meet deficit standards set by the European Unions by shrinking its budget deficit as a percentage of GDP. The 2006 deficit will fall to 2.1 percent from current estimates of 2.6 percent, well below the EU's 3 percent limit."

 

[russ_watters]

OK I can see the source of your confusion. This post - https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3539250&postcount=436 - addressed the notion of postive liberties needing to be in place to actually create equal opportunity - the claimed basis of a libertarian democracy.

No. You're making the same mistake I addressed earlier with someone else: you are confusing opportunity and outcome. Acceptance to college is an outcome. Being judged fairly by an admissions office based on your merit is an opportunity. This is the reason why the USSC has struck down affirmative action laws. By selecting a person on criteria other than merit (ie, race or social status), they are discriminating against others and violating their equality of opportunity. This is fact insofar as it was declared as such by the people who get to make that judgement - and, of course, by the people who wrote the Constitution in the first place.

So if the US claims to be an equal opportunity country, how does it measure up? Social mobility would seem a straightforward metric - unless you can argue otherwise.

I did. The fact that you didn't respond to the argument at all implies either you didn't understand or did understand and didn't like how solid the logic was. Perhaps you could actually try responding. Or try another thought experiment:

You go into a building. It has an elevator. You go into the elevator and select a floor and you go there.

You go into another building. It has an elevator and a guard. The guard walks you to the elevator and uses his key card to activate it and select the floor he decides you are going to.

Notice, I didn't even say what floor you are going to. There was no need: The fact of mobility is not coupled to the freedom to be mobile at all in the event of barriers and drivers besides your personal desires (and the guard is both a physical barrier and a driver). In one case you had freedom of mobility, in the other case you didn't, regardless of which floor you ended up on.

What should happen if the US demonstrably falls far short of its professed ideals is the question that comes after it has first been shown that it does.

Again, the ideal is freedom of mobility, not mobility.

Enforcing true equality of opportunity (even if paid for by wealth redistribution) may be considered a good thing.

Again - you're mixing up the freedom to do something and the outcome of doing something.

But there is no required leap to "socialism".

Considering that's what the word means (forced equality of outcome via forced redistribution), yeah, it kinda does require that leap.

You still might want to argue that free market policies can indeed deliver a universal education - it just hasn't been given the chance to do so as yet in the US.

I wouldn't argue that. I don't see your point.

And then it is yet another question as to whether the long-run outcomes of neo-liberal market policies are even desirable.

Well - at least you used the right word there: "outcome".

Creating equality of opportunity is about what happens at the front-end, regardless of whether people are entering into a more restrained, or more unfettered, competitive environment.

You started off well, then contradicted yourself. Freedom is equality of opportunity (and by that I mean "opportunty" defined correctly, not misconstrued with outcome).

Whereas financial inequality is a global result, a systems level property, that can be tuned by the balance of freedoms and constraints that apply.

Correct!

Some total package has to be created. But it is important to keep its elements distinct and not just lump it altogether as some parody of "commies vs the free world".

Your characterization aside, this goes back to the point of the thread: Americans like freedom. And many of us recognize that the freedom to succeed on out own also comes with it the chance of failure and as a result, we will tend to end up with poorer poor than other western countries that are more socialist.

Yes, but again defining the objective is different from debating the remedies. The post was pointing out that the US lacks actual equality of opportunity based on the evidence of its social mobility stats - and experts do indeed finger education as the key issue.

Heh - again, again, again: Actual social movement is an outcome, not an opportunity. Measurement of movement is not a measure of opportunity to move.

Yes, we all understand the underclass argument. But your annecdotal analysis - people who are bad deserve what they get - is quite risible.

I am interested here in social/political systems that are effective, not in excusing ones that have failed the test.

Effective at what? Again, the point of the thread and the source of our difference: regardless of your mixing-up of terminology, you favor equality of outcome, whereas Americans favor equality of opportunity. When you try to justify, you use a measure of outcome: You cannot say that the US has failed at its goal when you aren't even recognizing that what you are measuring isn't tied to the goal!

The answer you hear is that's all right because in the US, everyone is still freer, happier, wealthier, healthier, more educated that other comparison nations. The good stuff still trickles down. Being at the bottom of the US pile is still better than...blah, blah, blah.

I don't really care. I see all political systems as experiments and I am interested in both the evidence of their success, and more particularly their definitions of success - because unless you are measuring the right things, you can't construct the right theories.

Abstract or not, it is the source of the mess you are making here and the point of the thread: Your measure of success isn't what motivates Americans. It doesn't even matter if your measure is the better one or not: the point of this question was to ask what drives Americans.

 

[russ_watters]

This is part of your cultural heritage that everybody, when born in the US, has equal opportunities to become whatever, and whoever, he wants, if he just sets himself to it.

The question is whether that assumption is correct. As a nation, you want the best engineers to become engineers (well, meeting the demand, of course); i.e., you want access to all the resources available. The question is not to make the nation poor, it is to make the nation rich.

Maybe the assumption is true. Maybe the demand is even met. In that case, it hardly matters. It also may be the case that lots of Einsteins never make to their 'rightful' place, in which case, your nation is just poorer than it possibly could have been with some form of 'socialized' regulation of forces.

Then there is the point of your 'human' obligation to create equal opportunities. But in the US mindset, that is present without question, I gather.

One of the good things of 'old-fashioned' communism is that they recognized early what the potential of a kid was. If he had an aptitude for engineering, he was forced to become an engineer. The reason also why many communist nations excelled at sports. (It didn't outweigh the disadvantages, of course.)

So what's the point here? If your nations demand is met by the current human resources, everything is fine. If it isn't, you probably need some kind of 'socialist' redistribution of wealth.

That's a great point - a great example of mobility without freedom. Even today, certain exceptional Chinese children are essentially kidnapped from their parents and sent to boarding schools where they are taught whatever their aptitude test says they should be. It made the news recently with their gymnasts. No doubt, these children will realize their potential better than if they had the freedom to choose their own path. Heck - some may not even like gymnastics, but that's irrelevant to the government: the needs of the state are much more important than the freedoms and desires of the people.

 

[mheslep]

That there is a clear difference between actual outcomes and opportunity should be self evident, while recognizing that measuring opportunity (vice outcome) must be more difficult. Still, there are obvious opportunities in the US that significant fractions of the population ignore (15% of US population has no primary ed degree despite universal free primary education). Hopefully, therefore, the discussion can move on to establishing why people choose to ignore opportunity.

 

[apeiron]

What are the gaps in my logic? Greeks engage in underground economic activities to avoid paying taxes to - IMO - an intrusive and (as you pointed out) corrupt Government. It's my opinion based upon years of experience.

The gap was between the claim that greeks don't pay tax because the tax collecting system is ineffectively managed (due to corruption, culture, whatever) and the claim that they don't pay tax because they actively resent an intrusive government.

These are two different claims and need to be supported separately.

Again, you supported your claim about "intrusion" with a reference to some random International Business Wiki by someone called Leslie Zamacona.

Please be clear. Are you still standing behind this source?

 

[WhoWee]

The gap was between the claim that greeks don't pay tax because the tax collecting system is ineffectively managed (due to corruption, culture, whatever) and the claim that they don't pay tax because they actively resent an intrusive government.

These are two different claims and need to be supported separately.

Again, you supported your claim about "intrusion" with a reference to some random International Business Wiki by someone called Leslie Zamacona.

Please be clear. Are you still standing behind this source?

When did I assert "that greeks don't pay tax because the tax collecting system is ineffectively managed "? my bold

 

[apeiron]

Effective at what? Again, the point of the thread and the source of our difference: regardless of your mixing-up of terminology, you favor equality of outcome, whereas Americans favor equality of opportunity.

It is only in your mind that you think my claim is that there should be equality of outcome. I have never said that. So please do not continue to falsely represent my position.

What I have argued for is equality of opportunity - and how to measure this/achieve this in practice (rather than make rhetorical claims about it).

And then also asked the question that - given inequality of outcomes is to be expected, people being free to be different in their talents, efforts, interests - what in the long-run is an optimal level of social inequality?

Personally I feel that Scandinavian levels are better than US ones.

 

[WhoWee]

Again, you supported your claim about "intrusion" with a reference to some random International Business Wiki by someone called Leslie Zamacona.

Please be clear. Are you still standing behind this source?

Are we going to pretend I didn't precede that post with a label of opinion - then (at your request) provide 3 acceptable sources regarding the underground economy?

 

[apeiron]

Are we going to pretend I didn't precede that post with a label of opinion - then (at your request) provide 3 acceptable sources regarding the underground economy?

Your post 442...

This might help nudge us back to the topic?
http://internationalbusiness.wikia.c...nomy_in_Greece

"Causes for the Underground Economy in Greece"

I don't see any "IMO".

 

[WhoWee]

Your post 442...

I don't see any "IMO".

Maybe you should have read post 449 when the comment was made in response to MarcoD - where I referred to post 442?

"
Originally Posted by MarcoD
Our attitude toward life determines life's attitude towards us. Being socialistic without the attitude, or recognizing it's own drawbacks, is meaningless, as the Greeks have shown us.

If a society doesn't care, there's no point in starting caring."
*****
In response (I) WhoWee posted:

"IMO - the Greeks have a thriving underground economy out of contempt for their Government system.

While specifying this opinion, I generally supported this back in post 442 - linked to a write up about the underground economy in Greece.
"Underground Economy: Can be described as a created response that society establishes as a result of an unwelcomed state intrusion; it’s becoming an overwhelming dilemma many governments are facing in today’s world wide economic system. Trying to gather information about the underground economy is not an easy task because no one connected to it wants to be recognized. ""

 

[apeiron]

Maybe you should have read post 449 when the comment was made in response to MarcoD - where I referred to post 442?

You first post an unacceptable source. Then make a statement that is IMO. Then attempt to support it by a repeated reference to that unacceptable source.

Unless you are Leslie Zamacona, you must be trying to argue that labelling supporting sources as also "just IMO" is now acceptable here.

If so, I must remember that dodge.

 

[WhoWee]

You first post an unacceptable source. Then make a statement that is IMO. Then attempt to support it by a repeated reference to that unacceptable source.

Unless you are Leslie Zamacona, you must be trying to argue that labelling supporting sources as also "just IMO" is now acceptable here.

If so, I must remember that dodge.

When you consider the only claim I made in post 442 was that it might nudge us back on topic - which it did - there really isn't any need to support is there? Later in post 449 - I used IMO as necessary. Still later, I provided 3 additional sources to support the claim of an underground economy in Greece.

I noticed you still haven't responded to my direct challenge -
"When did I assert "that greeks don't pay tax because the tax collecting system is ineffectively managed "? my bold". I feel that you've misrepresented my position (just a bit).

 

[apeiron]

When you consider the only claim I made in post 442 was that it might nudge us back on topic - which it did - there really isn't any need to support is there? Later in post 449 - I used IMO as necessary. Still later, I provided 3 additional sources to support the claim of an underground economy in Greece.

Why cite a source unless you are prepared to stand by its credibility. Again, are you saying "IMO" is defence against posting unacceptable sources?

The quote you used was the only support I can see for your claims that Greeks are reacting against "intrusive government".

The underground economy was never in dispute. The reasons for it were.

I noticed you still haven't responded to my direct challenge -
"When did I assert "that greeks don't pay tax because the tax collecting system is ineffectively managed "? my bold". I feel that you've misrepresented my position (just a bit).

And I notice that you have failed regularly to repond to direct challenges - in a way that answers them, rather than seeks to evade. Such as your switcheroo over definitions of productivity.

But to remind you, I cited the evidence from http://www.asecu.gr/Seeje/issue06/katsios.pdf which said " its effectiveness at collecting tax is woeful."

You replied with the grammatically enigmatic reply...

To be clear, "intrusion" is not the problem. Rather, the Greeks feel "weak regulation rather than too much regulation" - over the corruption of Government - is the problem?

I sought clarification as to what you were trying to say and I am still unclear.

But you then cited http://www.asecu.gr/Seeje/issue06/katsios.pdf back at me - without dealing with its points about tax collection. Who now knows what you meant there.

However you then cited a second source that said...

No, the overriding difference is tax collection...The bottom line is as simple as it is daunting. The key to fixing the Greek economy is getting Greeks to finally stop paying cash and start paying their taxes.

Now that read to me as an unambiguous statement and I thus presumed you were citing it because you felt it to be right (or was that also too great a leap of logic?).

So either you are misrepresenting my misrepresentation of your position, or you are not yet able to express youself in an unambiguous fashion using a combination of sentences you have fashioned yourself and appropriate citations from acceptable sources.

 

[WhoWee]

Why cite a source unless you are prepared to stand by its credibility. Again, are you saying "IMO" is defence against posting unacceptable sources?

The quote you used was the only support I can see for your claims that Greeks are reacting against "intrusive government".

The underground economy was never in dispute. The reasons for it were.



And I notice that you have failed regularly to repond to direct challenges - in a way that answers them, rather than seeks to evade. Such as your switcheroo over definitions of productivity.

But to remind you, I cited the evidence from http://www.asecu.gr/Seeje/issue06/katsios.pdf which said " its effectiveness at collecting tax is woeful."

You replied with the grammatically enigmatic reply...



I sought clarification as to what you were trying to say and I am still unclear.

But you then cited http://www.asecu.gr/Seeje/issue06/katsios.pdf back at me - without dealing with its points about tax collection. Who now knows what you meant there.

However you then cited a second source that said...



Now that read to me as an unambiguous statement and I thus presumed you were citing it because you felt it to be right (or was that also too great a leap of logic?).

So either you are misrepresenting my misrepresentation of your position, or you are not yet able to express youself in an unambiguous fashion using a combination of sentences you have fashioned yourself and appropriate citations from acceptable sources.

Again, I ask you to clarify.
"When did I assert "that greeks don't pay tax because the tax collecting system is ineffectively managed "? my bold".
Can you produce my specific quote? If not please do not continue to falsely represent my position.

 

[DoggerDan]

Heck - some may not even like gymnastics, but that's irrelevant to the government: the needs of the state are much more important than the freedoms and desires of the people.

Yikes! Perhaps that's why most Americans have an aversion to socialism. Admittedly, you were talking about China, which is communist politically. However, there's a lot of socialism mixed in there.

 

[russ_watters]

It is only in your mind that you think my claim is that there should be equality of outcome. I have never said that. So please do not continue to falsely represent my position.

What I have argued for is equality of opportunity - and how to measure this/achieve this in practice (rather than make rhetorical claims about it).

And then also asked the question that - given inequality of outcomes is to be expected, people being free to be different in their talents, efforts, interests - what in the long-run is an optimal level of social inequality?

Personally I feel that Scandinavian levels are better than US ones.

Nonsense. If I didn't already recognize this as common socialist ideology, driven doublethink, I'd think you were trolling us. Your ideology is quite clear (heck, you even outlined the contradiction right there in that post!):

1. You believe that the US has too high of an income/wealth inequality and should strive to reduce it.
2. You believe that equality of opportunity will yield a more even distribution.
3. You believe that income inequality is therefore a measure of equality of opportunity.
4. You believe that negative liberty alone is not enough, and positive liberty in the form of socialistic wealth redistribution is necessary to achieve this.
5. You believe that positive liberty or forced wealth redistribution still qualifies as equality of opportunity.

#5 is simply factually wrong as a matter of definition and historical fact: It is written into the Constitution and the Supreme Court has been clear about it.
#2 is a misinterpretation of data, as there are other factors that affect social mobility than just freedom to move -- including socialistic wealth distribution itself.
#3 & #4 clearly contradict each other, but you believe both simultaneously without seeing the contradiction (doublethink).

When confronted with a clear explanation of these flaws, instead of addressing them point by point as presented, you reboot, retrench and lash out.

 

[russ_watters]

Yikes! Perhaps that's why most Americans have an aversion to socialism. Admittedly, you were talking about China, which is communist politically. However, there's a lot of socialism mixed in there.

Yes, the gymnast example is only tangentially related to economics, but it's not merely a coincidental mix: Communism is the political system of socialism, whereas democracy is the political system of capitalism. The odd/unusual mix is when you see capitalism with communism or socialism with democracy. And the problem of reconciling contradictory ideologies is the issue of the thread: In order to make such mixes, people mess with historical fact, logic and definitions. Some Americans don't like that, hence our "aversion to socialism".

"Freedom of opportunity" is not just about economics, it is about all personal freedoms that lead to happiness or self actualization.

 

[apeiron]

1. You believe that the US has too high of an income/wealth inequality and should strive to reduce it.

Yes.

2. You believe that equality of opportunity will yield a more even distribution.

Not at all. On its own, it would be a driver of inequality of outcome as I said.

3. You believe that income inequality is therefore a measure of equality of opportunity.

No. I quite clearly cited stats on social mobility.

4. You believe that negative liberty alone is not enough, and positive liberty in the form of socialistic wealth redistribution is necessary to achieve this.

It may well be the case. And is definitely the case once an underclass has been allowed to become established.

5. You believe that positive liberty or forced wealth redistribution still qualifies as equality of opportunity.

It is definitely one of the ways. There may be other ways too of correcting a society which has developed an underclass (and of course, a matching over-class), both unnaturally entrenched.

 

[MarcoD]

Yes, the gymnast example is only tangentially related to economics, but it's not merely a coincidental mix: Communism is the political system of socialism, whereas democracy is the political system of capitalism. The odd/unusual mix is when you see capitalism with communism or socialism with democracy. And the problem of reconciling contradictory ideologies is the issue of the thread: In order to make such mixes, people mess with historical fact, logic and definitions. Some Americans don't like that, hence our "aversion to socialism".

"Freedom of opportunity" is not just about economics, it is about all personal freedoms that lead to happiness or self actualization.

Well, I don't live in the fifties anymore, life isn't that black and white. A social democracy is unusual? It's just taking the best of both worlds.

It's the US media which often conflate terms and reduces them to Morton's Forks. It's why the US will always end up with boom-bust cycles, IMO.

 

[JDoolin]

I'll add to this a bit - the union has no right to protest regarding bank bailouts and fair treatment of anyone - when millions of people are unemployed with no benefits.

****
The union pensions were underfunded.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1981958,00.html
"General Motors Corp. may no longer be the world's biggest automaker, but it still operates the country's largest pension fund. The threat to its pension plans has always been an issue, butit took on a new urgency when GM disclosed April 7 that its plans were underfunded by more than $27 billion, with more than half of that being owed to U.S. workers and retirees. Across town, a post- bankrupt Chrysler faces its own pension shortfall. Moreover, a report last week from the Government Accounting Office (GAO) says the pension crisis in the auto industry could create an unprecedented crisis for the federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp., a government-sponsored organization to backstop company pensions."
***
Some details of negotiations in 2009.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104549771
"General Motors Corp. plans to give the United Auto Workers union 17.5 percent of its common stock, $6.5 billion of preferred shares and a $2.5 billion note to fund a trust that will take over retiree health care costs starting next year.

The funding for the trust was outlined in a summary of concessions that the company and union have agreed to as GM tries to restructure outside of bankruptcy. Plant-level union officials met in Detroit on Tuesday to get briefed on the agreement, and The Associated Press obtained a summary of the concessions.

The summary says most of GM's 61,000 hourly workers will get another buyout and early retirement offer, this one sweeter than the most recent one.

Production workers will be offered $20,000 plus a $25,000 car voucher for early retirement, while skilled trades workers will get $45,000 plus the car voucher.

Buyout packages include $115,000 and the car voucher for employees with 20 or more years of service. Those with less than 10 years would get $45,000 and the car voucher to leave the company."


*****
GM was provided a VERY LARGE TAX LOOPHOLE/credit.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704462704575590642149103202.html

"General Motors Co. will drive away from its U.S.-government-financed restructuring with a final gift in its trunk: a tax break that could be worth as much as $45 billion."

There's a lot of info there, but I don't see what the outrage is about. They take 2.5 billion dollars and divvy it up for a severence package for 61,000 unemployed workers. That comes out to be around $40,000 a head. And then 6.5 billion dollars to go into preferred shares for the retirement fund? Maybe I don't have all the details right, but it seems to me that the only sad thing here is that GM wasn't already taking care of its retired people and laid off people. I don't understand how you can fault the unions for fighting for these people and winning. That's what unions are for; to protect the employees from injustice from the management.

And I don't see how you can find any conflict of interest between the unions and the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters. They both have the same goal which is a strong middle-class.

 

[WhoWee]

There's a lot of info there, but I don't see what the outrage is about. They take 2.5 billion dollars and divvy it up for a severence package for 61,000 unemployed workers. That comes out to be around $40,000 a head. And then 6.5 billion dollars to go into preferred shares for the retirement fund? Maybe I don't have all the details right, but it seems to me that the only sad thing here is that GM wasn't already taking care of its retired people and laid off people. I don't understand how you can fault the unions for fighting for these people and winning. That's what unions are for; to protect the employees from injustice from the management.

And I don't see how you can find any conflict of interest between the unions and the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters. They both have the same goal which is a strong middle-class.

The unions have benefited from the type of bailouts they are now protesting. The GM bailout is closer to $50 Billion - if it wasn't for the unions - GM would have proceeded through a normal Chapter 11 reorganization where a federal bankruptcy judge would have decided their fates.

 

[DoggerDan]

Yes.

This was in response to Russ' comment, "1. You believe that the US has too high of an income/wealth inequality and should strive to reduce it."

Every generation, millions of people from impoverished backgrounds, supposedly lacking opportunity, work hard and climb the ladder of success. Please note "climb" is an action verb, not a noun, as in "handout."

I know. I'm one of them.

Yet you would punish such hard work by taking money away from those who've worked very hard to achieve it and give it to those who didn't work anywhere near as hard, thereby rewarding their slothfulness. I don't want to hear the excuses about lack of opportunities, as I came from an impoverished background. I had NOTHING, or so I thought. But America remains the land of opportunity, and I soon realized I had something: myself and my work ethic. I worked hard, and studied hard, and went from nothing to something to success.

That's the way things work, both in the wild and civilization. The opportunity is there, but one must take it. Something given, and not earned, has no real value.

There may be other ways too of correcting a society which has developed an underclass (and of course, a matching over-class), both unnaturally entrenched.

If I can make it, our society needs no such "correcting." The only thing unnatural, here, is the notion that something's wrong or needs correcting. If you find yourself in a situation where you don't have what you want, you can correct it by doing something yourself to correct. Do what I did. Take a second job. Study nights. Work hard. Learn a trade and become the expert. Be reliable. Go the extra mile.

That's the way to correct it.

Stealing from those who've done what I've done isn't a correction, it's theft. It's unnatural.

On the other hand, when someone finds themselves in the "haves" category and wants to give back some of their success, that generosity is natural. Not a thing wrong with it at all. There's everything wrong with stealing from those who are successful in some sort of misguided attempt to "level the playing field."

Our country is full of people who've come from impoverished backgrounds and in one generation have made (another action verb) a good life for themselves and their families.

Socialism was a dismal failure in the U.S.S.R. for one simple reason: It doesn't work! Never has. Never will.

These ideas stem from fairy tales like Robin Hood. It's class warfare. One who knows this from his own impoverished background is Herman Cain, and has spoke about this class warfare nonsense on multiple occasions.

 

[TheCool]

There's everything wrong with stealing from those who are successful in some sort of misguided attempt to "level the playing field."

Like it or not, "stealing from those who are successful" is necessary. When wealth becomes too unevely distributed, societies fall apart. Quite simple.

 

[apeiron]

This was in response to Russ' comment, "1. You believe that the US has too high of an income/wealth inequality and should strive to reduce it."

Yes, like Russ, you are also confusing social inequality and social mobility.

Socialism was a dismal failure in the U.S.S.R. for one simple reason: It doesn't work! Never has. Never will.

And clearly I've been talking about the principles of social democracy.